Review: The Longest Day (dir. by Ken Annakin, Andrew Barton & Bernhard Wicki)


“The thing that’s always worried me about being one of the few is the way we keep on getting fewer.” — Flight Officer David Campbell

You could be forgiven for thinking that a three-hour black-and-white war epic from 1962 about the D-Day landings might feel like homework. The Longest Day sounds exactly like the kind of movie your history buff uncle would insist you watch, and you’d brace yourself for stiff acting, dated effects, and a flag-waving tone that hasn’t aged well. But here’s the surprise: this thing still cooks. It’s massive, messy in the best way, and surprisingly modern in its storytelling. Directed by a quartet of filmmakers—Ken Annakin for the British sequences, Andrew Marton for the Americans, Bernhard Wicki for the Germans, and with uncredited help from John Wayne’s own ego (more on that later)—The Longest Day isn’t one movie. It’s five or six movies crammed into a single sprawling canvas, and somehow that chaotic energy works perfectly for a story about the chaos of June 6, 1944.

First, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: the cast. It’s absurd. John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Henry Fonda, Sean Connery, Richard Burton, Rod Steiger, Robert Wagner, Curt Jürgens, and a young Gert Fröbe (the future Goldfinger) are just the headliners. There are about forty other recognizable faces popping up for two minutes of screen time. You half expect a narrator to say “and that guy from that thing.” But here’s the trick: The Longest Day uses star power not as distraction but as shorthand. When you see John Wayne playing Lt. Col. Benjamin Vandervoort, you don’t need a backstory. You just know he’s the tough, unkillable leader. When you see Henry Fonda as Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt Jr., you read quiet dignity and grit. The movie trusts that you’ll fill in the blanks, which allows it to jump between American, British, French, and German perspectives without pausing for emotional handholding. That’s a bold gamble, and it mostly pays off, though Wayne’s scenes are a prime example of the film’s one real weakness: occasionally, it lets the star overpower the story. His Vandervoort breaks his ankle jumping into Normandy and still leads his men—cool story, historically accurate—but Wayne plays it with that trademark swagger that feels more Rio Bravo than WWII. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it does remind you you’re watching a movie star, not a soldier.

Where The Longest Day truly earns its reputation is in its structure. The film opens with a ground-level view of the German defenders—foggy, tired, complacent. Rommel (Curt Jürgens) is home for his wife’s birthday. Junior officers are skeptical of the “invasion threat.” Then we cut to the Allied side, from Eisenhower’s agonized “go” decision to the paratroopers floating down into French nightmares. The film refuses to pick a hero. It bounces between a German machine-gunner mowing down Americans on Omaha Beach and a French Resistance fighter getting captured and executed. There’s no swelling music to tell you who to root for—the score by Maurice Jarre is often tense, percussive, or eerily quiet. That evenhandedness is shocking for an early-60s war film. The Germans aren’t cackling villains. They’re professionals, some cynical, some naive, all trapped in a bad situation. One scene shows a German officer calmly reporting the invasion to higher command while another weeps because his men have no air support. You don’t sympathize with them exactly, but you understand them. That’s rare for any war movie, let alone one starring John Wayne.

The set pieces remain jaw-dropping. Because this was made before CGI, every paratrooper you see actually jumped (with stuntmen and low altitudes). Every landing craft ramp dropping on Omaha Beach is filled with real extras who had to swim ashore in cold water. The famous shot of a lone French commando running across a bridge under fire? That’s a real explosion, real bullets (blanks, but still). The production employed thousands of military advisors and actual veterans as extras. You can feel that authenticity in the grain of the film. When American soldiers fumble with wet ammunition or a British glider crash-lands through a fence, it’s not slick Hollywood heroism. It’s clumsy, loud, and terrifying. The movie’s most quoted line—“The greatest thing about the greatest generation is they didn’t know they were the greatest”—isn’t in the film, but the spirit is everywhere. These guys aren’t quoting Shakespeare. They’re vomiting from seasickness, losing their gear, and crying for their mothers. Then they get up and climb a cliff. That contrast is what makes The Longest Day so effective: it’s a blockbuster that respects the small, undignified human moments.

If the film has a flaw beyond occasional star vanity, it’s pacing. The first hour is deliberately slow—building tension through radar stations, weather reports, and a French priest’s bicycle ride. That might bore viewers raised on Saving Private Ryan’s opening twenty minutes. But hang with it, because when the invasion starts, the deliberate pace pays off. You’ve been inside the German bunkers, heard their debates, seen their confidence. So when paratroopers land behind their lines with toy clickers (the actual “cricket” device from history), every crack of a twig feels tense. The other flaw is the film’s treatment of the French Resistance and civilians. They get a few noble moments—a girl running through gunfire to deliver a message—but overall, the French are sidelined. The movie is fundamentally Anglo-American, with German scenes as the “other” perspective. That’s honest to the command structure of D-Day, but it does mean the country being liberated mostly watches from the margins.

Still, The Longest Day achieves something that most war epics don’t: it’s a genuine ensemble piece without a single protagonist, and it never loses its moral clarity. There’s a scene where a German colonel (the wonderful Werner Hinz) looks at an American prisoner and says, “We fight for a monster. You fight for your homes.” That’s the whole movie in one line. It doesn’t demonize the Germans as evil—it shows them as humans who made terrible choices and are now paying for them. And it doesn’t sanctify the Allies—it shows them as scared kids with a just cause. The final image of the film is a lingering shot of the beach, littered with bodies and wreckage, as a narrator tells you the exact number of casualties on both sides. No music. No kiss. No flag. Just the silent aftermath. For 1962, that’s audacious. For today, it’s heartbreaking.

So should you watch The Longest Day? Yes, but not as a history lesson. Watch it as a time capsule of how we used to make movies: with real explosions, real extras, and a willingness to let a story breathe across three hours without a superhero or a snappy one-liner. It’s old-fashioned, sure. Some of the acting is stagey, and the black-and-white photography might feel like a relic. But once the landing craft doors drop and the bullets start kicking up water, you’ll forget the runtime. It’s not Saving Private Ryan’s visceral nightmare, and it’s not Band of Brothers’ intimate character study. It’s a reporter’s notebook of a film—raw, sprawling, and full of names you’ll never remember but faces you won’t forget. For a movie that’s over sixty years old, The Longest Day still has legs. And for a story about the longest day, it earns every single minute.

Lifetime Film Review: Mama’s Little Murderer (dir by Andrew Parkes)


Well, this one is just strange.

Mama’s Little Murderer opens with twenty-something Anthony (Isaac Kragten) being abducted and taken, with a bag over his head, to a random wooded location.  Uh-oh, looks like Anthony is in trouble!  Suddenly, we flash back to Anthony getting suspended from college because of his fearsome tempter.  Then, a few weeks later, Anthony shows up at home where he is upset to discover that his mother, Constance (Sara Canning), is living with her boyfriend, Leo (Ian Kilburn).  Anthony is jealous and goes to extremes to try to break up Constance and Leo.

Because of the title, I assumed that this film would be about a mom discovering that her son is a murderer.  I also thought that the son would be much younger than he turned out to be.  You don’t really refer to a twenty-year old as being “mama’s little anything.”  Due to the title, I was expecting this to be a version of The Bad Seed.  Instead, it just became a film about a selfish and rather annoying college student who couldn’t accept the fact that his mom was moving on with her life.  Anthony went to extremes to try to break up Leo and his mom but, and please forgive the spoiler, he never murdered anyone.

While we’re watching Anthony act like a loser in the past, we’re also watching Constance and Leo trying to deal with him being kidnapped in the present.  Now, I will say that there was some suspense as to whether or not Anthony was in on the kidnapping. Or at least, there was initially.  But it soon became clear that, while Anthony was guilty of being a very bad son, he was not guilty of setting up his own kidnapping.  Indeed, the kidnapping had very little do with his efforts to break up his mother and Leo.

As I watched this movie, I found myself thinking about how much I hated The King of Staten Island.  That was the film that featured Pete Davidson as an annoying little jerk who got mad because his mother (Marisa Tomei) was dating a fireman (Bill Burr).  My main issue with that film was that everyone seemed to be way too forgiving of Davidson’s character.  The same thing happens here.  Anthony does some terrible things.  He doesn’t even tell his mom the truth about what happened at the college.  But, when all of his lies and his schemes are revealed, he just apologizes and everyone’s like, “Oh, okay, that’s cool.”  Whereas, in reality, they should have kicked him out of the house and had him committed somewhere.

(Needless to say, it’s never a good sign when a film makes you think about another film that you disliked.)

This was essentially two films in one. One film was about a mentally unstable son.  The other film was a standard kidnapping film.  Unfortunately, the two films didn’t really go together and neither one felt fully developed.  It’s a shame because Sara Canning was likable as Constance and you really did hope that she would find happiness with Leo.  It was hard not to feel that both Constance and Leo deserved better than having to deal with Anthony.  They should have let the kidnappers keep him.

Two From Richard Linklater: Blue Moon and Nouvelle Vague


As a Texan who loves movie, I have to say that 2025 will always be a special year for me.  2025 was the year that Richard Linklater, the godfather of modern Texas filmmaking, was responsible for directing two of the best films of the year.

Blue Moon opens with famed American lyricist Lorenz Hart (Ethan Hawke) collapsing in an alley and cursing under his breath as he dies.  The film then flashes back a few weeks to Hart arriving at Sardi’s and waiting for the crowd to arrive from the Broadway premiere of Oklahoma!  Hart is dismissive of Oklahoma!, largely because it’s the product of a collaboration between his former partner, Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott) and Oscar Hammerstein II (Simon Delaney).  Hart dismisses it as being simplistic, a crowd pleaser with no depth.  But as Hart speaks, it’s easy to see that his disdain has more to do with his own hurt feelings than the actual show.

(That said, he’s still right about Oklahoma!)

Hart talks.  He talks a lot.  Perhaps the simplest way to describe Blue Moon would be to say that it’s a film about one man who won’t stop talking to the people around him.  Bobby Cannavale plays the friendly bartender who has obviously heard all of Hart’s stories before.  Patrick Kennedy (not the former Congressman) plays author E.B. White, who politely listens as Hart pours his heart out and takes note when Hart talks about a mouse named Stuart.  Margaret Qualley plays Elizabeth Weiland, a twenty year-old acting student who Hart feels might be the love of his life despite the fact it soon becomes obvious that Elizabeth is smitten with a student her own age and that she views Hart as being just a potential mentor.  Hart is the type who will talk nonstop, even if no one is actually listening.  The only time that Hart stop speaking is when he’s alone with Elizabeth.

Blue Moon largely plays out in real time.  It’s essentially a theatrical piece, with Ethan Hawke delivering what amounts to a monologue in which he portrays Lorenz Hart as being witty, self-destructive, and ultimately painfully lonely.  Everyone he talks to appreciates his talent but it’s obvious that they’ve had their fill of his addictions and his fragile ego.  Even when Hart is at his most vulnerable, it’s obvious that he’s burned too many bridges to ever make it back to where he once was.

Hawke gives a wonderful performance as Hart, playing him as being a natural performer.  Like all great actors, Hawke is willing to be annoying.  Hart can be witty but he can also be corrosive.  There’s a mean-streak behind some of his comments  But your heart still breaks for him when he begs Rodgers to collaborate on a new show or when he talks about the people from his past who loved him but “not in that way.”  The film definitely has a stagey feel to it but, as a director, Linklater has the confidence to allow his actors to truly dig into their characters.  The end result is a rather touching movie about a talented man who could not get out of his own way.

In 2025, Linklater also gave us Nouvelle Vague, a French-language film about the early days of the French New Wave.  Featuring gorgeous black-and-white cinematography, Nouvelle Vague follows Jean-Luc Godard (Guillaume Marbeck) as he directs Breathless and changes cinema forever.  Aubry Dullin plays Jean-Paul Belmondo while Zoey Deutch plays Jean Seberg.  Nouvelle Vague is a both a tribute to and an homage to the French New Wave.  It’s also a film about the joy of creation and the excitement of working on a film.  Nouvelle Vague may be about the shooting of Breathless but it’s also Linklater’s Day For Night.

It’s a fun movie to watch, especially if you know about the history of the French New Wave.  (This film helpfully includes title cards to let us know who is who.  Everyone from Roberto Rossellini to Francois Truffaut to Agnes Varda to Claude Chabrol and Jean Cocteau makes an appearance.)  If Blue Moon was about the tendency towards self-destruction that haunts so many artists, Nouvelle Vague is a celebration of creativity, cinematic revolution, and being young and idealistic enough to break all of the established rules without a second thought.  Linklater keeps the story moving and he directs with a clear eye for detail.  Zoey Deutch is perfect as Seberg, playing her as a Hollywood survivor who is alternately thrilled and annoyed with Godard’s unorthodox style of directing.

I have to admit that I did get a little bit sad as I watched the movie.  In real life, Seberg committed suicide in 1979 and Godard followed over forty years later.  While Godard and Seberg both made good films after Breathless, none of them were quite as transformative as their one collaboration.  No other director seemed to understand Seberg’s unique persona quite as well as Godard did.  Godard, meanwhile, fell into the trap of placing ideology before creativity.  At least Jean-Paul Belmondo seemed to go on to have a happy life.

Blue Moon received Oscar nominations for Ethan Hawke and its screenplay.  Nouvelle Vague was ignored by the Academy but Richard Linklater did become the first Texan to win the Cesar Award for Best Director and for that, I certainly applaud him.  Getting the French to honor someone from Texas?  That takes talent!

Blue Moon and Nouvelle Vague, two of the best films of 2025, can currently be found on Netflix.

 

 

Musical Documentary Review: Woodstock ’94 (dir by Bruce Gowers)


Woodstock ’94 is the forgotten Woodstock.

Taking place in a field in Saugerties, New York, Woodstock ’94 opened on August 12 and it ended two days later.  Officially, it was held to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the original Woodstock and it was produced and promoted largely by the same people who were behind the original festival.  They were hoping to actually make some money this time but that plan failed when the fence surrounding the concert area was torn down by people who wanted to see the bands and hear the music without having to pay an exorbitant amount of money for tickets.  In all, 164,000 tickets were sold for Woodstock ’94 but it’s estimated that 350,000 attended.  To be honest, that sounds like a good example of the Woodstock spirit to me.  The people in charge of the festival disagreed, which is what led to the disaster that was Woodstock ’99.

Woodstock ’94 tends to be overlooked, precisely because it was neither the spontaneous celebration of the first Woodstock nor the epic trainwreck of the third Woodstock.  Instead, the second Woodstock was a largely peaceful festival that featured a good mix of older and, at the time, newer acts.  The original Woodstock featured open love and the third Woodstock featured random acts of arson.  The second Woodstock, on the other hand, featured a lot of rain.  Apparently, Green Day got pelted with mud.  Maybe a time traveler went back to 1994 and told everyone about American Idiot before the band started playing.  It makes sense if you think about it.

The first Woodstock lives forever as an epic documentary.  The third Woodstock has inspired at least two docuseries, both of which examine the festival with the grim weariness of a true crime recreation.  Earlier today, I discovered that the second Woodstock actually was filmed as well, though apparently Bruce Gowers’s Woodstock ’94 was never released in theaters and instead went straight to video.  It’s a sign of how forgotten Woodstock ’94 is that the film has never even been released on DVD or Blu-ray.  That said, after I learned of the film’s existence, I really did want to see it.  (I’m a completist at heart.)  I discovered that, fortunately, it’s been uploaded to YouTube.

From the start, Woodstock ’94 sets out to duplicate the style of the first Woodstock.  There’s plenty of split screens.  We open with people working hard to get the festival grounds ready.  There are interviews with concert goers.  There’s an interview with a guy selling food.  We get a few random announcements from the stage.  There’s a hint of nudity, though nowhere near as much as in the first film.  Probably the funniest moment in the documentary is when we see a sign telling us that a certain area has been reserved for those wanting to watch the concert nude.  During the first Woodstock, the nudity was spontaneous.  For the second one, it was prepared for.  The main thing that I noticed was how pleasant everyone seemed to be.  There was none of the anger that defined Woodstock ’99.  There was none of the bad brown acid that inspired so many warnings at the first Woodstock.  Instead, everyone appeared to be having a good time.  Even with Green Day getting pelted with mud, the Woodstock ’94 audience appeared to be rather mild-mannered.  Most of them seemed like they probably play golf now.

The majority of the documentary is devoted to the music.  We see tightly edited performances from, amongst others, Bob Dylan, Sheryl Crow, Aerosmith, Crosby Still Nash & Young, Nine Inch Nails, Metallica, The Cranberries, Green Day (though we don’t really get to see the incident with the mud, which is a shame), and Primus.  The festival had a good lineup.  Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young are a bit on the dull side but Primus more than makes up for it.  My only real complaint is that we only get to hear one song from each featured group.

Woodstock ’94 was surprisingly pleasant.  It’s too bad that, five years later, the whole idea of Woodstock fell apart.

Lifetime Film Review: Death At The Dinner Party (dir by Alain Desrochers)


There’s been a Death At The Dinner Party!

This Lifetime film has a title that makes it sound like it should be one of those British murder mysteries, set in the 1920s and featuring a Scotland Yard inspector limping around a mansion while trying to figure out who killed the notorious ne’er-do-well, Freddy Gibbs.  (The Inspector would limp because of the wound he received while fighting in the Great War.)  Was it the maid?  Was it the groundskeeper?  Was it the flighty flapper or the grand dame with the mysterious past?  Or was the murderer the shadowy visitor from America, the one who is rumored to be connected to bootleggers in Toronto.  Fear not!  Stanley of the Yard is on the case!

Where was I?  Oh yeah, I was creating a different movie in my head.  Anyway, let’s talk about the movie that I actually watched….

Andrea Gibbs (Candice Lidstone) is visiting her son, Ethan (Cameron Brodeur).  Ethan is a somewhat nerdy college student who is rooming with a platonic female friend who he is obviously in love with.  Andrea can tell that Ethan has been friend zoned and sweetly asks his roommate to let him down gently.  Ethan’s roommate later ends up dead at a dinner party that is attended by Ethan and Andrea.  The dinner party’s host is a psychology professor, Alan Jackson (Mark Day).  Jackson posts his fascistic lectures online and he has a loyal following of all-male students.  Gee, can you guess who was actually behind the murder?

(Last summer, Erin and I watched several episodes of an old show that featured Jim Hutton as Ellery Queen.  We loved it whenever Hutton would suddenly look at the camera and say, “Well, I’ve figured this one out!  Have you!?”  I have to admit that usually, I had not.  Erin was much better at figuring out who the murderer was than I was.  But, in the case of this film, I think Ellery probably would have looked straight at the camera before the murder even happened.)

There’s nothing particularly subtle about Death At The Dinner Party.  The film’s portrayal of dangerous, right-wing college professors gives the whole thing a dated feel, as if it should have aired ten years earlier than it did.  The film could have just as easily have been called Murder On The Intellectual Dark Web or Death At Evergreen College.  Today, I imagine that members of the angry dishrag brigade are a more realistic danger than a fight club of psych majors.  But the lack of subtlety and even the dated premise give this film a certain charm.  It’s over-the-top and it embraces the melodrama, just as every Lifetime film should.

Though she only appears to be a few years older than the actor playing her son, Candice Lidstone does a good job playing the mother who is rightly concerned about what her child is learning in college.  Indeed, the mother-child relationship was this film’s secret weapon. When I was in college, I never would have had the courage to invite my mom to a dinner party with any of my professors.  Then again, at my college, dinner with a professor usually meant a lot more alcohol and definitely a lot more weed.  However, there was also significantly less murder so everything evened out in the end.

Film Review: Red Sonja (by MJ Bassett)


Red Sonja is one of those films that was in development forever.

In 2008, Robert Rodriguez was rumored to be planning to direct a Red Sonja film with Rose McGowan in the title role.  Then, in 2012, it was Simon West who was being mentioned as the film’s director.  In 2018, Bryan Singer announced that he would be directing but he was dropped from the project (and every other project he had going) in 2019.  Joey Soloway, best-known for co-creating the briefly trendy show Transparent, was announced as Singer’s replacement.  Soloway left the project in 2022 and was replaced by MJ Bassett.  Red Sonja was filmed in 2023 and then sat on the shelf for two years before it was finally released in 2025.

Needless to say, a lot happened between 2023 and 2025.  By the time Red Sonja was released, it felt like an artifact from a different world.  Red Sonja is very much a film of the action girl era.  Sonja can beat up just about anyone and she usually does it without breaking a sweat.  As was so often the case with the films of the action girl era, the film is so proud of itself for featuring a woman who can fight that no one involved seemed to notice that they hadn’t really come up with anything interesting for her to do.

Sonja (blandly played by Matilda Lutz) has spent most of her life in the forests of a mythical land, searching for the otnher members of her tribe and communing with the animals.  When she has to hunt and kill a animal in order to eat, she is sure to say, “Thank you for your sacrifice.”  I’m sure her gratitude will provide comfort to the animal’s family.  (I’ve never really gotten the whole attitude that hunting is somehow noble as long as you use every bit of the animal and thank it for dying.  I’m sure the animal would still rather be alive.)   When Sonja is captured and forced to become a gladiator, she discovers that her people are being held prisoner by the effete emperor, Draygan (Robert Sheehan, who is even blander than Matilda Lutz).  In the arena, Sonja shouts questions at the emperor and the audience because, thanks to Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott, that’s what gladiators do.  She’s also given her famous chain mail bikini.  The film is quick to make sure we understand that Sonja isn’t into the whole chain mail bikini thing but she has to wear something.  Unintentionally, the film also reveals that the filmmakers aren’t really interested in making a Red Sonja film.  Everything that made Red Sonja a memorable character in the comic books and the original film is either ignored or viewed with snarky disdain.  The only reason the film is called Red Sonja is because Grim Barbarian Woman didn’t have the same zing.

Now, I will say that Red Sonja does get better as it goes along.  In fact, the film’s climax features an unexpected twist and, if the entire film had that scene’s courage, this review would be very different.  Unfortunately, Red Sonja looks and feels cheap and worst of all, it’s never fun.  It’s very much a 2023 film and 2o23 was a year when anyone who dared to enjoy themselves was viewed with suspicion.  It may have more of a political consciousness than the 80s version but it’s not as entertaining.

 

Film Review: Dead Man’s Wire (dir by Gus Van Sant)


Before I say anything else about Gus Van Sant’s new film, I feel that I should make something clear.

I am a huge Al Pacino fan.  My love for the Godfather films (even the third one!) should be obvious to anyone who regularly reads this site.  I love the majority of Pacino’s work, even the roles that occurred after he started bellowing all of his lines.  I think his cop in Heat is one of the most entertaining characters to ever appear in a crime film.  I loved his performance as Jimmy Hoffa in The Irishman.  I enjoyed the humor that he brought to his role in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  I will always be happy to defend Al Pacino.

So, it gives me no pleasure to say that Al Pacino gives one of his worst performances in this film.  He plays M.L. Hall, the owner of Meridian Mortgage Company in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Pacino only appears in three brief scenes.  Wearing a ridiculous wig, he delivers his lines in one of the worst Southern accents that I’ve ever heard.  Playing a businessman who is so heartless that he won’t even negotiate with the man who is holding his son hostage, Pacino gives a performance that isn’t even entertaining enough to be considered cartoonish.  It’s the type of performance that one might expect from the villain-of-the-week on a particularly heavy-handed episode of Law & Order.  It’s not the type of performance that you would expect from Al Pacino.

Fortunately, despite all of that, Dead Man’s Wire is still a fairly compelling film.

Based on a true story, Dead Man’s Wire stars Bill Skarsgard as Tony Kiritsis, a real estate developer in 1970s Indianapolis who feels that Meridian Mortgage Company has cheated him out of the money that he hoped to earn through some land he developed.  Because M.L. Hall is on vacation in Florida, Tony takes M.L. son, Richard (Dacre Montgomery), hostage.  Tony wires a shotgun to Richard’s neck so that any sudden movement by either one of them will lead to Richard getting his head blown off.  Tony announced that he’ll only release Richard in return for immunity and an apology from M.L. Hall.

For three days, the city of Indianapolis watches as the situation plays out.  Detective Michael Gable (Cary Elwes) tries to negotiate with Tony but Tony is only willing to talk to the DJ (Colman Domingo) at his favorite radio station.  Meanwhile, Tony picks up some support from other people who feel that they’ve been screwed over by the M.L. Halls of the world.

Indeed, while watching this movie, it was hard not to think about the creepy cult that has sprung up around Luigi Mangione.  Of course, being a blue collar guy who appears to have simply been pushed past his breaking point, Tony is a much more compelling figure than a phony intellectual like Luigi.  That said, director Gus Van Sant is more interested in Tony as an outsider on the fringes of polite society than as a political symbol.  Skarsgard plays Tony as a man who can go from being friendly to enraged in a matter of seconds and he’s actually quite frightening in the role.  Meanwhile, Dacre Montgomery makes Richard into a rather sympathetic character.  Even if you don’t agree with the actions of his father, it’s hard not to respect the way that Richard handles the situation.  Watching this film, one gets the feeling that the unstable Tony thinks that he and Richard are developing a common ground but in reality, there’s no way that anyone could expect Richard to sympathize with a man who held him hostage for three days.  The film respects the characters and the actors too much for that type of false sentimentality.

Towards the end of the film, there’s a rather odd moment where breaking news about the hostage situation interrupts John Wayne presenting the award for Best Picture at the Oscars.  In reality, the 1977 Academy Awards were held a month after the hostage situation had been resolved and the ceremony seen in Dead Man’s Wire was held in 1979.  (Wayne presented the Oscar just a few months before his own death from cancer.)  It’s  classic Van Sant move in that it seems like it should mean something but, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn’t.  Van Sant is one of those directors who has been around long enough and who has made enough interesting films that he can get away with something like that.

Dead Man’s Wire is Van Sant’s first film in seven years and his best film since Elephant.  It’s flawed but always watchable and it has a sense of humor and enough odd but memorable details to balance out the film’s angrier moments.  There are a few moments where the film falls into the trendy and intellectually shallow anti-capitalism that is all the rage nowadays but, for the most part, this is a compelling recreation of a true story and a character study of two men who will be forever linked.

Musical Documentary Review: Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 (dir by Jamie Crawford)


In August of 2022, Netflix premiered a three-part documentary about Woodstock  ’99.

Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 took a look at how the third Woodstock musical festival went from being the most highly anticipated event of the summer of 1999 to being a total disaster.  I started watching the documentary the week that it premiered.  I was halfway through the first episode when I realized that I needed to make sure that my car insurance had been renewed.  I stopped the program, hopped online, made sure that my payment had been received and then….

Well, I don’t exactly remember what I did but I do know that I did not return to Woodstock ’99.  Indeed, I kind of forgot about Woodstock ’99.  It wasn’t until last night, when Jeff and I were looking for something to watch on Netflix, that I saw Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 listed under “continue watching.”  I did the math.  I decided that, given that it had been nearly four years since I watched the opening 30 minutes of the first episode, it was perhaps to finally see what Woodstock ’99 was all about.

The three-part documentary features archival footage from the concert and also interviews with the people behind Woodstock ’99, a few people who attended, and some of the artists who performed.  To be honest, I wish that more of the performers had been interviewed.  Considering that one of the festival’s organizers literally blamed Fred Durst for the rioting, it’s a shame that Durst didn’t share his side of the story.  I’m not a huge fan of Fred Durst but the decision to blame him for the crowd getting out of control has always seem to be a bit too convenient to me.  As the documentary shows (sometimes unintentionally), people had reason to be angry long before Fred Durst stepped out on stage and told them to “break shit.”  As a once popular performer who has since come to be seen as a bit of a self-parody, Durst makes for an easy scapegoat.

For all the talk about what Woodstock has represented throughout the years, all three of the festivals were ultimately about making money for the organizers.  Michael Lang may have been a hippie who said the first Woodstock was about ending the war in Vietnam and that the third Woodstock was about promoting gun control but he was also a businessman.  The first Woodstock only made money because of the success of the famous documentary.  Woodstock ’94 lost money because the fence surrounding the festival was torn down and people were able to get in without buying tickets.  Woodstock ’99 was designed to be secure and impenetrable.  Instead of being held in a field, it was held on a deserted air force base where the asphalt made the summer heat unbearable and where the empty hangars helped to create a dystopian atmosphere.  Woodstock ’99 was designed to be village.  Unfortunately, it turned out to be a village where bottled water eventually ended up costing $14.00 and the toilets ended up overflowing.  (One interviewee discusses waking up on the third day and discovering that she was suffering from something called “trench mouth.”  Even the name sounds terrifying.)

The documentary features a few people who rightly point out that the festival’s organizers created a situation where the third night’s riot was almost inevitable.  Michael Lang apparently had not listened to any new music since the 70s and, hence, didn’t understand that there was a world of difference between the mellow hippies of 1969 and the fans of Korn, Limp Bizkit, and Kid Rock.  Amazingly, Lang thought it would be a good idea to hand out candles so that the festival could end with a candlelight vigil against gun violence.  The candles were instead used to start fires.  As the festival grounds burned, the fence was finally torn down, a sound tower was pulled to the ground, and eventually the national guard showed up.  The organizers of the Festival, including Lang, put the blame on almost everyone but themselves.

I’ve often said that movie and documentaries made between 2019 and 2024 often feel as if they are artifacts from a different age.  That’s how quickly the culture shifted after the election of 2024.  That’s the case with Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99.  The final thirty minutes of the documentary are spent classifying Woodstock ’99 as being an example of white privilege  and it seems a little performative today but that was pretty much the prism through which everything was viewed and discussed in 2022.  The truth of the matter is that there were a lot of reasons why Woodstock ’99 was a disaster and almost all of them come down to the greed at the heart of the enterprise.  It was greed that led to festival being held in the worst possible location.  It was greed that led to cutting corners when it came to security and the hiring of the half-assed “Peace Patrol,” a group of amateur security guards who failed to protect the most vulnerable people at the festival.  (At least five rapes and numerous other sexual assaults occurred a the concert.)  And it was ultimately Michael Lang’s desire to pretend that the concert was about something other than greed that led to a bunch of angry, tired, and intoxicated people being handed candles.

This documentary shows why Woodstock ’99 was the final Woodstock.  (There was an attempt to put together a 50th anniversary festival in 2019 but, perhaps thankfully, it fell apart.)  It’s a shame that Woodstock ended the way it did.  It could have been a great American tradition.  Instead, the festival of peace and love ended with fire and destruction.

Lifetime Film Review: Accused: The Karen Read Story (dir by Linda-Lisa Hayter)


In 2022, a Boston police officer named John O’Keefe was discovered unconscious on the snow-covered front lawn of a fellow police officer.  O’Keefe was taken to the hospital, where he subsequently passed away.  It was determined that he died not from spending the night lying in the snow but instead from blunt force trauma.  O’Keefe’s girlfriend, Karen Read, was arrested and charged with the crime.  Depending on who you asked, Karen Read was either a cold-hearted murderer or the victim of a frame-up.  Because O’Keefe was himself a member of the force, it was easy make the argument that the Boston PD was so eager to arrest someone for his murder and “protect one of their own,” that they neglected to follow the evidence while making their case against Karen Read.  Of course, one could also wonder if Karen Read would have received as much support from the public if she had been someone other than an attractive professional white woman.

It took two trials but eventually, Karen Read was acquitted.  At the time, her trials dominated social media.  It was not uncommon to see the second trial referred to as being “the trial of the century.”  I think most of us understood that was hyperbole.  The Karen Read trial was not “the trial of the century” as much as it was just “the trial of the moment.”  After she was acquitted, people spent another week talking about her, the trial, and the Boston PD and then everyone moved on.  There’s always a new murder to “solve” or a new trial to debate.  In another year or so, no one will remember which side of the Karen Read debate they were on.  That will probably include me as well.

(Online sleuthing is always entertaining but ultimately rather shallow.  Those of us who have grown up consuming true crime books and movies often expect things to be more dramatic than they actually are and we tend to gloss over the fact that, while an online sleuth can bring attention to a case, it’s rare that they ever actually solve anything.  As an example, for all the attention that was given to Michelle McNamara’s quest to identify the Golden State Killer, we tend to ignore the fact that most of her theories about his identity turned out to be incorrect.)

Still, the Karen Read case was prominent enough that everyone know that Lifetime would eventually make a movie about it.  Accused: The Karen Read Story asks the question, “Did Karen Read kill John O’Keefe?” and then it answers it by saying, “Of course she didn’t!  What are you, an idiot?”  That’s not necessarily a complaint.  As annoying as I sometimes found Karen Read’s most vehement online defenders to be, I actually agreed with them about her innocence.   It’s just that, if you’re looking for a film that offers up any hint of ambiguity about the case, this is not the film for you.  The film is firmly on the side of Karen Read, to the extent that the O’Keefe family is often presented as being villains.

It’s a well-made film, though.  In the roles of Karen Read and John O’Keefe, both Katie Cassidy and Luke Humphrey give good performances.  Humphrey is especially good in the role of O’Keefe and the film doesn’t shy away from portraying the tumultuous details of his relationship with Karen Read.  (The film also deserves some credit for not turning O’Keefe into a cardboard bad boyfriend during his arguments with Read.)  Linda-Lisa Hayter’s direction captures both the cold chill  of the snowy night and the insular atmosphere of big city law enforcement.  It’s a skillful film that will be best appreciated by people who are already convinced of Karen Read’s innocence.

Film Review: Christy (dir by David Michod)


When Christy was released last year, it received a lot of attention for featuring Sydney Sweeney as a very unglamorous character.

In the role of real-life boxer Christy Martin, Sweeney spends the first hour of the film as a brunette who doesn’t wear makeup, wears baggy clothing, and has an unflattering haircut.  Coming straight from the mining communities of West Virginia, Christy is someone who can flatten a guy with one punch.  Of course, for all the attention that Sweeney got for downplaying her looks, she’s a blonde again for the film’s second hour and she never looks quite as bad as the filmmakers would have us believe.

If anyone does truly look bad in this film, it’s Ben Foster.  Foster plays James V. Martin, the boxing coach who took Christy under his wing, arranged for her to get signed by Don King (played by Chad Coleman), and basically managed her when she was at the peak of her career.  James Martin was also Christy’s horrifically abusive husband, a relentless, cocaine-snorting manipulator who built her up just to tear her down and who is currently in prison for attempting to murder Christy in 2010.  When Foster first appeared in the film, I had no idea it was him.  I didn’t discover that Foster was playing James until I glanced at the film’s Wikipedia page.  Balding, overweight, and speaking in a slurred voice that makes most of his sentences sound like thoughts that died while trying to escape from his brain, Foster is unrecognizable as James.  Ben Foster has played a lot of sleazy characters.  (I still think his best performance was as the charismatic but sociopathic Charlie in 3:10 to Yuma.)  James Martin is definitely one of the worst and the normally handsome Foster is made up to look about as bad as I’ve ever seen him look.

The film follows Christy from her time as a college basketball player through her boxing career.  We watch as she becomes the female boxing champion and as she loses it all due to a fight for which she wasn’t properly prepared.  We watch as she and James dabble in cocaine.  Even more importantly, we watch as Christy struggles to come to terms with her own sexuality.  In the film, Christy’s marriage to James is more about convincing herself — and her homophobic mother (Merritt Weaver) — that she’s straight than any actual love that may be shared between the two of them.  At one point, Christy taunts an out opponent while giving interviews about how, when she’s not in the ring, she’s a traditional wife who loves to cook and clean.  Christy is not only fighting the other boxer.  She’s also fighting her own sexual identity.

The film is well-acted by Foster, Weaver, and Sweeney.  Sweeney especially does a good job of portraying the anger that lies behind every punch that Christy throws.  When Christy hits someone, she’s not just hitting her opponent.  She’s also hitting the entire world.  Unfortunately, the film itself often falls victim to the biopic cliches that one always seems to find in films about boxers, even ones that are based on true stories.  This is especially true during the film’s first half.  The second half, which focuses on Christy breaking free from James, is considerably more compelling.  Much like last year’s The Smashing Machine, Christy is an uneven film that still leaves you respecting its real-life inspiration.