Review: National Treasure (dir. by John Turteltaub)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Arleigh

“If there’s something wrong, those who have the ability to take action have the responsibility to take action.” — Benjamin Gates

National Treasure directed by John Turteltaub is one of those movies that feels like a love letter to adventure, history, and a bit of old-fashioned treasure hunting. It’s the kind of film that doesn’t take itself too seriously but still manages to pull you in with its charm, puzzles, and non-stop action. At its heart, it’s a story about obsession, legacy, and the idea that history isn’t just something you read about in books—it’s something you can touch, chase, and maybe even uncover if you’re clever enough.

The movie kicks off with Benjamin Franklin Gates, played by Nicolas Cage in one of his most Nicolas Cage roles, as a historian and amateur treasure hunter convinced that a massive treasure hidden by the Freemasons and the Founding Fathers is real. The idea is wild: a secret stash of gold, artifacts, and historical riches hidden away to keep them out of the wrong hands. Most people, including his own father, think he’s nuts. But Ben’s got a lead, and when a rival treasure hunter, Ian Howe (played by Sean Bean), starts closing in on the same clues, the race is on. The stakes get higher when Ben realizes that if Howe finds the treasure first, it could mean disaster—not just for Ben’s reputation, but for history itself.

What makes National Treasure so much fun is how it blends history with a modern-day adventure. The film takes real historical figures and events—like the Declaration of Independence, the Liberty Bell, and the National Archives—and weaves them into a fictional but plausible treasure hunt. It’s the kind of movie that makes you want to dust off your old history textbooks or visit a museum the next day. The puzzles and clues are clever, even if they’re a little far-fetched. From invisible ink on the back of the Declaration to a series of riddles leading to the next location, the film keeps you guessing and engaged. And let’s be honest, who hasn’t daydreamed about finding a hidden message in a famous document or stumbling upon a secret that changes everything?

You really cannot talk about National Treasure without talking about Nicolas Cage. By 2004, Cage had already firmly established his reputation as an actor who brings a very specific, slightly unhinged energy to every role, and Benjamin Franklin Gates might be the perfect vessel for that energy. Ben is a nerd, but he is a nerd who somehow knows how to do parkour and execute complex heists. Cage plays him with this weird, endearing earnestness that anchors the movie. He delivers ridiculous lines about the Illuminati and secret tunnels with the gravity of a Shakespearean monologue, and it is hilarious, but it also makes you genuinely root for him. He never winks at the audience; he truly believes in the treasure, and that conviction pulls the whole thing together.

Of course, Cage cannot carry the entire movie on his own, and the supporting cast is surprisingly well-calibrated for this kind of ridiculous adventure. Justin Bartha plays Riley Poole, Ben’s tech-savvy sidekick who provides a running commentary of sarcastic quips. Bartha is essentially the audience surrogate, constantly pointing out how insane everything is, but he never gets annoying, which is a tough balancing act for a comic relief character in an action movie. Then there is Diane Kruger as Abigail Chase, an archivist at the National Archives who gets dragged into the chaos. Kruger does a great job of playing the exasperated straight woman to Cage’s eccentric history buff, and their chemistry is surprisingly charming, even if her character arc basically boils down to realizing that stealing national monuments is actually kind of fun.

On the villain side of things, we have Sean Bean as Ian Howe, and honestly, casting Sean Bean as a treasure-hunting bad guy is just a cheat code for making your movie better. Howe is a classic blockbuster villain—polished, ruthless, and driven entirely by greed—but Bean gives him just enough suave charm that he feels like a genuine threat rather than a cartoonish punching bag. Rounding out the main cast is Jon Voight as Ben’s estranged father, Patrick, and Christopher Plummer as his grandfather, John. Their inclusion adds a nice generational family drama to the story. The Gates family has been mocked for centuries for chasing this mythical treasure, and seeing Ben finally prove his father wrong adds a surprising amount of emotional weight to a movie that is otherwise about stealing the Declaration of Independence with a bunch of plastic ciphers.

John Turteltaub’s direction keeps the movie moving at a brisk pace. There’s never a dull moment, and the film balances its action sequences with quieter moments of discovery and problem-solving. The chase scenes, whether it’s through the streets of Washington D.C. or the tunnels beneath Philadelphia, are exciting without being over-the-top. The film also does a great job of making the historical elements feel tangible. When Ben and his team are examining a clue or piecing together a puzzle, you feel like you’re right there with them, trying to figure it out alongside them. It’s a testament to Turteltaub’s ability to make the implausible feel plausible, at least for the two hours you’re watching the movie.

Of course, National Treasure isn’t without its flaws. The plot does require a fair amount of suspension of disbelief. The idea that a treasure of this magnitude could stay hidden for centuries, or that Ben could outsmart everyone from the FBI to a team of professional thieves, is a stretch. And some of the historical liberties the film takes might make purists cringe. But that’s part of the fun. This isn’t a documentary—it’s a popcorn movie, and it embraces that wholeheartedly. The film also leans heavily on its twists and turns, some of which you might see coming a mile away. But even when you can predict what’s going to happen next, it’s still entertaining to watch it unfold.

What really stands out about National Treasure is its sense of wonder. It’s a movie that reminds you of the joy of discovery, whether it’s uncovering a hidden clue or simply learning something new about the world. The film’s climax, set in a secret underground chamber, is a perfect example of this. Without giving too much away, it’s a moment that feels both epic and intimate, a payoff for all the hard work and dedication Ben has put into his quest. And while the treasure itself might not be what you expect, the journey to find it is what makes the movie so satisfying.

In the end, National Treasure is a film that’s easy to enjoy. It’s got action, humor, history, and heart, all wrapped up in a package that’s as entertaining as it is lighthearted. It’s the kind of movie you can watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon and come away from feeling like you’ve been on an adventure yourself. Sure, it might not be high art, but it doesn’t need to be. Sometimes, a great story, a little bit of mystery, and a lot of fun are all you need. And National Treasure delivers on all three. If you’re a fan of adventure films, history buffs, or just love a good treasure hunt, this one’s for you. Just don’t be surprised if you find yourself Googling Freemason symbols or the history of the Declaration of Independence afterward.

Film Review: The Crucible (dir by Nicholas Hytner)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 1692 and 1693, over 200 people were accused witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts. Thirty people were found guilty. 19 were executed, fourteen women and five men. One man died while being tortured in an effort to get a confession out of him. At least five more people died in their jail cells, awaiting their trial.

There’s a lot of debate about how the witch trials actually began but it’s generally agreed that the initial accusations were made by four girls in the village of Salem. The oldest was 17 while the youngest was just nine. (One of the girls, 12 year-old Abigail Williams, was related to the village’s pastor, Samuel Parris. Traditionally, she has been portrayed as being the ringleader of the accusers.) The girls claimed that the women of the village had caused them physical pain through witchcraft. Soon, other girls in nearby villages were making similar accusations. Some of the accused confessed to being witches to avoid execution. Others claimed to be innocent but also said they knew who the real witches were. And, of course, many refused to confess and were executed as a result.

Today, it’s easy to see that the Salem Witch Trials were an early “moral panic.” What is often forgotten is that, even at the time the trials were taking place, there were many prominent thinkers who condemned them as being a case of mass hysteria. In the years immediately following the trials, the majority of its victims were posthumously exonerated. The Reverend Samuel Parris wrote an official apology letter for his role in the trials. One of the legacies of the Salem Witch Trials was that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution made clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Arthur Miller’s 1953 play, The Crucible, was set during the Salem Witch Trials and, for many people, it’s the defining work about the trials, despite the fact that Miller acknowledged to taking dramatic liberties with some of the characters and events. Miller, who had recently been questioned by the House Unamerican Activities Committee, meant for the play to be both a commentary on McCarthyism and a rebuke towards people like his former friend, Elia Kazan, who “named names” to protect themselves. Of course, one could argue that the main difference between the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare is that communists were real while the Salem witches were not. But, no matter. It’s one of Miller’s better plays. If Elia Kazan could justify his testimony by imagining himself as a punch-drunk boxer standing up to a corrupt union, I suppose Arthur Miller could pretend to be a man accused of witchcraft. The play was initially not as acclaimed as some of Miller’s other works but, over the years, it has come to be widely acknowledged as one of the classic works of American theater.

In the 90s, Miller wrote the screenplay for a film adaptation of the The Crucible. First released in 1996, this adaptation starred Daniel-Day Lewis as the wrongly accused John Proctor, Joan Allen as Proctor’s wife, Elizabeth, and Winona Ryder as Abigail Williams. For the purposes of Miller’s dramatization, Abigail was reimagined as being a teenage girl who had a brief affair with John Proctor and who was still obsessed with him. When the Reverend Parris (Bruce Davison) catches Abigail and some of her friends trying to cast a “love spell” on John, the girls try to avoid punishment by accusing Parris’s slave, Tituba (Charlayne Woodard), of being a witch. Tituba gives a false confession to avoid being hanged. The girls are soon accusing numerous other women, including Elizabeth Proctor, of witchcraft.

As a film, The Crucible is a fine adaptation of Miller’s play and it’s always a little bit surprising to me that the movie itself isn’t better-known. Daniel Day-Lewis, Winona Ryder, Joan Allen, and Bruce Davison all give excellent performances, as does Rob Campbell as a reverend who comes to doubt the accusations of witchcraft. The great Paul Scofield also does a good job as Danforth, the stern judge who attempts to be fair but ultimately is not willing to admit that the law itself is in error. The film recreates Salem is such detail that you feel as if you’re walking its streets. The film also recreates the horrible conditions that a colonial prisoner would have to deal with while imprisoned. Watching Daniel Day-Lewis go from being handsome and rugged to being an emaciated man with rotten teeth really drives home the story’s portrayal of casual, state-sanctioned cruelty. By the end of the movie, Day-Lewis is a testament to what authoritarians will do to someone who insists on thinking for himself.

The film is at its strongest when showing how a moral panic begins. The unstable Abigail is looking for revenge against John Proctor. The other girls, immature and trying to be avoid being punished, make their accusations without giving much thought to the consequences. Soon, the adults of Salem — all of whom have no excuse for not knowing better — are making accusations because it’s better to be an accuser than to be one of accused. The film presents a disturbing portrait of how quickly a community can turn on itself.

The film ends on a note of devastating sadness. Though the witch trials were eventually seen for being the farce that they were, it was too late for the twenty-five people who died as a result of the hysteria. (Today, with a clear mind, it’s easy to see that the Salem Witch Trials had more in common with Stalin’s show trials and China’s Cultural Revolution than anything else.) The Crucible is a powerful film adaptation that deserves to be better-known.

So, We Watched The Mystery Cruise (2013, Dir. by Douglas Barr)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Dazzling Erin

The other day, Lisa Marie and I watched The Mystery Cruise.

Regan Reilly (Michelle Harrison) is the daughter of mystery novelist Nora Reilly (Colleen Winton) and a respected private detective in her own right. Her friend, Alvirah (Gail O’Grady), has just won the lottery and wants to open up a detective agency with Regan. Regan doesn’t think that the flighty Alvirah would be a good partner. Along with their husbands, they set sail on a mystery cruise that is being used to promote Nora’s new book. Every passenger on the cruise is trying to solve a fake murder but Alvirah thinks that one of the passengers is plotting a real murder!

This Hallmark movie was dumb and silly and kind of fun as long as you didn’t demand too much from it. I actually liked Regan and Alvirah’s husbands (played by Peter Benson and Larry Miller) more than I liked either of them. The mystery was easy to solve and it was clear that the movie wasn’t mean to be taken seriously. My sister and I agreed that a mystery cruise was the sort of thing that we would enjoy doing but we couldn’t agree on which one of us would be Regan and which one would be Alvirah.

This movie was based on a book written by Mary Higgins Clark and her daughter, Carol Higgins Clark. Sadly both of them have since passed away but, as we watched, Lisa Marie and I remembered how our aunt used to have an entire closet full of Mary Higgins Clark novels. It was a good memory.

Insomnia File #78: Nails (dir by John Flynn)

Posted on July 3, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

What’s an Insomnia File? You know how some times you just can’t get any sleep and, at about three in the morning, you’ll find yourself watching whatever you can find on cable or streaming? This feature is all about those insomnia-inspired discoveries!

If you’re having trouble getting to sleep, you can always go over to YouTube and watch 1992’s Nails.

Dennis Hopper stars Harry “Nails” Nile, a cop who …. wait for it …. doesn’t go by the book! He’s just a few days away from retirement but before Nails turns in his badge and his gun, he has to track down the drug dealers responsible for the death of his partner (Earl Billings). His superior officer doesn’t like him. His wife (Anne Archer) doesn’t trust him. Both the cartel and a local political fixer want him taken down. But Nails isn’t going to give up. He’s going to solve the case and stop the bad guys and get revenge. And he’s going to do it …. wait for it …. HIS WAY!

As you can probably already guess, Nails features just about every cop cliche imaginable. Nails’s partner talks about how much he’s enjoying life right before he gets gunned down. Nails’s boss yells about how much Nails’s out-of-control antics are costing the city. There are car chases. There are foot chases. There are shoot-outs and one-liners. There’s even a moving van chase that features the sight of Dennis Hopper frantically running down the street. And, of course, Danny Trejo shows up in a small role. It’s predictable and mindless and kind of entertaining if that’s what you’re in the mood for.

The thing that sets this film apart — really, the only thing — is that Dennis Hopper gives such an over-the-top performance as Nails. He’s the type of cops who randomly yells at strangers, occasionally giggles, and has a habit of repeating back any threat that he happens to hear. When I watched the film, I originally thought a better title than Nails would be Method Cop because Hopper truly does seem to be going out of his way to bring the full weight of the Method onto the type of role that could have just as easily been played by Chuck Norris. However, as the film progressed, I realized that Hopper was basically giving the same performance that he gave in Blue Velvet, except he was now playing the good guy. What if Frank Booth was the hero? Nails answers the question.

Of course, once the film ended, I was reminded that Hopper’s villain in Speed was a former cop. Is it possible that Speed was actually a sequel to Nails?

As far as I’m concerned, it definitely was!

The world misses you, Dennis!

Previous Insomnia Files:

Story of Mankind
Stag
Love Is A Gun
Nina Takes A Lover
Black Ice
Frogs For Snakes
Fair Game
From The Hip
Born Killers
Eye For An Eye
Summer Catch
Beyond the Law
Spring Broke
Promise
George Wallace
Kill The Messenger
The Suburbans
Only The Strong
Great Expectations
Casual Sex?
Truth
Insomina
Death Do Us Part
A Star is Born
The Winning Season
Rabbit Run
Remember My Name
The Arrangement
Day of the Animals
Still of The Night
Arsenal
Smooth Talk
The Comedian
The Minus Man
Donnie Brasco
Punchline
Evita
Six: The Mark Unleashed
Disclosure
The Spanish Prisoner
Elektra
Revenge
Legend
Cat Run
The Pyramid
Enter the Ninja
Downhill
Malice
Mystery Date
Zola
Ira & Abby
The Next Karate Kid
A Nightmare on Drug Street
Jud
FTA
Exterminators of the Year 3000
Boris Karloff: The Man Behind The Monster
The Haunting of Helen Walker
True Spirit
Project Kill
Replica
Rollergator
Hillbillys In A Haunted House
Once Upon A Midnight Scary
Girl Lost
Ghosts Can’t Do It
Heist
Mind, Body & Soul
Candy
Shortcut to Happiness
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders
Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders II
Don’t Kill It
Listen To Me
300 Miles For Stephanie
Hackers
Rolling Vengeance

Proud Men (1987, directed by William A. Graham)

Posted on July 2, 2026 by Jedadiah Leland

During the Vietnam War, Charley McLeod, Jr. (Peter Strauss) deserted from the U.S. Army. He has spent the last several years living in France with his wife Adrienne (Maria Mayenzet) but, when he learns that his father (Charlton Heston) is ill, Charley returns to the ranch where he grew up and tries to make peace with the old man before he dies. It’s not easy. Charley, Sr. never agreed with his son’s decision to desert and the local townspeople, including Charley’s former friend Brian (Alan Autry), view him as either being a coward or a traitor.

Proud Men was made for television and it’s clearly a product of a time when people were still coming to terms with both the war in Vietnam and the protests that surrounded it. Strauss isn’t the most convincing rancher that I’ve ever seen but, not surprisingly, Heston is totally believable as Charley’s old-fashioned father. Not much really happens in Proud Men. Charley, Jr. tries to prove himself by working on the ranch. Charley, Sr. holds back his emotions until the inevitable scene where he finally admits that he still loves his son. Probably the best performance comes from Alan Autry, whose character is written to be a bully but who also has a point when he point out that not everyone had the opportunity or the money necessary to just desert and start a new life in another country.

This is definitely a Dad film. It’s about working hard, doing what you have to do even when its difficult, and knowing how to throw a punch when someone in a bar disrespects your wife. It’s a minor film but I actually liked it. Heston may not have had the widest range as an actor but he was capable of very good work when he was cast in the right role, like he is here.

Guilty Pleasure #120: The Internship (dir by Shawn Levy)

Posted on July 1, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

In 2o13’s The Internship, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn play Nick and Billy, two longtime salesman who, having lost their jobs, apply for an internship at Google. Despite there not being any logical reason for either one of them to be given a spot, Nick and Billy are accepted. Suddenly, these two middle-aged guys who know next to nothing about programming or the Internet find themselves at the Google campus. Teaming up with a group of much younger outcasts (albeit very smart outcasts), Nick and Billy compete for a job at Google.

(Personally, the only job I would want at Google would be designing the Google Doodle.)

At first, no one is happy about having to work with Nick and Billy. Nick and Billy are adults, the type who still use landline phones and wonder why the kids are so obsessed with looking at a little screen. They’re loud. They make crude jokes and they don’t understand stuff like safe spaces. They fall for obvious pranks, like being sent to a college campus to track down “Professor Charles Xavier.” This leads to them both getting knocked out by a bald man in a wheelchair. “Professor Xavier’s a total dick!” Billy gasps.

Eventually, though, Nick and Billy start to win everyone over. Their old school competitiveness comes in handy during a game of Quidditch. They know how to talk to women at bars. They know how to appeal to someone running an old-fashioned business. But will that be enough to win them a job at Google?

Back when the Onion was funny, one of their best headlines was ‘The Internship’ Poised To Be Biggest Comedy Of 2005! The joke, of course, was that the film was coming out in 2013. The headline worked because it was true. The film felt very much out-of-place in the world of 2013. The majority of the film’s humor came from Nick and Billy not really knowing what Google was but, by 2013, even the most cranky of boomer grandparents were using Google to search for their Facebook password. Nick and Billy were not boomers. They may have been older than the other interns but still, it’s hard to believe that two guys in their mid-40s would be that clueless about everything from the Internet to the identity of Charles Xavier. I mean, the X-Men movies were kind of a big deal.

The other thig that dated the film was its portrayal of Google as essentially just being a fun playground full of nerdy prodigies who just needed someone to teach them how to party. By 2013, everyone knew that Google was a powerful and somewhat intimidating company. Indeed, at its weakest, the film basically feels like a 2-hour commercial for Google. Never mind that, by 2013, Google was so big and omnipresent that it really didn’t need to advertise.

So, with all that in mind, why do I find myself watching this movie whenever I happen to come across it? First off, as uneven as the movie is, it is funny. The Quidditch scene did make me laugh. John Goodman’s and Will Ferrell’s unhinged cameos made me laugh, almost despite myself. The scene where Nick and Billy annoy the group by misinterpreting what is meant by “coding” made me laugh, if just because of how bizarrely enthusiastic Nick and Billy were when they convinced themselves that their internship director was a Jeff Goldblum fan. (It makes no sense but just go with it.) Most importantly, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn made me laugh. There was absolutely no way to make it plausible that Nick and Billy would be that clueless about technology but Wilson and Vaughn really threw themselves into their roles and, as a result, I’m always willing to forgive some of the film’s missteps. The mix of Vaughn’s overage frat boy goofiness and Wilson’s mellow spaciness always makes me laugh more than it probably should. They’re a good comedic team and they’re both just so damn earnest in this movie that it works a lot better than it really should. In the end, you do find yourself rooting for them. They’re two hard-workers who like to play hard and who have the courage to reinvent themselves. What’s more American than that?

(Even more importantly, when you come across the film on cable, you’re free to pretend that it actually came out in 2005, back when the plot would have actually made more sense.)

If any film lives up to the term guilty pleasure, it’s The Internship.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Tubi/Lifetime Film Review: Get Off My Lawn (dir by Amara Cash)

Posted on July 1, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hey, remember Tahj Mowry? He was the star of Smart Guy, that WB show that ran in the late 90s. On Smart Guy, he played 10 year old prodigy who goes from being in Elementary School to being in High School. Towards the end of the show’s three-season run, there was an episode in which the smart guy had to decide whether or not to give into peer pressure and drink. The commercials were like, “Tahj Mowry, in a performance that you have to see.” I never saw the episode but, decades later, I still remember the commercial.

Well, in Get Off My Lawn, Tahj Mowry is all grown up. He’s playing Jason Moss, who is not a particularly smart guy. When he and his wife, Jackie (Camila Banus), move into a new house, they find themselves being harassed by a teenager named Alex (Jonah Hwang). Alex grew up in the house and he’s obsessed with making sure that Jason and Jackie “follow the rules.” Because Jason and Jackie are still in the process of buying the house and Alex is the son of the house’s actual owners, all of the old furniture is still sitting inside the building. When Alex notices that Jason and Jackie have moved a chair, he loses it. It turns out that it’s pretty easy to make Alex lose it.

Jason spends a lot of time trying to be a tough guy when it comes to Alex but, even grown up, he’s still Tahj Mowry and it’s a little bit hard to take him seriously doing anything. It’s like when Jaleel White occasionally shows up in a Lifetime film and he’s trying to play a detective but he still basically looks and sounds just like Urkel. Jason comes across as being kind of a wimp and it’s not always easy to sympathize with him. It doesn’t help that Alex is obviously unstable from the minute that he meets Jason and Jackie. This film’s main lesson would appear to be that you don’t have to be nice to everyone who introduces himself to you. That’s actually not a bad lesson.

As far as I can tell, Get Off My Lawn premiered on Tubi in 2025 and then it was recently aired on Lifetime. The film is obviously meant to be a satire of the typical Tubi/Lifetime formula but it’s a little bit difficult to satirize something that is pretty much a self-parody to begin with. That’s not to say that there aren’t funny moments. In the role of the clueless local policeman, Ben Zelevansky made me laugh several times. He gets the final line of the film and he delivers it so well that it actually made feel bad that the rest of the film didn’t always live up to his performance. Watching the film made me long for the cleverly played humor of A Deadly Adoption.

But here’s the odd thing about it all. For all of my complaints, the movie held my attention. It really did. Alex goes so overboard in his attempts to harass Jason and Jackie that I found myself watching just to see what he could possibly do next. On the one hand, the film is flawed. On the other hand, a character pulls out his own eyeball in slow motion. That’s not something that you regularly see, at least not on Lifetime.

I guess my point is that it’s an uneven film and Tahj Mowry is miscast. But, that said, it’s almost compulsively watchable.

A Blast From The Past: Make Mine Freedom

Posted on July 1, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

With the 250th birthday of America approaching, here’s a rather odd but charming blast from the past (1948, to be exact) called Make Mine Freedom. It’s a cartoon about why America rules and the rest of the world sucks.

This cartoon was produced by Arkansas’s Harding College and there is some debate over who actually directed it. Some sources claim that this was one of the first projects on which Joseph Barbera and William Hanna ever worked. Others insist that this film should be properly credited to either Fritz Freling or Fred Moore.

The important thing is that the film did a good job of exposing Dr. Utopia and his empty promises….

Almost Heroes (1998, directed by Christopher Guest)

Posted on July 1, 2026 by Jedadiah Leland

Harry Shearer narrates the story of Leslie Edwards (Matthew Perry) and Bathowlemew Hunt (Chris Farley), the leaders of an expedition that competed with the more famous Lewis & Clark expedition to see who could first to reach the Pacific Ocean. Edwards is foppish and naive. Hunt is illiterate and loud. Included in their expediton is French pirate Fontenot (Eugene Levy) and Fontenot’s Indian wife, Shaquinna (Lisa Barbuscia). The journey leads the expidition to multiple whorehouses, an angry Eagle, and a group of arrogant conquistadors led by Hidalgo (Kevin Dunn). Edwards tries to teach Hunt how to read but Hunt gives up after learning “A.” Hunt, however, gets a chance to not only prove his worth but also to get a haircut from a taxidermist.

Given the talent involved, it’s too bad that this is neither a good comedy nor a good movie. Christopher Guest directs with none of the wit that had made his improvised films so memorable. Apparently, the film was originally envisioned as being an ensemble piece but, once filming began, the studio insisted on just focusing on Farley and, to a lesser extent, Perry. This was also Farley’s last leading role, with the film itself being released several months after his death. Today, if the film is remembered for anything, it’s for featuring two comedic actors who struggled with similar demons and who both died too young. Unfortunately, neither Farley nor Perry are really at their best in this film. Farley yells but with little of the energy that made Tommy Boy a hit. Matthew Perry resorts to playing Chandler Bing in the 1700s. For that matter, this film also features what may be Eugene Levy’s worst performance. It’s a disappointing effort all around. (Would the film have worked better with Farley’s usual foil, David Spade, in the role of Edwards? Probably not. I don’t think any combination of actors could have saved the script.)

What is unfotunate is that the premise had promise. The early years of the United States was full of eccentric characters, quite a few of which were involved in exploring the still-largely uknown continet. Christopher Guest really does seem like he should have been the ideal director for a project liket this but instead, Almost Heroes is overly broad and features its two leading actors giving performanes that fill more appropriate for a sitcom than a motion picture. Almost Heroes was a misfire all the way around.

Made-For-Television Movie Review: The Right of the People (dir by Jeffrey Bloom)

Posted on July 1, 2026 by Lisa Marie Bowman

1986’s The Right of the People takes place in the small town of St. Lawrence, Kansas. It seems like a nice enough town, perhaps the ideal place to start a family. The people are friendly. The streets appear to be safe. It’s about as mid as Middle America can get.

Or, at least, that’s the case until a group of armed gunmen attempt to hold up a restaurant. They enter with their guns drawn and their masks pulled over their faces and they demand that everyone give them their money. When one person in the restaurant makes a sudden move, one of the thieves open fire. Soon, all of the thieves are firing and everyone in the restaurant is dead. Among the victims is the family of District Attorney Christopher Wells (Michael Ontkean).

Wells was a liberal on most law-and-order issues until it was his family that was victimized. He leads an effort to legalize open carry in the small town of St. Lawrence. At first, the mayor (M. Emmett Walsh) opposes the effort but, when it becomes apparent that Proposition G (G for Guns!) is going to pass, the mayor switches over and becomes an advocate for the Second Amendment.

The majority of the citizens are happy that they can now carry guns pretty much anywhere. Less enthused are a handful of cranky liberals who insist that everyone carrying a gun will make the streets less safe. When a man uses his gun to thwart a robbery at a grocery store, he is hailed as a hero. However, nobody talks about the poor cashier who was shot when he tried to use his own gun or any of the innocent people caught in the crossfire.

The Right of the People is an interesting artifact. On the one hand, it doesn’t hide its own position when it comes to gun control. The pro-gun rallies and the posters that decorate them are meant to be ominous and reminiscent of various fascist moments throughout history. At the same time, Christopher Wells is a sympathetic character. He’s someone who lost his entire family because no one was able to stop the criminals who randomly selected a restaurant to rob. One would have to have a heart made of stone to not understand how Wells would go from being a bleeding heart liberal to someone who isn’t exactly concerned about the rights of criminals. (At the same time, Wells is a bit like the fundamentalist who has no problem believing in God when bad things happen to other people but who turns into a rabid atheist as soon as something bad happens to him.) Michael Ontkean gives a strong performance and he gets good support from M. Emmet Walsh and Billy Dee Williams. The film starts out strong but, unfortunately, it falters a bit once everyone in town turns into a caricature of a gun nut. The even hand is tossed out for a heavy hand and the entire film suddenly starts to condescend to the character that it previously treated with such fairness.

What makes this film interesting to me is that I live in an open carry state. The film’s argument that open carry would lead to people eagerly looking for any excuse to start shooting feels rather false after you’ve spent a lifetime surrounded by responsible gun owners. The film was obviously made at a time when open carry wasn’t as common as it is today and it’s vision of a trigger-happy town ultimately becomes so over-the-top that it stops being effective. Fortunately, the film’s vision of the future did not come true.