Review: The Crow (dir. by Rupert Sanders)

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Arleigh

“When someone you love dies, you will know emptiness… You will never forget, and you will never, ever forgive.” — Eric Draven

The Crow is a remake built around a reasonable idea—returning to James O’Barr’s graphic novel rather than photocopying Alex Proyas’s 1994 cult film—but Rupert Sanders’s 2024 version never discovers why this material matters beyond its tattoos, bruises, and black eyeliner. It arrived dead on arrival with critics and audiences alike, not simply because it was measured against a beloved predecessor, but because it offered so little of its own identity. The film is dour without being haunting, romantic without generating much chemistry, and violent without making its revenge feel especially cathartic.

Sanders’s film stars Bill Skarsgård as Eric and musician FKA twigs as Shelly, lovers brutally murdered after stumbling too close to the secrets of criminal impresario Vincent Roeg, played with sleek, vaguely supernatural menace by Danny Huston. Eric awakens in a liminal afterlife, is granted a path back to the living world, and returns armed with supernatural endurance and a need to avenge Shelly. The fundamentals are familiar: love is destroyed by violence, death cannot sever that love, and vengeance becomes a darkly mythic expression of grief. Yet The Crow continually confuses the bare outline of that story with the emotional force that made it endure.

The production’s troubled history almost feels encoded in the finished movie. A new Crow film spent more than a decade trapped in development hell, cycling through different studios, directors, screenplays, and potential stars. Relativity Pictures held the project for years; Sony eventually became involved; various versions had names such as Bradley Cooper, Luke Evans, Jack Huston, and Jason Momoa attached at different stages, alongside filmmakers including Stephen Norrington, F. Javier Gutiérrez, and Corin Hardy. The project repeatedly stalled under changing rights arrangements, creative disagreements, and the general instability that often turns a familiar title into an endlessly recycled pitch deck. A fresh production effort was announced in 2020, but the Sanders version did not actually begin shooting until 2022 in Prague.wikipedia+2

That prolonged development makes the final product feel less like a passionately argued reinterpretation than a compromise that survived by default. Every era of the project seems to have left a trace. There is a prestige-minded desire to make Eric and Shelly psychologically damaged and contemporary. There is a franchise-minded urge to expand the supernatural mythology. There is also a music-video impulse toward body art, club scenes, fashionable misery, and sharply composed violence. None of these ingredients are automatically bad. But Sanders never finds a way to make them cohere into a world as tactile, strange, or emotionally immediate as the one Alex Proyas created in 1994.

The suspicion around the remake was understandable from the beginning. Most people involved in the original film have either expressed mixed feelings or outright disapproval about revisiting the property. The 1994 The Crow is not merely another cult favorite awaiting intellectual-property renewal. It is permanently linked to Brandon Lee, who was killed in an on-set shooting accident during production. The completed film became a memorial as much as a comic-book adaptation, and its emotional impact cannot be separated from the knowledge of what happened to its star.

The strongest objections have come from James O’Barr and Alex Proyas. O’Barr, writer and artist of the original graphic novel, has questioned the need for a remake for years, once calling the idea of remaking a then-15-year-old film “kind of ridiculous.” Proyas, meanwhile, has been even more direct. He argued that The Crow was not simply a movie because Brandon Lee died making it, and that the 1994 film should remain part of Lee’s legacy. When the new film’s reception turned hostile, Proyas called it a “cynical cash-grab” and mocked the lack of financial reward supposedly waiting at the end of it. The tone of those comments may strike some people as harsh, but the remake never makes a convincing counterargument.

To be fair, Sanders does not ask Skarsgård to imitate Lee. That is one of the film’s better instincts. Skarsgård’s Eric is physically slight, heavily tattooed, insecure, and visibly wrecked by the life he has lived before death. He is not a supernatural rock-and-roll avenger in the same way Lee was. Instead, he resembles a wounded, emotionally arrested young man forced into a mythic role he does not fully understand. It is a potentially interesting angle, especially for a story about grief turning someone into a monster.

But the screenplay, credited to Zach Baylin and William Josef Schneider, does not give that approach enough shape. Eric is vulnerable, then dreamy, then brutally efficient, then mournful again, depending on what the scene needs. The film treats emotional instability as character depth, but those are not the same thing. A character can be fractured, contradictory, and self-destructive while still possessing a recognizable inner life. Skarsgård does what he can with the material, bringing real physical discomfort and sadness to Eric, yet the movie seems more interested in how his pain photographs than what it reveals.

The same issue affects Shelly. FKA twigs has an immediately magnetic screen presence, and the film wisely spends much more time on Eric and Shelly before their deaths than the 1994 film did. In theory, that should be a major advantage. If the viewer sees the relationship develop, then Eric’s return from death should carry more emotional force. Instead, the early sections feel like a montage stretched into an act: rehab, drugs, late-night intimacy, mutual confessions, music, dancing, sex, and shared trauma. The movie repeatedly tells us that these two are soulmates, but it rarely gives them the specific dialogue, humor, disagreements, or small gestures that make a romance believable.

Their relationship becomes a collection of poses. The camera understands that they are beautiful, sad, damaged people; the script never quite proves they are deeply connected individuals. That is fatal in The Crow, because Eric’s entire mission depends on the audience accepting that Shelly is not merely the woman he loved but the person who made life worth returning to. The movie substitutes trauma bonding for intimacy, assuming that shared wounds automatically equal love.

Huston’s Vincent Roeg is similarly underwritten. Roeg is introduced as an elegant criminal figure with occult powers, someone who preys on young women and sustains himself through a diabolical bargain. It is a significant departure from the relatively grounded gangland evil of the 1994 film, and it could have opened the door to something genuinely grotesque. Instead, the mythology grows more complicated while the villain becomes less interesting. Roeg speaks in the familiar language of immortal bad guys who are convinced that cruelty makes them profound. He lacks the memorable theatricality of the original film’s antagonists and the unnerving specificity that a character like this needs.

The remake’s expanded mythology is perhaps its biggest miscalculation. O’Barr’s original premise has always been powerful because it is so direct: a murdered man is allowed to return, guided by a crow, because love has been violently cut short. It is gothic, but it is simple. Sanders’s version adds a network of afterlife rules, soul exchanges, purgatorial spaces, and supernatural transactions. The more the film explains, the less mythical it feels. Grief does not become larger through lore. In this case, it becomes bogged down in mechanics.

Visually, Sanders has moments of genuine flair. The film’s strongest sequence comes late, when Eric tears through an opera house during a lavish performance. White costumes are stained red, the setting’s exaggerated grandeur clashes with Eric’s raw violence, and the action is staged with a sense of grotesque spectacle. It is the one scene where Sanders’s instincts as a visual stylist really connect with the source material’s heightened pulp melodrama. The sequence is bloody, theatrical, and almost absurd enough to become exhilarating.

Yet it arrives too late and feels disconnected from much of what precedes it. For large stretches, The Crow is subdued to the point of visual anonymity. Its darkness looks digitally smoothed rather than dreamlike. Its city does not have a personality. Its criminal underworld feels interchangeable with any number of slick streaming thrillers. The 1994 film’s Detroit-like nightmare city was impossible to separate from its mood: rain-slicked streets, scorched interiors, industrial rot, grotesque criminals, and an unforgettable goth-grunge soundtrack all fused into one singular aesthetic. Sanders’s movie has better technology but far less texture.

The soundtrack, in particular, exposes the remake’s uncertainty. The 1994 Crow became inseparable from its music, which drew together alternative rock, industrial, metal, and goth influences into an extension of Eric’s world. The 2024 version clearly wants to speak to a newer generation through contemporary pop, electronic, and melancholy club sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with modernizing the musical language, but the choices do not build a coherent subculture around the film. They play as individual selections rather than part of a living, breathing atmosphere.

This is why the remake’s negative response was so predictable. It was not doomed merely because it remade a movie people love, nor because any new Eric Draven would inevitably be compared to Brandon Lee. A remake could have justified itself by drawing more deeply from O’Barr’s graphic novel, creating a truly different visual language, or foregrounding the grief at the center of the story with more honesty. Sanders instead gives us a film that is constantly signaling pain while remaining emotionally remote.

There are fragments of a better Crow scattered throughout: Skarsgård’s willingness to play Eric as fragile and unglamorous, twigs’s spectral intensity, and the opera-house massacre’s gleefully excessive bloodshed. But those fragments never combine into a whole. The Crow has the eyeliner, the tattoos, the wounds, and the bird, but it never finds the heart beneath them. The original film endured because it turned loss into a piece of feverish gothic pulp. This remake turns loss into an aesthetic, and that is not nearly enough.

Review: The Crow (dir. by Alex Proyas)

Posted on August 24, 2026 by Arleigh

“If the people we love are stolen from us, the way to have them live on is to never stop loving them. Buildings burn, people die, but real love is forever.” — Sarah Mohr

The Crow is one of those films whose reputation has become inseparable from the tragedy surrounding it, yet reducing it to that tragedy misses why it has endured so powerfully. Alex Proyas’s 1994 adaptation of James O’Barr’s graphic novel is a revenge story, a gothic romance, a comic-book nightmare, and an MTV-era industrial-rock mood piece fused into something singular. It is not flawless, and its storytelling is often more archetypal than psychologically deep, but that directness helps its emotional force. The movie does not ask viewers to untangle a complicated moral puzzle. It asks them to feel the enormity of a love violently interrupted, and then to watch that grief return from the grave with black feathers, white face paint, and a very personal sense of justice.

The premise is almost mythically simple. On the night before their wedding, musician Eric Draven and his fiancée Shelly Webster are murdered by a gang of thugs who break into their Detroit apartment. A year later, on Devil’s Night—the annual pre-Halloween ritual of fires and chaos that hangs over the film’s ruined cityscape—Eric rises from his grave, guided by a crow, to hunt down every person responsible. The classic revenge-movie structure is there: identify the killers, stalk them, punish them, move closer to the figure at the top. But The Crow distinguishes itself by making revenge feel less like triumphant macho fantasy and more like an extension of mourning. Eric does not become a cool killer because pain has made him stronger. He becomes an avenging specter because he cannot accept a world in which Shelly’s final moments are left unanswered.

Proyas directs the film like a fever dream built from wet asphalt, broken glass, empty tenements, and perpetual night. The Detroit of The Crow barely operates as a realistic city, but realism is not the point. It is an expressionist landscape, a metropolis that seems permanently trapped between a crime scene and a graveyard. The production design gives the movie its extraordinary visual identity: towering shadows, alleyways lit by flame, apartments that look like mausoleums, and a skyline that appears to have been abandoned by daylight itself. This is Gothic cinema filtered through comic-book panels, German Expressionism, punk fashion, and the darkly romantic visual language of early-1990s alternative music videos. It has been imitated constantly, sometimes lovingly and sometimes clumsily, but the original still feels unusually tactile. The grime, rain, fire, and shattered architecture have physical weight.

That sense of atmosphere is helped enormously by the soundtrack, which operates as more than a collection of era-specific needle drops. Songs by The Cure, Nine Inch Nails, Stone Temple Pilots, Pantera, and others create a sonic environment around Eric’s grief. The music gives the movie a pulse that is melancholy, furious, and seductive all at once. For many viewers, The Crow became a gateway text for a specific kind of 1990s gothic-alt identity: black clothing, industrial textures, romantic despair, and the conviction that heartbreak could be transformed into style without becoming trivial. Its aesthetic influence is obvious, but it worked because it was attached to an actual emotional core rather than simply a pile of cool images.

Brandon Lee is the center of that emotional core. His Eric Draven is handsome and charismatic, obviously, but the performance’s real strength lies in its shifts of tone. Lee can play Eric as tender and playful in the brief memories of his life with Shelly, then turn him into a creature of eerie stillness and explosive violence. He delivers some of the film’s most famous lines with a theatrical flair that could have become silly in another actor’s hands, but he never entirely loses the sense that Eric is broken underneath the black leather and corpse-like makeup. When he says, “It can’t rain all the time,” it does not land merely as a quotable gothic slogan. It is a declaration of faith from someone trying to recover one small piece of warmth from an overwhelmingly cruel world.

Lee’s death during production makes that performance almost unbearably charged. He was accidentally shot on set during the filming of a scene involving a prop firearm and died at age 28. The production had to regroup, rewrite and restructure parts of the film, and use a combination of body doubles, careful editing, visual effects, and previously filmed material to complete Eric’s story. That practical disruption is visible only in limited ways in the finished product; remarkably, The Crow generally feels cohesive rather than patched together. Still, the tragedy affected more than the logistics of production. It fundamentally changed the public’s relationship to the film. Eric’s resurrection, his grief over a stolen future, and the repeated imagery of a dead young man returning to finish unfinished business all acquired a terrible real-world resonance.

That connection could easily have overwhelmed the movie, turning it into a morbid curiosity. Instead, it made the film feel elegiac. Audiences did not merely see a fictional tragic hero; they saw Lee’s final completed role, an image of an actor whose life had ended before the public had a chance to see where his career might go. The contrast is particularly painful because Lee’s work here suggests enormous range and movie-star potential. He is not just doing martial-arts action or inheriting the legacy of his father, Bruce Lee. He is creating an icon of romantic anguish and dark humor. The public reception of The Crow therefore carried an unusual mixture of admiration, grief, and protectiveness. Its cult status was built partly on its style, soundtrack, and comic-book mythology, but also on the feeling that viewers were witnessing a final gift from an artist taken much too soon.

The supporting cast gives the film much of its flavor, especially because Proyas treats its villains as grotesque figures in a corrupted fairy tale. David Patrick Kelly’s T-Bird is nervy and cruel, Michael Massee’s Funboy has a sleazy unpredictability, and Angel David’s Skank brings a wild, cartoonish energy to the gang. Rochelle Davis, playing Sarah, provides something vital in the opposite direction. She is not merely a child sidekick; she represents the lingering human connection between Eric’s former life and his revenant existence. Her scenes with Eric remind us that he is not simply a supernatural executioner. He is still someone capable of care, humor, and memory.

But Michael Wincott’s Top Dollar is the film’s true villainous masterstroke. Wincott has one of cinema’s most instantly recognizable voices: smoky, velvety, sardonic, and faintly predatory. As Top Dollar, he makes every line sound like it has been exhaled through cigarette smoke in a cathedral. He is not a conventional crime boss in the realistic, procedural sense. He is a decadent king of the city’s underworld, a man who appears to have converted criminal power into a private religion of violence, ritual, and spectacle. His lair, his manner, and his relationship with his half-sister Myca all push him beyond ordinary gangster territory into something operatic and mythic.

What makes Wincott mesmerizing is that he does not overplay Top Dollar’s eccentricities. The character has plenty of theatrical material to work with—occult touches, ominous speeches, a penthouse filled with weaponry and strange décor—but Wincott approaches him with a serene confidence. He rarely seems rushed or rattled, even as Eric systematically destroys his organization. That calm makes him more intimidating. Top Dollar understands the city as a machine of corruption, and he sees himself as the person with his hands on the controls. Wincott’s performance gives the villain intelligence, sensuality, and a distinctly sinister elegance. He is evil, certainly, but he is never bland. In a movie full of striking images, his voice alone becomes part of the visual texture.

The action in The Crow is effective precisely because it avoids pretending that Eric’s vengeance is a balanced fight. For much of the movie, he is invulnerable, and the violence plays like supernatural punishment. The standout set pieces—Eric’s assault on the gang’s hideout, his confrontation with T-Bird, and the final tower sequence—have the heightened, almost ritualistic quality of comic-book action rather than the grounded impact of a crime thriller. That can make some of the antagonists feel less like people than targets, but again, the film is working in the language of myth. Eric is a ghost walking through the consequences of someone else’s cruelty.

If The Crow has a weakness, it is that the love story depends heavily on fragments. Shelly is more an emotional presence than a fully developed character, preserved in Eric’s memories as warmth, laughter, music, and suffering. Yet the film understands that grief often works that way. We do not always remember a person as a complete biography when they are gone; sometimes we cling to specific gestures, rooms, jokes, songs, and images. The flashes of Eric and Shelly together are deliberately idealized because they are being recalled by a man who has lost everything. The movie’s romanticism may be blunt, but it is sincere.

More than three decades later, The Crow still works because it is a film of conviction. It believes in the visual poetry of rain and ruins, in the melodrama of eternal love, in the power of a memorable face framed in black-and-white makeup, and in the possibility that a soundtrack can become part of a movie’s mythology. Brandon Lee’s death will always remain a heartbreaking part of its history, and it is impossible to watch the film without feeling that absence hovering around it. But The Crow is not remembered simply because of what happened behind the scenes. It is remembered because Proyas, Lee, Wincott, and the rest of the cast made a pulpy revenge tale feel like a dark romantic elegy—one that still takes flight every time the crow returns to the skyline.

Review: For a Few Dollars More (dir. by Sergio Leone)

Posted on August 18, 2026 by Arleigh

“When two hunters go after the same prey, they usually end up shooting each other in the back. And we don’t want to shoot each other in the back.” — Col. Douglas Mortimer

For a Few Dollars More is the moment Sergio Leone’s western style starts to feel fully formed: larger, stranger, more emotionally bruised, and far more confident in its ability to turn silence into suspense. Released in 1965, it serves as the second leg of Leone’s “Dollar’s Trilogy,” following A Fistful of Dollars and preceding The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. It shares the earlier film’s basic ingredients—dusty towns, morally compromised gunmen, crooked institutions, and Ennio Morricone’s unforgettable music—but it is not simply a bigger repeat. Leone takes the stripped-down revenge-and-gold framework of the first movie and gives it a darker emotional center. This is a western about obsession, damaged masculinity, and a world in which violence does not restore order so much as expose how little order existed in the first place.

Clint Eastwood returns as the Man with No Name, although he is called Manco here, and he is still the same lean, poncho-wearing opportunist viewers met in A Fistful of Dollars. He moves through the film with that familiar mixture of cocky calm and barely concealed menace. Manco is a bounty hunter, collecting rewards for dead criminals with an efficiency that makes his work feel almost casual. There is comedy in his early scenes, especially in the way he manages an absurdly large number of wanted men, but the humor has a sharp edge. Manco is not a conventional hero. He is charming because he is capable, because he has style, and because Eastwood knows exactly how little effort the role needs. A squint, a pause, or a hand resting near a gun does more than most full pages of dialogue.

The major difference is that this time Eastwood is not alone at the center of the story. Lee Van Cleef enters as Colonel Douglas Mortimer, another bounty hunter, and his presence gives the film its real dramatic charge. Mortimer is older, more formal, and more openly haunted than Manco. Where Manco seems motivated largely by money and survival, Mortimer carries himself like a man pursuing something much more personal. Their relationship begins as a rivalry, with both men circling the same targets and testing one another’s abilities. Leone gets a lot of mileage out of the contrast: Eastwood is loose and youthful, Van Cleef is rigid and calculating; one looks like he has wandered in from the wilderness, while the other has the manner of a retired officer who never truly left the battlefield.

Their eventual partnership is what makes For a Few Dollars More so satisfying. It is a buddy movie in the least sentimental sense possible. Neither man becomes especially warm or expressive, and their bond is built less on trust than on mutual respect for professional competence. They know the other is dangerous. They also know that the other may be necessary. Leone stages their alliance with a kind of deadpan amusement, particularly when Manco and Mortimer try to outdo each other with increasingly elaborate shooting demonstrations. Those sequences are entertaining because they are absurdly masculine, but the film never lets the spectacle become completely weightless. In this world, skill with a gun is not a sport; it is a qualification for survival.

The villain, Gian Maria Volonté’s El Indio, pushes the film decisively into darker territory than A Fistful of Dollars. Volonté had already played a memorable antagonist in Leone’s previous film, but El Indio is far more unsettling than Ramón Rojo. He is not merely greedy or power-hungry. He is psychologically ruined, driven by trauma and by a sadistic need to revisit it. His recurring pocket-watch motif, paired with Morricone’s chiming melody, becomes one of the film’s great inventions. The tune begins almost innocently, but Leone gradually turns it into a signal of dread. Every time El Indio opens the watch, it feels as though time itself has stopped and everyone nearby has been sentenced to wait for death.

The backstory tied to El Indio is where the movie reveals just how much more disturbing its narrative ambitions are. Leone and his screenwriters introduce subjects that are much uglier than the genre’s usual tales of outlaws and frontier justice: rape, suicide, and the lingering horror of sexual violence. The film does not handle these ideas with contemporary sensitivity, and it is not interested in exploring their victims with the depth they deserve. Still, their presence changes the atmosphere. El Indio’s trauma is not abstract; it is tied to a violent violation and the suicide that follows it. That history does not humanize him in any easy way, nor does it excuse him. Instead, it explains the repetitive, self-destructive pattern of his cruelty. He is obsessed with an event he cannot undo, and he converts that obsession into violence against everyone around him.

That theme of obsession runs through nearly every important character. Mortimer’s pursuit of El Indio turns out to be rooted in a personal wound that has shaped his entire life. His bounty-hunting career, disciplined exterior, and almost mechanical precision are revealed as part of a long-delayed act of vengeance. Manco, meanwhile, is obsessed in a different and less tragic way: with winning, with money, and with proving that he cannot be manipulated. Even the gang’s massive bank robbery has an obsessive quality. It is overcomplicated, theatrical, and clearly more about El Indio demonstrating power over his men than about securing wealth. Leone’s characters do not simply want things. They become imprisoned by them.

The plot itself is fairly direct, though Leone fills it with enough betrayal and shifting alliances to keep it lively. El Indio and his gang target the bank in El Paso, using a jailbreak as part of a larger scheme. Manco and Mortimer separately infiltrate the group, both pursuing the reward on El Indio’s head while working toward their own goals. From there, the film becomes a tense contest of patience. Leone is never in a rush to deliver a payoff. He lets scenes breathe, often lingering on faces, boots, hands, doorways, and empty spaces. In another director’s hands, this could feel slow. Here, it feels like the movie is daring the audience to notice every tiny movement before the gunfire begins.

That visual patience is one of Leone’s greatest strengths. For a Few Dollars More is full of faces that feel weathered by the landscape around them. The film’s close-ups are almost confrontational, catching sweat, stubble, suspicious glances, and flashes of fear. Leone makes the human face as important as the wide-open Spanish locations standing in for the American West. He also understands that scale works best through contrast. A showdown can begin with an extreme close-up of a man’s eyes, then pull back to reveal two tiny figures facing each other in a vast, empty space. The result is both operatic and intimate.

Morricone’s score deserves equal credit for making the movie feel larger than life. The music is less a background element than another character in the story. Whistles, bells, guitar, percussion, and that eerie watch melody give the film a sound unlike the traditional Hollywood western. It is playful in some moments and nightmarish in others. Most importantly, it makes the climactic duel feel like the culmination of everything the film has been building toward. The final confrontation is not just about who draws first. It is about memory, guilt, revenge, and whether a person can ever truly escape the worst moment of their life.

If A Fistful of Dollars was Leone proving that he could reinvent the western with attitude, For a Few Dollars More is him demonstrating that the formula could carry genuine darkness. It is still stylish, funny, and gleefully exaggerated. It still has impossible gunplay, swaggering antiheroes, and scenes designed purely to make the audience grin. But beneath all that is a colder film. Its violence is tied to trauma. Its men are defined by grudges they cannot release. Its most memorable villain is terrifying not because he is invincible, but because he is already spiritually broken.

Eastwood remains iconic, but Van Cleef is arguably the film’s emotional anchor. His performance gives the story weight without ever becoming melodramatic. Volonté, meanwhile, creates one of the great spaghetti-western villains: volatile, wounded, cruel, and unforgettable whenever that pocket watch begins to play. Leone would go even bigger and more ambitious with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but For a Few Dollars More may be the trilogy’s most focused character piece. It takes the sparse coolness of its predecessor and adds scars, grief, and a genuinely haunted sense of purpose.

Guilty Pleasure No. 126: Alligator (dir. by Lewis Teague)

Posted on August 17, 2026 by Arleigh

Lewis Teague’s Alligator is exactly the sort of movie that sounds like a bad joke until you sit down with it and realize it is having a much better time than most “serious” creature features. The premise is pure drive-in delirium: a baby alligator is flushed down a toilet, survives in the sewer system beneath St. Louis, Missouri, feeds on discarded laboratory animals pumped full of experimental growth hormones, and eventually becomes a gigantic, people-eating urban nightmare. It is absurd from the start, but that absurdity is the movie’s best asset. Alligator is not a good film in the polished, tightly controlled sense. It is too clunky, too broad, and too openly ridiculous for that. But it is never boring, and it understands that a movie about a giant alligator stalking the sewer tunnels under St. Louis should be grimy, nasty, funny, and just a little bit stupid.

The film arrives in that sweet spot between the straightforward animal-attack movies of the 1970s and the increasingly self-aware horror comedies of the 1980s. It has some of the structure of a Jaws knockoff, of course: authorities dismiss warnings, a difficult investigator takes the danger seriously, and a creature grows into an outsized public threat before the final confrontation. But Alligator does not have the resources, atmosphere, or aquatic terror of Spielberg’s film, and to its credit, it does not really pretend to. Instead, it leans into the cheapness of its materials. The alligator is mostly an oversized practical effect, sometimes convincing enough to be threatening and sometimes looking like the kind of thing that should be knocking over miniature buildings in a 1950s monster movie. The difference is that Teague knows how to frame the thing. He keeps the creature partly hidden when that helps, lets the sewer setting do much of the atmospheric heavy lifting, and saves the full ridiculousness of the monster for when ridiculousness is exactly what the audience wants.

There is an immediately appealing trashy logic to the story. The alligator is not simply an animal that wandered into the wrong place; it is a product of environmental carelessness, corporate experimentation, and the city’s tendency to throw its problems underground. The movie opens with a young girl’s pet alligator being flushed away after it bites someone, a cruelly comic act that functions as the film’s entire moral universe in miniature. Humans dispose of an inconvenient creature, neglect the consequences, and then act shocked when the creature becomes a gigantic murderous problem. The idea is broadly ecological and vaguely anti-corporate, but Alligator never becomes preachy. It keeps those elements in the background as an excuse for gore, sewer crawling, and a steadily escalating body count.

Robert Forster plays David Madison, a St. Louis cop with the permanently tired demeanor of someone who has been forced to listen to too many witnesses describe impossible things. Forster is a major reason the movie works as well as it does. He does not play the material like a joke, but he also does not strain to elevate it into prestige horror. His performance is dry, irritated, and completely appropriate for a man investigating missing-person cases that increasingly point toward a subterranean reptile large enough to eat a car. Madison is not a particularly complicated protagonist, but Forster gives him enough weary professionalism that the audience can follow him through the nonsense. His deadpan approach also makes the film funnier without turning it into outright parody.

The supporting cast is a strange, entertaining mixture of familiar character-actor energy and exploitation-movie weirdness. Robin Riker plays Marisa, a reptile expert and Madison’s eventual love interest, and she is better than the role strictly requires. She has a brisk, practical presence, which is useful in a movie where most characters either refuse to believe the obvious or exist to become alligator food. The romance between her and Madison is thin, but it is handled with enough low-key charm that it does not stop the movie cold. It feels like a necessary B-movie ingredient rather than a desperate attempt to convince viewers that they are watching something emotionally profound.

Then there is Henry Silva. Honestly, the presence of Henry Silva alone tells you what kind of movie Alligator is trying to be. Silva plays Colonel Brockman, a professional hunter hired by the evil pharmaceutical company to find and kill Ramon, the giant gator created by its illegal growth-hormone dumping. He is not the mastermind behind the scientific mess; he is the company’s hired cleanup crew, brought in once the whole operation has become too big and too toothy to bury. Silva approaches the role with exactly the degree of swaggering, oily menace it needs. He is here to be Henry Silva in a monster movie, which means glaring, sneering, and acting as though the chance to hunt a massive sewer reptile is simply another profitable afternoon at work. Every time he shows up, the movie gets a little more fun.

The screenplay comes from John Sayles, which is almost comically overqualified on paper, though it makes more sense once the dialogue starts landing. Sayles gives the movie flashes of wit and an edge of social satire that keep it from being totally disposable. There are jokes about cops, politicians, wealthy elites, and corporate corruption, and while none of them are especially subtle, they have the right bite for a film this grubby. The story’s best satirical impulse is its refusal to make the rich and powerful merely unlucky victims of the monster. The alligator’s rampage eventually collides with a wealthy social gathering, and the movie takes obvious pleasure in turning a fancy event into a feeding ground. It is not exactly The Texas Chain Saw Massacre in its class consciousness, but it does understand that watching an enormous reptile crash through the polished facade of upper-class respectability is satisfying.

Teague directs with the workmanlike confidence of someone who knows that the material only needs to get from one entertaining set piece to another. The sewer scenes are the film’s strongest visual material. They are damp, shadowy, cluttered, and full of the sort of industrial grime that exploitation cinema loves. The setting is inherently creepy because it is both unreal and plausible: everyone knows a city like St. Louis has tunnels, pipes, forgotten chambers, and places where things can disappear, even if nobody really believes a giant alligator lives down there. The movie uses that unease effectively. When characters descend into the darkness, the tension is simple but real. You know something huge is moving nearby, and you know the special effects are not going to hold up to close inspection, but the atmosphere carries you through.

The attacks are uneven, but that is part of the charm. Some are genuinely nasty, particularly when the movie lets the creature strike suddenly from the shadows. Others are so exaggerated that they become funny in ways the filmmakers likely anticipated. There is a particularly memorable moment involving a child and a swimming pool that has the gleefully tasteless punch of old-school grindhouse horror. Alligator is never as graphic as the nastier exploitation films of its era, but it has enough blood, torn bodies, and monstrous chomping to satisfy an audience looking for low-rent carnage. It knows the basic rule of this kind of movie: if you are going to ask viewers to accept a mutant sewer alligator, you had better let it eat some people.

What makes Alligator last beyond its premise is that it does not seem embarrassed by what it is. There are many creature features that feel apologetic, as if the filmmakers know they are making junk and are waiting for the audience to laugh at them. Teague’s film is junk, absolutely, but it is crafted junk. It has actual pacing, committed actors, useful atmosphere, and a screenplay that occasionally has more on its mind than the average monster-on-the-loose picture. It is bad enough that its flaws become part of the entertainment, especially whenever the huge reptile lumbers into view or the plot makes a leap that only makes sense if nobody involved pauses to think for ten seconds. Yet it is not so bad that it becomes a chore. That is the crucial distinction.

By the time Alligator reaches its climax, it has delivered nearly everything its title promises: sewers, corrupt businessmen, cops with guns, practical monster effects, socialites getting their comeuppance, and Henry Silva looking like he would gladly accept a corporate paycheck to hunt an enormous mutant reptile. It is the kind of film best watched with an appreciation for grime, excess, and the noble tradition of exploitation cinema turning a ridiculous idea into a perfectly decent Saturday-night monster movie. Alligator will not make anyone forget the great creature features, but it earns its place as a scrappy, trashy, oddly lovable B-movie. It is not awful. It is not even truly bad. It is just delightfully cheap, mean, and goofy enough to remind you why bad movies can sometimes be more fun than good ones.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Brad reviews STRAW DOGS (2011), starring James Marsden, Kate Bosworth, Alexander Skarsgard and James Woods!

Posted on August 16, 2026 by Bradley Crain

After reading a lot of negative reviews, I went into this 2011 remake of Sam Peckinpah’s STRAW DOGS expecting to not like it. I only bought the DVD because I’m a James Woods super-fan and completist. The good thing about that lowering of expectations, though, is that in my first viewing (in 2026) I was able to focus on the movie itself rather than in comparison to the original. After watching it, I would never argue that this version is a great movie, but I did find myself enjoying it more than I thought I would.

David and Amy Sumner (James Marsden and Kate Bosworth) arrive in her childhood hometown of Blackwater, Mississippi, where David plans to work on a screenplay while they fix up her old family home. David’s a successful Hollywood screenwriter, but he’s not tough at all, which is at odds with the small town football and southern deer-hunting culture he now finds himself in. Amy, who’s had some success as an actress, has a history with many of the people in town, especially her old boyfriend Charlie (Alexander Skarsgard). Eventually that history turns into something much more dangerous than you would ever imagine (if you hadn’t seen the original).

Because I’ve only seen the original film once or twice in my currently 52-year-old life, I don’t necessarily hold it as some sort of untouchable masterpiece of cinema, and I can like how this version of STRAW DOGS builds its tension. There are definitely some moments where I found myself wondering what the hell David and Amy were thinking. David seems intent on giving the local yokels every possible opportunity to walk all over him. Then again, as a person who always tries to be nice and avoid a fight, I don’t know how much different I would have been. I would hope that if my wife and entire livelihood was being threatened, however, I’d find the intestinal fortitude to do whatever it takes to protect them and myself. David eventually does find that nature within himself.

Amy’s unexplained behavior is even worse. After being offended that the locals ogle her when she’s exercising, she decides the appropriate response is taking her top off purposely in front of an open window so those same locals can see. While I can unequivocally state that there’s never any excuse for violence against women among rational people, the problem is that these are irrational people who don’t play by the rules of society. This is one of those cases where the only possible explanation for Amy’s behavior is because the screenplay needed her to do it. Even when the worst case scenario eventually plays out, the despicable behavior taps into our basic instincts and we want to see vengeance served.

James Marsden and Kate Bosworth are okay as David and Amy. Their characters aren’t particularly engaging, but you can’t help but pull for them in comparison to those around them. Alexander Skarsgard is awkward and creepy as Charlie, Amy’s old boyfriend. I loved him as the powerful vampire in the HBO series TRUE BLOOD. He’s something totally different here, and he eventually goes so far off the reservation you can’t help but want him to get his comeuppance. Of course, I wanted to watch the movie because of James Woods, who plays Tom Heddon, a former local high school football coach who seems to be just a drunk at the bar these days. It turns out that he’s loud, mean and incredibly nasty. In a history of playing vicious bastards, this character plays out as one of his worst. It’s an incredible performance just a couple of years before, as Woods has said, his unapologetically conservative political views would essentially get him blackballed from Hollywood.

The final scenes are extremely violent, and based on what we’ve seen, it’s hard not to feel that the violence is justified. It’s ugly, but I won’t deny that I wasn’t emotionally moved to see it. Legendary film critic Roger Ebert would say that he preferred this remake to the original. I won’t go that far, but that’s a pretty strong indicator that this film shouldn’t be dismissed just because most won’t find it to be as good as the original. What it is is a mean, violent thriller with some strong performances, especially from Skarsgard and Woods. If you’re willing to forget that it’s a remake of a superior film from 40 years earlier, you just may enjoy it!

Review: The Last House (dir. by Louis Leterrier)

Posted on August 15, 2026 by Arleigh

“The day the rains came, we learned we were not alone.” — Ruth Delgado

The Last House has the kind of premise that is immediately effective: a family wakes up to find that their home has become an inescapable prison. Doors refuse to open, windows cannot be broken, and the outside world is suddenly as unreachable as it is threatening. Directed by Louis Leterrier, the Netflix thriller gets plenty of mileage out of that simple idea. It turns a comfortable suburban house into a claustrophobic survival space, pushes a family toward desperation, and gives its familiar setting a creeping sense of hostility. Still, while the movie is often tense and well-acted, it eventually becomes too crowded with ideas to make any one of them land as strongly as it should.

Wagner Moura and Greta Lee play Jason and Ann Delgado, parents trying to keep their two children calm while they figure out why they have been sealed inside their own home. The film wisely does not waste much time getting to the central crisis. Once the family realizes that no amount of force can open a door or shatter a window, the atmosphere shifts quickly from confusion to panic. At first, there is still a practical logic to their reactions. They test the house’s boundaries, look for tools, try to contact the outside world, and ration what they have. But as each option fails, the family begins to understand that this is not a temporary inconvenience. It is a situation that may outlast their food, water, patience, and ability to trust one another.

That is where The Last House is at its strongest. The film understands how quickly a normal home can become frightening once its basic purpose changes. Kitchens, bedrooms, closets, and hallways are not inherently scary spaces, but the movie makes them feel smaller and more oppressive as the Delgados lose their sense of control. A stocked pantry becomes a countdown. A closed bedroom door no longer offers privacy. The family’s routines and minor annoyances, which initially make the house feel lived-in, become sources of friction when nobody has the option to leave. The production design effectively captures that deterioration, gradually turning an ordinary family home into a cramped, stale environment defined by empty shelves, dim rooms, and blocked exits.

Moura is the film’s standout. Jason begins as someone who wants to solve the problem through force of will and practical action, but that confidence wears down as he realizes that the situation is beyond him. Moura gives the character a believable mix of frustration, fear, and stubbornness. He is not simply an action-thriller father trying to save the day; he is a man whose sense of usefulness begins to collapse when he cannot protect his family or even provide a way out. Greta Lee is also good as Ann, particularly when the film allows her to show the exhaustion of having to steady everyone else while quietly processing the danger herself. However, Ann is not written with quite as much specificity as Jason, and Lee is sometimes left carrying scenes that ask her to reassure or react rather than reveal more about who she is.

The children help maintain the emotional stakes, though their roles are less developed. Their fear and frustration make sense, and the film does a decent job of showing how confinement affects them differently than it affects their parents. But they often function more as pressure points for Jason and Ann than as characters with their own fully formed perspectives. The family dynamic is convincing enough to keep the story grounded, yet the screenplay never digs quite deeply enough into their shared history or unresolved tensions. There are signs of financial strain, parental guilt, and marital distance, but the movie tends to introduce these ideas without fully following through on them.

The film also brushes against an interesting nature-versus-civilization theme. The Delgados’ home represents the ordinary comforts that make modern life feel secure: stocked food, electricity, sturdy walls, private rooms, and the assumption that help is available when something goes wrong. Once the house becomes sealed, those comforts lose their meaning. The family is forced to focus on the basics—food, water, shelter, sleep, and cooperation. Their home no longer separates them from danger; it contains them inside it. The movie’s best thematic moments come from that reversal, as it suggests that civilization is much more fragile than people like to believe.

Unfortunately, The Last House complicates this solid foundation by adding another mysterious danger from the depths. The threat remains vague for much of the story, and that uncertainty creates an unnatural, ominous feeling around the family’s confinement. It gives the film an extra layer of dread, making the Delgados’ problem feel bigger than a sealed house or an isolated storm. But it also pulls attention away from the more compelling material already in place. The family’s struggle to survive, their conflict over dwindling resources, and their gradual loss of trust are strong enough to sustain the movie without needing such an elaborate additional mystery.

That is ultimately the film’s main weakness: it keeps expanding its scope when it should be tightening its focus. The intimate story of a family stuck together under impossible conditions is more powerful than the larger explanation the movie slowly reaches for. As the plot adds more questions about the source of the danger, it risks making the situation feel less immediate. The best scenes are not necessarily the ones that hint at what is happening beyond the walls. They are the ones where the Delgados must decide who gets the last resources, whether to take a reckless chance, or how much truth the parents should tell their children. Those moments make the house feel like a real emotional battleground rather than simply the setting for a mystery.

Leterrier keeps the pacing moving well enough, especially in the first half, and the rainy exterior, muted lighting, and increasingly worn-down interiors give the film a consistently uneasy mood. Even when the screenplay starts to overreach, the movie remains watchable because it knows how to frame the house as a hostile space. It is not a deeply original visual concept, but it is effective. The sense of enclosure becomes almost physical as the family’s world shrinks to a few rooms and the possibility of escape starts to feel less real with every failed attempt.

In the end, The Last House is a decent, occasionally gripping survival thriller that does not fully live up to the potential of its premise. Moura and Lee give it enough emotional weight, and the movie’s domestic setting gives the tension a relatable edge. Yet the script does not always trust its strongest idea: that being trapped with the people you love can become frightening when there is no exit, no help, and no certainty that normal life will return. By piling a mysterious external danger onto its family drama and survival story, The Last House becomes more ambitious without becoming more meaningful. It is worth watching for its atmosphere, performances, and early suspense, but it would have been stronger as a leaner, more focused film about a family discovering how quickly safety can turn into confinement.

Review: Colors (dir. by Dennis Hopper)

Posted on August 13, 2026 by Arleigh

“You got problems with the whole fuckin’ world.” — Officer Bob Hodges

Consider, for a moment, the cultural landscape of 1988. Inner-city gang violence was hardly a new phenomenon, but it remained largely relegated to local news broadcasts and distant urban nightmares for most of the country. Dennis Hopper’s Colors changed that dynamic almost overnight, serving as a brutal, unfiltered introduction to a world that mainstream America had collectively chosen to ignore. Hopper, whose own countercultural credentials were cemented decades earlier with Easy Rider, took a considerable risk here, and while the final product is undeniably uneven, its cultural footprint is impossible to overstate. The film functions simultaneously as a historical document, a cautionary tale, and a cinematic watermark that forever altered how audiences perceived the volatile landscape of Los Angeles.

The basic setup is old-school buddy-cop material. Robert Duvall plays Bob Hodges, a seasoned LAPD officer in the CRASH unit—Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums—who has spent enough years policing Los Angeles to understand that aggression does not automatically produce respect. Sean Penn plays Danny McGavin, his hotheaded new partner, a guy who approaches every situation like he has something to prove. They are assigned to patrol neighborhoods divided by Bloods, Crips, and Chicano gangs, attempting to keep retaliation killings from escalating into full-scale warfare. The main plot is not especially complicated, and that is probably intentional. Hopper is less interested in a twist-heavy police procedural than in dropping the viewer into a city where tension seems to hang over every street corner, traffic stop, and act of public bravado.

Duvall is the film’s anchor. Hodges is not written as a saint—he is still a cop working inside a hostile and often brutal institution—but Duvall gives him a weary, almost paternal quality that makes him more compelling than the standard “veteran teaching the rookie a lesson” archetype. He understands that policing gangs is not as simple as walking in, making arrests, and congratulating yourself afterward. He has a kind of street fluency, knowing when to talk, when to threaten, and when to step back before a small humiliation becomes a body count. Penn, meanwhile, is all sharp edges. McGavin is reckless, racist in ways he may not fully recognize, and always a half-second away from making a situation worse. Penn can be exhausting here, but that is the point. His character embodies the movie’s fear that a badge, a gun, and an appetite for confrontation can be as combustible as any gang rivalry.

Hopper directs Colors with a lot of energy and an almost documentary-like alertness to its setting. The film’s Los Angeles feels sun-blasted, crowded, and perpetually unstable, not the glossy dream factory of postcards and celebrity magazines. Haskell Wexler’s cinematography does huge work in making the city feel tactile and lived-in. Hopper also has a sharp ear for the way music, cars, clothing, graffiti, and neighborhood boundaries become a visual language of identity. The title is not subtle, but it works: colors signify affiliation, pride, danger, and the instantly visible lines people are willing to kill or die over. The film’s soundtrack, including Ice-T’s title song, further locks it into the cultural moment, giving the movie a rawness that separates it from more generic police thrillers.

What makes Colors uncomfortable is also what makes it valuable. Its attention to gangs was controversial from the beginning, with critics and community voices arguing that it risked sensationalizing violence and reducing Black and Latino communities to dangerous backdrops for a cop story. The criticism is fair. The film sees gang life largely from the windshield of the LAPD cruiser; its gang-affiliated characters are often treated as threats, symbols, or tragic consequences rather than people granted the same interiority as Hodges and McGavin. Even at its strongest, Colors can make complex social realities feel like an arena in which two white cops test their methods and masculinity.

Still, it would be wrong to dismiss it as empty exploitation. Colors does not really romanticize its violence. Hopper shoots drive-bys, funerals, and retaliations with a nasty abruptness; nobody comes out looking triumphant. The gang members are not cleanly divided into monsters and victims either. Some are cruel, some are frightened, some are locked into a status they may not know how to escape, and some clearly enjoy the power that comes with being feared. The movie may not fully examine poverty, segregation, institutional racism, the drug economy, or generational trauma, but the instability of its world comes through. The police are not presented as saviors, either. They are frequently antagonistic, operating through intimidation and humiliation, while McGavin’s actions repeatedly demonstrate how easily law enforcement can intensify exactly the conflict it claims to contain.

This is where Colors matters most historically. Before it, movies had certainly depicted urban crime, racial conflict, and youth violence, but Hopper’s film made contemporary L.A. gang culture recognizable as a major studio subject. It helped bring gang culture, strained police-community relations, and inner-city issues into a much wider popular conversation. The film did not invent the genre that followed, but it helped clear a path for the wave of gang-related and urban-crime movies that arrived in the late ’80s and especially the ’90s. Films such as Boyz n the Hood, American Me, South Central, New Jack City, and Menace II Society inherited some of its urgency, its focus on neighborhoods under siege, and its refusal to pretend gang violence was merely a distant news-story problem.

The major difference is that many of those later movies also corrected Colors’ biggest limitation: they shifted the point of view inward. Boyz n the Hood does not treat South Central as a backdrop for police work; it makes the residents’ friendships, families, dreams, grief, and daily routines the emotional center. American Me follows the historical and institutional roots of Chicano gang identity with a scope Colors never attempts. South Central turns toward redemption, fatherhood, and the possibility—however fragile—of interrupting the cycle. In that sense, Hopper’s film can feel like an important opening statement rather than the final word. It showed mainstream audiences the subject; the films that followed increasingly demanded that audiences understand the people living inside it.

Its influence can also be felt internationally, though it is best understood as part of a broader transnational exchange of urban-crime cinema, hip-hop culture, and anti-police sentiment rather than a simple one-to-one blueprint. Mathieu Kassovitz’s La Haine is far more formally daring and politically focused than Colors, but both films draw power from a city divided by territory, race, policing, and simmering retaliation. La Haine brought France’s banlieues to mainstream French audiences and put police violence and marginalized youth at the center of the frame. Where Colors views the street crisis through law enforcement’s eyes, La Haine makes its young Black, Jewish, and Arab protagonists the whole point. Yet the resemblance is there in the oppressive sense of escalation, the combustible police encounters, and the idea that one violent incident can send an already alienated community toward catastrophe. Colors helped establish a mainstream vocabulary for this kind of story, while La Haine transformed that vocabulary into something more intimate, stylized, and politically devastating.

In the end, Colors is messy, dated in places, and frustratingly narrow in its perspective, but those flaws are part of why it is worth revisiting. It captures a Hollywood industry beginning to confront an issue it did not fully understand, using the sturdy frame of a cop thriller to look at a social wound much larger than its plot. Dennis Hopper brings volatility, Duvall brings soul, Penn brings danger, and Los Angeles itself does the rest. It is not the definitive gang film—later movies would surpass it in depth, perspective, and emotional force—but it is a crucial precursor. Colors made the subject visible to the mainstream, and the films that came after kept pushing the camera closer to the people trapped inside the picture.

Brad reviews Samuel Fuller’s RUN OF THE ARROW (1957), starring Rod Steiger and Charles Bronson!

Posted on August 12, 2026 by Bradley Crain

RUN OF THE ARROW opens with confederate sharpshooter O’Meara (Rod Steiger) shooting the final shot of the Civil War. With no war to fight and with a heart full of hate for the Yankees, O’Meara declares himself to be a man without a country and heads west. When he’s captured by a band of Sioux warriors led by Crazy Wolf (H.M. Wynant), he invokes the “run of the arrow”, a ritualistic game that could save his life. The problem… no one has ever survived the run of the arrow, but today’s his lucky day as he’s wounded but survives just long enough to be saved by the beautiful Yellow Moccasin (Sarita Montiel). She nurses him back to health and presents him to her tribal chief, Blue Buffalo (Charles Bronson), who eventually allows O’Meara and Yellow Moccasin to get married. Things seem to be going so well, too well. When Crazy Wolf starts another violent campaign against the American army, O’Meara must decide if he’s a Sioux warrior willing to kill American soldiers, or if there’s a part of him that can still love his country?

In RUN OF THE ARROW, director Samuel Fuller made a movie about the damage that occurs when human beings allow their hearts to be so filled with hate that they quit caring about other people. It’s also about what happens when those same people run into rational people, and we find out if they’re capable of considering the possibility that their own hate has blinded them from the truth. In other words, it’s a film that’s possibly more relevant today than it was when it was made in 1957. Bitterness and hate are represented by the characters of O’Meara (Steiger), Crazy Wolf (Wynant), and Lieutenant Driscoll (Ralph Meeker). O’Meara hates Yankees, Crazy Wolf hates the white man, and Driscoll hates the Indians. The rational people are the characters of Yellow Moccasin (Montiel), Blue Buffalo (Bronson), and Captain Clark (Brian Keith). Yellow Moccasin saves O’Meara when everyone else would have just let him die. Blue Buffalo engages in honest conversation with O’Meara and even welcomes him into their tribe. Captain Clark shows O’Meara an empathetic ear and kindness when others have told him to just get over himself. The actions and fates of the characters play out against this dynamic of hatred versus humanity, with the results underscoring just how tragic it is when people focus on the things that separate us rather than the things that unite us. It’s all so unnecessary, but it’s also a realistic vision of the world we live in. The film also struck me as particularly violent for a 50’s western, which also underscores that reality.

Some of the performances are very effective in the film. Rod Steiger’s Irish, confederate Sioux is an interesting character and the actor gives it his all as you’d expect. I’m a big fan of Steiger and his performance here only solidifies my respect for him. Brian Keith’s Captain Clark arrives fairly late in the proceedings and comes across as a tough, but honest man of integrity at a point when the movie really needs him. He has an excellent scene with Steiger where he debates the old confederate’s reasons for renouncing his citizenship with both sound logic, empathy, kindness and a hint of likable sarcasm all at the same time. It’s one of the best scenes in the film. And likewise, Charles Bronson, the most buff Hollywood Indian to ever strip down to a loincloth, comes across as a reasonable and kind tribal chief in his dealings. Bronson had played American Indians before, but he was usually more of the renegade, warpath variety, so it was nice seeing him as a good guy here. H.M. Wynant took the renegade Sioux warrior role here which you might have expected for Bronson at the time. He’s suitably fierce but one-dimensional. The same can be said for Ralph Meeker as Lieutenant Driscoll. He’s pretty much just a stereotypical jerk. He’s good at being a jerk though! And Sarita Montiel, voiced by Angie Dickinson, is quite the beauty as Yellow Moccasin.

I’ve recently heard RUN OF THE ARROW compared to Kevin Costner’s DANCES WITH WOLVES, and there are definitely similarities. I won’t go into all of those here, but one of the things I appreciated the most about RUN OF THE ARROW is the fact that the movie makes its feelings known about politics. In a movie filled with characters who have had their lives upended by the various decisions of political leaders, Fuller has crafted a story that focuses most sharply on defining the quality of men based on what’s in their “hearts.” When it’s all said and done, oftentimes the only control we have is the way we respond to the events in our lives, and that’s not politics, it’s personal. To drive this home, an older scout named Walking Coyote tells O’Meara that he could have been a chief if he had wanted to be. When O’Meara pushes him on why he didn’t want the position, Walking Coyote responds with, “Because I hate politics!” On that point, I couldn’t agree more.

Review: Rollercoaster (dir. by James Goldstone)

Posted on August 12, 2026 by Arleigh

“If they pay me and if they do what I say, I’ll never bother them again.” — Young Man

James Goldstone’s 1977 film Rollercoaster exists in a fascinating, albeit deeply flawed, space within the history of seventies disaster cinema. If you are a fan of retro 70s movies, specifically the whole Sensurround era where Hollywood was desperately trying to get people out of their living rooms and into theaters with seat-rumbling audio gimmicks, you have probably heard of this one. It has a genuinely neat, gritty vibe because it was actually shot on location at real amusement parks like Kings Island and Magic Mountain. You get this awesome, vintage, mid-century theme park atmosphere that you just cannot fake on a studio backlot. You can almost smell the cotton candy, the hot asphalt, and the stale beer. But once that initial wave of nostalgia wears off, you are left looking at what is actually on the screen, and honestly, Rollercoaster is not a great film. In fact, one could very easily say it is not even a good film. At its absolute best of times, it is a thoroughly average, middle-of-the-road thriller that feels more like a slightly elevated, padded-out television movie of the week than a major theatrical release.

The plot is about as standard as it gets for this era of disaster-adjacent cinema. A mysterious, young terrorist starts blowing up rollercoasters, not for any grand political manifesto, but simply to extort amusement park owners for millions of dollars. Enter our protagonist, Harry Calder, played by George Segal, who is a cynical safety inspector that just happens to survive the first derailment. Segal is basically just playing George Segal here—exasperated, a bit snarky, wearing a rumpled suit, and teaming up with an FBI agent played by Richard Widmark. The villain is played by a very young Timothy Bottoms, who is effectively creepy but given virtually zero backstory or motivation. He is just a blank-eyed psycho doing psycho things because the script needs an antagonist. The movie essentially just bounces from one park to another, with Segal walking around looking stressed while the FBI tries to figure out where the next bomb is hidden.

The pacing is arguably the film’s biggest sin. For a movie literally named Rollercoaster, it is shockingly lacking in momentum. Goldstone’s direction completely lacks the tight, pulse-pounding beats you would expect from a high-stakes thriller. There is so much filler here, so many scenes of Segal drinking coffee and staring at blueprints, and so much tedious FBI bureaucratic nonsense that it completely kills any tension. The romantic subplot feels entirely tacked on, and the climax fails to deliver the massive, explosive payoff you have been waiting for. If you judge Rollercoaster purely on its cinematic merits—the acting, the script, the direction—it is undeniably average, the kind of movie you leave on in the background while you fold laundry.

However, despite all of these glaring, undeniable flaws, Rollercoaster has a fascinating, almost prophetic legacy when you look back at the history of the thriller genre. It may not be remembered as a great movie, but it essentially built the exact template for an entire subgenre of cat-and-mouse thrillers that dominated the 90s. It practically invented the “specific-professional-against-a-psychopathic-mastermind” formula. Before Rollercoaster, thrillers were usually about spies, cops, or generic everymen. But this film introduced the idea of a highly specific, niche expert being forced into a one-on-one intellectual duel with a terrorist who targets them specifically because of their expertise. Think about how that exact template was endlessly copied and refined in the decades that followed. Look at In the Line of Fire, where Clint Eastwood plays a Secret Service agent hunted by a psycho played by John Malkovich. Or look at Blown Away, where Jeff Bridges is a bomb-defusing expert tormented by an Irish terrorist played by Tommy Lee Jones. Even The Bone Collector fits this mold perfectly, with Denzel Washington’s bedridden forensics expert being targeted by a serial killer who uses specific crime scenes just to test Washington’s intellect. All of these films drew direct DNA from Rollercoaster, using that exact same dynamic of a reluctant protagonist with a very particular set of skills being singled out by a psychopath who treats mass murder like a twisted, personalized game of chess. And if you want the absolute pinnacle of the “expert vs. bomb” trope, you have to look at Speed, which polished the cat-and-mouse dynamic perfected right here in Rollercoaster.

Because the original film was so hampered by 1970s filmmaking technology, it really makes you realize how easily this movie could be remade in this day and age. Back then, the actual destruction of the rides was limited by practical effects, clunky models, and standard camera angles that made the crashes feel somewhat static and safe. Today, technology in filmmaking has advanced to the point that the sheer scale, speed, and physical danger of the rides themselves really does become the focus of real danger. With modern CGI, drone cameras, and advanced practical rigging, you could put the audience right inside the front car of a 300-foot hyper-coaster as the tracks buckle and twist in slow motion. You could make the metal fatigue, the snapping cables, and the horrific physics of a derailment feel genuinely terrifying, turning the amusement park rides into massive, mechanical monsters rather than just static backdrop props for guys in suits to talk around.

Naturally, if Hollywood were to actually remake Rollercoaster today, you know exactly how it would look and who would star in it. It would undoubtedly star someone like Dwayne Johnson or Chris Pratt, a guy who can deliver a quip while looking concerned and holding a blueprint. They would inevitably give the safety inspector a tragic backstory, probably a dead wife or a kid they are estranged from, just to artificially raise the emotional stakes. And because it is a high-concept thriller that does not quite have the cultural weight of a massive comic book franchise, the remake would almost certainly be relegated to a streaming release. It would drop on a Friday on Netflix or Amazon Prime with a generic, algorithmically tested poster and a slick, forgettable title. It would be exactly the kind of mid-budget, mildly entertaining action flick you watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon before completely forgetting about it by Monday morning.

So, ultimately, how do you rate a movie like Rollercoaster? You just have to accept its extreme averageness and respect its ripple effect. It is clunky, the performances are uneven, and it is rarely as thrilling as its title promises. But it absolutely should not be written off entirely. It was the exact moment Hollywood realized that pitting highly specialized professionals against high-concept villains made for compelling, relatable drama. Without George Segal boredly walking around Magic Mountain, we probably do not get the overly dramatic, incredibly ridiculous, yet thoroughly entertaining 90s thriller boom, nor the slick, CGI-heavy streaming thrillers of today. Rollercoaster might just be a mediocre hill, but it is undeniably the hill that started the entire ride.

Review: Zulu (dir. by Cy Endfield)

Posted on August 7, 2026 by Arleigh

“Because we’re here, lad. Nobody else. Just us. — Color Sergeant Frank Bourne

Cy Endfield’s Zulu is one of those old-fashioned war films that earns its epic reputation less through grand speeches or sentimental manipulation than through patience, physical detail, and an almost brutally simple premise: a small British force at Rorke’s Drift must hold its position against a vastly larger Zulu army. Released in 1964 and set during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, the film takes a historical event that could easily have become a stiff patriotic pageant and turns it into something tense, visually overwhelming, and surprisingly measured for its era. It is certainly built around British soldiers as its main point of identification, and it cannot fully escape the colonial framing of its story, but it gives the Zulu fighters a degree of discipline, courage, and humanity that many comparable films of the period would have denied them.

The opening has a deliberately sober quality. Before the siege gets underway, Endfield establishes the aftermath of the British disaster at Isandlwana, an event that hangs heavily over every decision made at the isolated mission station. Lieutenant John Chard, played by Stanley Baker, is not introduced as an obvious hero. He is an engineer officer who finds himself unexpectedly in command, unsure of what authority he truly has and visibly aware that the situation may be hopeless. Michael Caine, in one of his early major roles, plays Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead as the more aristocratic and initially dismissive counterpart. Their relationship is a familiar clash of temperaments, but the actors keep it from becoming too cartoonish. Baker gives Chard a practical, weary steadiness, while Caine makes Bromhead’s pride feel like both a weakness and a defense mechanism.

What makes Zulu work so well is how clearly it understands the mechanics of a siege. The film takes time to show men sorting supplies, moving mealie bags, organizing firing lines, reinforcing walls, and deciding which buildings can or cannot be held. That attention to logistics gives the action real weight. When the Zulu army finally appears along the hillsides, it is not just a cue for spectacle. It is the moment when every earlier decision becomes frighteningly important. The defenders are not winning through superhuman skill; they are surviving because they build, adapt, reload, retreat, and improvise faster than the situation can collapse around them.

Endfield’s command of scale is still impressive. The broad South African landscapes make the station seem tiny and exposed, while the formations of Zulu warriors moving across the terrain have a force that CGI-heavy battle scenes often struggle to recreate. The action is not especially graphic by contemporary standards, but it is physically convincing. Bodies fall, rifles jam, ammunition runs low, and the walls that seemed secure a few minutes earlier suddenly look inadequate. The battles have a clean visual geography as well. You can generally understand where the soldiers are positioned, where the attacks are coming from, and why a breach in one area threatens everyone else. That clarity is a major reason the film remains so watchable.

The Zulu warriors are filmed with genuine awe. They are the opposition in a military sense, but the movie rarely treats them as faceless monsters. Their attacks are coordinated, their persistence is formidable, and the British soldiers repeatedly acknowledge their courage. One of the film’s strongest ideas is that the men on both sides are forced to recognize the ability of the other. The final exchange of salutes is still powerful because it does not feel like a cheap declaration that war is noble. Instead, it feels like exhausted recognition after a catastrophe that has demanded terrible losses from everyone involved.

The film deserves credit for this, particularly considering the era in which it was made, although it still gives the Zulu perspective far less interiority than the British one. Individual British soldiers receive backstories, doubts, comic beats, and personal arcs; the Zulu fighters are mainly presented as a collective force. That limitation matters because the actual Anglo-Zulu War was not simply a neutral contest between two equally situated military forces. It occurred within the larger reality of British colonial expansion, and the film only lightly touches the political forces that made the battle possible. Zulu is more respectful than many older war movies, but it is not free of the assumptions of its time.

The historical side of Zulu is one of its most interesting qualities. The film does a very good job at historical accuracy, which is a rarity for films depicting real-life historical events, especially in the way it presents the basic structure of the defense at Rorke’s Drift: a badly outnumbered British garrison fortifying the station and enduring repeated Zulu assaults. Its investment in terrain, formations, material conditions, and the general progression of the battle makes the event feel researched rather than casually invented. The staging has a sense of military procedure that helps sell the defense as something grounded in a real crisis rather than merely a legend inflated for the screen.

That said, the characterization of the historical people involved was not as accurate, which is where the dramatic license comes in. The most famous example is Private Henry Hook, played with rough comic energy by James Booth. In the film, Hook begins as an unruly alcoholic and apparent coward before proving himself under fire. The real Henry Hook was a disciplined soldier and a teetotaler, making the movie version an almost total reinvention built around the satisfying “unlikely hero” arc. Bromhead is also simplified into a more inexperienced upper-class officer than the historical man appears to have been, while Colour Sergeant Bourne is made into a weathered older veteran despite having been only 24 at the time. These choices make sense as storytelling devices, but they are worth recognizing because they shape the viewer’s emotional understanding of the people involved.

There are other liberties that are harder to overlook once you know the history. The film presents the 24th Regiment as strongly Welsh and builds toward the memorable use of “Men of Harlech,” even though the regiment was not formally the South Wales Borderers at the time and the song was not its regimental song during the battle. The famous singing exchange between the defenders and the Zulus is also pure cinema rather than a recorded historical occurrence. It is a great scene on its own terms—moving, tense, and an effective pause before the final strain of the battle—but it also shows how Zulu turns history into myth. The movie is at its best when its embellishments intensify the human stakes without pretending that they are literal fact.

The performances throughout are solid, even when the writing leans into broad types. Stanley Baker holds the center with quiet authority, avoiding the temptation to make Chard a conventionally inspirational leader. Michael Caine is more visibly theatrical, but that suits Bromhead’s gradual shift from aloofness to responsibility. Jack Hawkins brings warmth and moral conviction to Reverend Witt, while Nigel Green’s Colour Sergeant Bourne provides the hard military backbone of the defense. James Booth is entertaining as Hook, even if the character’s historical distortion is unfortunate. The ensemble works because the film makes room for fear, resentment, class tension, and stubborn professionalism. These men do not suddenly become perfect comrades; they simply realize they have no choice but to depend on one another.

John Barry’s score deserves mention too. The music has the grandeur expected from a film of this size, but it does not overwhelm every scene with triumph. It often emphasizes rhythm and mounting pressure instead, helping the battle feel like a sustained ordeal. The sound of rifle fire, shouted commands, and the Zulu war chants combines with the score to create an atmosphere that is both stirring and unnerving. Even viewers who know the outcome can feel the uncertainty of each new attack because the film never lets the defense seem comfortably under control.

Ultimately, Zulu is a compelling and visually magnificent war film that remains worth watching precisely because it is not as simple as its reputation might suggest. It can be thrilling without being entirely celebratory, respectful without being fully equitable, and historically attentive without being historically pure. Its battle reconstruction is unusually convincing, while its treatment of real individuals often bends the truth to create clearer dramatic roles. That tension is part of what makes the film so fascinating. It is a classic piece of large-scale filmmaking, anchored by memorable performances and superb action staging, but it is also a reminder that even a relatively careful historical movie can turn real people and complex colonial history into a more streamlined story. Zulu does not offer the final word on Rorke’s Drift, but as cinema, it remains tough, exciting, and far more thoughtful than a standard war spectacle.