4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films is all about letting the visuals do the talking.
In memory of Udo Kier, here are…
4 Shots From 4 Udo Kier Films
Flesh For Frankenstein (1973, dir by Paul Morrissey, DP: Luigi Kuveiller)
Blood For Dracula (1974, dir by Paul Morrissey, DP:Luigi Kuveiller)
Europa (1991, directed by Lars Von Trier, DP: Henning Bendtsen, Edward Kłosiński, Jean-Paul Meurisse. Released as Zentropa in North America)
Swan Song (2021, dir by Todd Stephens, DP: Jackson Warner Lewis)
Hi, everyone! Tonight, on twitter, I will be hosting one of my favorite films for #MondayMania! Join us for 2017’s Deadly Dance Mom!
You can find the movie on Prime and then you can join us on twitter at 9 pm central time! (That’s 10 pm for you folks on the East Coast.) See you then!
Today’s song of the day is The Harder They Come, taken from the soundtrack of the 1972 Jamaican film of the same name. This film and Jimmy Cliff’s performance and the soundtrack are all often credited with introducing reggae to the rest of the world.
Well they tell me im a pie up in the sky Waiting for me when i die But between the day your been and when you die They never seem to hear or even cry
So as sure as the sun will shine im going to get my share now of whats mine And then the harder they come the harder they’ll fall One and all Ooh the harder they come the harder they’ll fall One and all
Well the oppressors are trying to keep me down Trying to drive my underground And they think that they have got the battle won I say forgive them lord, they know not what they done
Cause as sure as the sun will shine Im gonna get my share now of whats mine And the harder they come the harder they fall One and all Ooh the harder they come the harder they fall One and all
And i keep on fighting for the things i want Though i know when your dead you cant But id rather be a free man in my grave Than living as a puppet or a slave
So as sure as the sun will shine Im going to get my share now whats mine And then the harder they come the harder they fall One and all Ooh the harder they come the harder they fall One and all
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in hosting a few weekly live tweets on twitter and occasionally Mastodon. I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of Mastodon’s #MondayActionMovie! Every week, we get together. We watch a movie. We snark our way through it.
Tonight, for #MondayActionMovie, the film will be 1990’s Street Asylum!
It should make for a night of fun viewing and I invite all of you to join in. If you want to join the live tweets, just hop onto Mastodon, find the movie on YouTube and hit play at 8 pm et, and use the #MondayActionMovie hashtag! The watch party community is a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
RIP to the great actor, Udo Kier. He died yesterday at the age of 81, in Palm Springs, California.
Today’s scene that I love features Kier in the only version of Suspiriathat matters, the original one directed by Dario Argento. In this scene, Kier discusses witchcraft with Jessica Harper.
“They failed us… so what choice did I have?” — John Doe
John Doe: Vigilante, directed by Kelly Dolen and released in 2014, is a blunt and provocative take on the vigilante thriller, brimming with social commentary and visual grit. The film revolves around John Doe, played by Jamie Bamber, whose world is shattered by the violent deaths of his family members. Disillusioned by a justice system that barely delivers justice, Doe transforms himself into a vigilante, targeting repeat offenders who continually evade real consequences. The narrative takes a non-linear approach, jumping between timelines using mock interviews, courtroom debates, and TV news segments to piece together Doe’s story and the societal mania swirling around him.
The structure of the film is both one of its most engaging features and a source of occasional frustration. Rapid switches between documentary-style “talking head” interviews, real-time action, and flashbacks keep the viewer on their toes. While this can create some dramatic momentum, it also leads to a sense of disconnect, as the story sometimes trades clarity for style. Still, there’s an undeniable energy to this format. The movie feels urgent and relevant, throwing the audience directly into a conversation about law, order, and the places these systems break down.
A major focus of the film is on the media’s influence over the public’s perception of vigilantism. The mixed portrayal of John Doe as both a monster and a folk hero reflects how quickly public sentiment can tilt depending on who’s doing the telling. There’s an uncomfortable suggestion that cycles of violence and public outrage are not only connected but sometimes dependent on the news cycle to fuel them. The film hammers this point home repeatedly, sometimes at the expense of nuance. It isn’t shy about waving its message in the viewer’s face, with characters often delivering speeches about justice, victimization, and the failings of society.
Despite some heavy-handedness, Jamie Bamber’s performance is the glue holding everything together. He plays Doe with a haunted distance rather than unrestrained rage, showing a character who’s been hollowed out by tragedy and driven by a cold, relentless sense of necessity. He’s not a cartoonish avenger—his actions clearly torment him, and his moments of uncertainty make the character believably conflicted. However, the supporting cast doesn’t fare as well, with most roles feeling thin and underdeveloped. Journalists, detectives, and secondary victims drift in and out, often serving mainly as delivery devices for the film’s ceaseless thesis statements about crime and morality.
The violence in John Doe: Vigilante is unflinching and rarely sensationalized. Confrontations come fast and harsh, depicted with practical effects that drive home the ugliness of the acts themselves. This directness serves to emphasize the horror of violence, whether enacted by criminals or by Doe himself. The film’s refusal to sugarcoat these scenes will appeal to viewers who prefer realism and discomfort to stylized action, but it may push others away due to its unrelenting bleakness.
On the plus side, the movie does succeed in keeping the viewer guessing about its core question: Is Doe’s crusade righteous or an invitation to chaos? His victims are almost unfailingly depicted as monsters, which blunts some of the intended ambiguity, but the reaction from the world around him—copycat crimes, protests, media manipulation—spins the plot in more interesting directions. The broader implication is that once a society loses faith in the courts, retributive justice becomes both appealing and very, very dangerous. While the film mostly sticks to familiar genre beats, it does occasionally land a punch that lingers. Scenes showing a growing vigilante movement in response to Doe’s actions are particularly thought-provoking, inviting viewers to consider how collective anger can quickly spiral out of control.
However, the film repeatedly stumbles over its own desire to make a point. Its depiction of evil is strikingly black-and-white, and the justice system is rendered in frustratingly broad strokes. Very little time is spent on the possibility of innocent people being caught in the crossfire or of criminals ever achieving redemption. All the nuance falls to Bamber’s performance, as the rest of the characters serve mostly as echoes of his trauma or mouthpieces for the script.
Dialogue can also be a weak point. Characters often speak in loaded, over-serious refrains about crime and victimhood. If you’ve seen other media with vigilante themes, especially ones grappling with morality, John Doe: Vigilante might give you déjà vu. It isn’t particularly subtle and tends to repeat itself, particularly in the latter half, as perspective shifts and news segments rehash similar arguments. By the time the final acts come around—with a pivotal, tension-drenched scene of Doe delivering his last “message” to the public—the narrative momentum has already started to lag.
Still, the film isn’t without its bright spots. Its editing, especially the way flashbacks are woven into the present narrative, is creative and keeps certain plot elements hidden until just the right moment. There are a few bold narrative choices—one involving a child’s perspective near the end is a standout—that briefly elevate the film above its otherwise standard revenge-thriller fare. These are the moments that will stick with viewers long after credits roll.
At its core, John Doe: Vigilante is angry and bruising, with its heart firmly pinned to its sleeve. It wants to provoke discomfort and debate, not offer easy answers or escapist fun. The movie wrestles with questions of what justice really means when institutions fail, and whether violent reckoning is ever justifiable—even for the worst of the worst. It doesn’t ultimately land on a satisfying conclusion, but that may be the point.
John Doe: Vigilante stands as a solid and sometimes stirring entry in the vigilante genre, bolstered by a committed lead performance and raw intensity but hampered by heavy-handed dialogue, weak supporting characters, and a lack of moral complexity. For viewers who enjoy gritty crime films and are open to films that raise difficult, unsettling questions, John Doe: Vigilante is worth checking out. Just don’t expect it to pull its punches—or to give you any tidy resolutions.
RUN OF THE ARROW opens up on April 9th, 1963, with confederate sharpshooter O’Meara (Rod Steiger) shooting a Union lieutenant named Driscoll (Ralph Meeker). This turns out to be the final shot fired in the Civil War as General Lee is in the process of surrendering to General Grant. It also turns out to be Driscoll’s lucky day, as a slight warping of the bullet causes O’Meara’s aim to be off just enough for him to survive. With no more 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 decides to head out west towards the land of the Indians. As part of his travels he happens across Walking Coyote (Jay C. Flippen), an aging, renegade Sioux scout who’s headed back home to die. Walking Coyote takes O’Meara under his wing and teaches him the Sioux language, as well as many of their customs. When they’re captured by a band of Sioux warriors led by Crazy Wolf (H.M. Wynant), and are being prepared to be killed, Walking Coyote invokes the “run of the arrow”, a ritualistic game that could save their lives. Unfortunately, no one has ever survived the run of the arrow. But today, it seems there’s a first time for everything, as O’Meara survives just long enough to be found, hidden, and saved by the beautiful Indian squaw Yellow Moccasin (Sarita Montiel). Yellow Moccasin nurses him back to health and presents him to her tribal chief, Blue Buffalo (Charles Bronson), who spares his life since he survived the run. Blue Buffalo also welcomes O’Meara into their tribe and allows O’Meara and Yellow Moccasin, who have fallen in love, to get married and adopt the mute orphan boy, Silent Tongue, as their own son. Things seem to be going well until Sioux Leader Red Cloud (Frank DeKova) and Army General Allen (Tim McCoy) reach an agreement that allows for an Army Fort to be built in a narrowly defined area. While the construction of the fort is entrusted to an honest man of integrity named Captain Clark (Brian Keith), the agreement is ultimately sabotaged by the murderous Crazy Wolf, and then further by the Indian hating Captain Driscoll… yes, that same Union soldier that O’Meara shot on the last day of the war! When the fighting starts again, will O’Meara prove himself to truly be a Sioux warrior willing to kill American army soldiers, or is a part of his heart still with his country?
Director Samuel Fuller’s RUN OF THE ARROW is a movie about the damage that occurs when human beings allow their hearts to be so filled with bitterness and hate that they quit caring about other people. It’s also about what happens when those same people run into rational people of good will, and we find out if they’re still capable of even 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 is represented by the characters of O’Meara (Steiger), Crazy Wolf (Wynant), and Lieutenant Driscoll (Meeker). O’Meara hates Yankees, Crazy Wolf hates the white man, and Driscoll hates the Indians. The rational people of good will are the characters of Yellow Moccasin (Montiel), Blue Buffalo (Bronson), and Captain Clark (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 so many 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 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 Indian 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. We discussed H.M. Wynant and RUN OF THE ARROW with author Steven Peros on the “This Week in Charles Bronson Podcast.” Check out that interview below:
I’ve recently heard RUN OF THE ARROW compared to Kevin Costner’s DANCES WITH WOLVES, and there are definitely many 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, director Samuel 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, in one of their conversations, Walking Coyote tells O’Meara that he could have been a chief if he had wanted to be. When O’Meara pushes the old scout on why he didn’t want the position, Walking Coyote responds with, “Because I hate politics!” On that point, I couldn’t agree more.
“I can’t speak, but I’ll make them listen.” — Brian Godlock
Silent Night (2023) finds John Woo making his first American action film in two decades, since the disappointing Paycheck in 2003. While it’s definitely a step up from that sci-fi thriller misfire, Silent Night still doesn’t quite reach the heights of Woo’s Hong Kong classics or even his best Western productions like Face/Off. This latest outing is a lean, mostly dialogue-free revenge thriller that has Woo’s fingerprints all over it—a mix of balletic violence and emotional anguish—but it also shows the limitations of trying to recapture that old Woo magic in a very different cinematic landscape.
The story is simple: Joel Kinnaman plays Brian Godlock, an electrician whose son is killed in a gang shootout on Christmas Eve, and he himself is shot in the throat, losing his voice. The film then follows Brian’s quiet but brutal quest for revenge a year later. The choice to tell this nearly wordless story is a bold gamble, and for much of the film, the absence of dialogue adds power to the emotions and the tension. Kinnaman’s physical performance carries most of the weight—his grief, anger, and determination are all conveyed through body language and expression. This is one of the biggest strengths of Silent Night: Woo’s ability to communicate story and feeling visually, which harkens back to the silent films of early cinema, blending with his signature poetic violence.
That said, the silence also highlights the script’s thinness. The supporting characters, including Brian’s wife (Catalina Sandino Moreno) and a sympathetic detective (Kid Cudi), feel underdeveloped, serving more as plot functions than full people. This narrow focus on Brian’s pain and revenge means the film sometimes feels emotionally shallow beyond the core trauma. Compared to Woo’s earlier work, where secondary characters and relationships added layers of complexity and intensity, Silent Night is more singular and direct, for better and worse.
When it comes to action, Woo shows he still has the chops. The gunfights and hand-to-hand scenes are meticulously choreographed, emphasizing realism with a solid dose of stylized flair. It’s a return to the grounded grit Woo displayed in some of his earlier Hong Kong films, leaving behind some of the higher-octane operatic excess of his best-known Hollywood hits. The violence feels impactful and earned, avoiding cheap spectacle for a more tactile, bone-crunching effect.
Still, Silent Night doesn’t quite have the scope and scale of Face/Off or The Killer. It lacks the grandeur and intricate storytelling that made those films iconic. Instead, it’s a tighter, moodier experience that prioritizes emotional atmosphere over plot complexity. This stripped-down approach is refreshing to a degree, but it can also become monotonous—especially since the lack of dialogue and limited character development demand more patience from the viewer.
Comparing it directly to Paycheck, Silent Night is a clear improvement. Paycheck was widely regarded as a forgettable action film that failed to capitalize on Woo’s talents, stuck with a muddled sci-fi plot and lacking the emotional firepower Woo excels at. Silent Night ditches the high-concept sci-fi for a more grounded, personal revenge story, allowing Woo to bring more of his hallmarks to bear—the intense physical performances, a palpable sense of loss, and carefully crafted action sequences.
However, it’s important to temper enthusiasm with the fact that Silent Night is not a full return to Woo’s prime Hong Kong cinema or his best Hollywood days. It’s missing some of the poetry, charm, and iconic bravado of movies like Hard Boiled or Face/Off, where Woo’s characters felt larger than life and the action was operatic and unforgettable. Here, the film often feels restrained, even muted, perhaps reflecting a director adapting to new cinematic expectations but also struggling to fully bring himself back to the forefront in the American industry.
Silent Night is a worthwhile viewing for fans of John Woo and action cinema looking for something different—one part homage to classic revenge tales, one part experiment in silent storytelling. It’s emotionally raw, visually precise, and markedly better than Paycheck, but it also lacks the fire and inventiveness that made Woo a legend. It’s a step forward and a reminder that even the greatest filmmakers can evolve and sometimes falter. If Woo is finding his voice again, it’s decidedly quieter but still unmistakably his own.
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in a few weekly live tweets on twitter. I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of #MondayActionMovie! Every week, we get together. We watch a movie. We tweet our way through it.
Tonight, at 9 pm et, Deanna Dawn will be hosting #ScarySocial! The movie? The Stuff!
If you want to join us this Saturday, just hop onto twitter, start the movie at 9 pm et, and use the #ScarySocial hashtag! It’s a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
It’s a hard knock life for Michelle (Shari Shattuck). One moment she’s a hardworking teller at the local bank who loves her horse, Misty. The next moment she’s sentenced to three years in the women’s penitentiary for a crime she didn’t commit. And life is damn tough in prison. There’s the prison warden Diane (Angel Tompkins) who, when she’s not participating in lesbian dalliances with inmates, is offering Michelle protection, but only if she agrees to act as a spy for her. When Michelle says no, Diane sets her up to be brutalized by the sadistic Rita (Christina Whitaker), the bitch who’s responsible for her being in the pen in the first place! Now having to dodge the threat of rape from prison guard Smiley (Nick Benedict), as well as the constant threat of shiv-induced death at the hands of Rita, it seems Michelle may have finally received a lifeline with the arrival of a new prison guard named Rhonda (Lucinda Crosby). Rhonda seems to show some extra interest and empathy in Michelle’s plight, and she just may be in a position to help her with the wrongful conviction. That is, if Michelle can survive one more night in THE NAKED CAGE!!
Recently, I’ve been trying to watch movies I’ve never seen before that star actors or actresses who worked with Charles Bronson. Tonight, I decided to look for a film starring Angel Tompkins, a Facebook friend, who worked with Bronson in the 1986 cop film from Cannon Films called MURPHY’S LAW. In that film she plays Jack Murphy’s ill-fated ex-wife, where she gives an uninhibited and committed performance in what would have been a throwaway role for many actresses. Not Angel… she took the role very seriously and is actually quite memorable in her couple of scenes. Paul Talbot’s book BRONSON’S LOOSE AGAIN has a chapter on the film, and he was able to interview Tompkins who told of just how much effort went into to her preparation. I recommend the book to anyone interested in Bronson or those numerous actors and actresses who worked with him in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. Filmed the same year as MURPHY’S LAW, I thought it might be fun to see how committed she is in the role of the corrupt warden in Cannon’s THE NAKED CAGE.
I’ll admit that I am not an expert on the “women in prison” genre of film. I did go through my Pam Grier phase that started with movies like COFFY (1972) and FOXY BROWN (1974), but did extend as deep as the Jack Hill “women in cages” films THE BIG DOLL HOUSE (1971) and THE BIG BIRD CAGE (1972). But those movies had Pam Grier in the cast which provided a couple of ample reasons for me to watch. THE NAKED CAGE does have some interesting things going for it. Like most of Charles Bronson’s 1980’s output, the movie was produced by Cannon Films, the international symbol of quality moviemaking from the 1980’s. And then there’s Angel Tompkins herself. She’s quite the sexy lady, having appeared in films like PRIME CUT (1972) and THE TEACHER (1974). Cannon Films and Angel Tompkins drew me in, but what about the film itself? Is it worth a watch?
I’ll go ahead and say that for me, THE NAKED CAGE was worth the watch. This kind of movie only works for me if I like the cast. Shari Shattuck is appealing in the lead role of Michelle, a good woman, who’s wrongly convicted, but who soon finds levels of toughness she never knew she had in order to survive. I remember Shattuck starring in films like POINT OF SEDUCTION: BODY CHEMISTRY 3 (1994) with Andrew Stevens. My wife and I also watched the entire DALLAS TV series a few years ago where Shari had an extended role in season 13. She starts out here as a sweet and innocent lady, and by the end she’s wielding guns and knives like a lifelong delinquent, and I liked it! Angel Tompkins does not disappoint as the corrupt warden who seduces the inmates in order to meet her own sexual needs, as well as manipulating them into playing her larger games of control over the rest of the prison. Overall, she plays the role pretty straight, but is once again quite uninhibited when it comes to the more mature content. To me though, the most enjoyable performance comes from Christina Whitaker as the psychotic Rita. Not content with just ruining Michelle’s life, she’s determined to murder her behind the prison walls as well. From the beginning of the film where the fugitive Rita had Michelle’s estranged husband snorting cocaine off her boobs, all the way to the final frames, Whitaker chews every piece of scenery that comes into view. She’s the character I’ll remember whenever I think of THE NAKED CAGE.
There are some things I didn’t like very much about the film. Prison guard Smiley’s sadistic rapist isn’t fun at all to watch, but his character’s fate is well deserved and somewhat satisfying when it finally occurs. Also, I didn’t care for the manipulation of the character of the drug addict Amy, played by Stacey Shaffer. She had worked very hard to beat her addiction, and in a world where many of us know people who have been lost to addiction, it’s not easy to watch her tragic fall.
Overall, if you enjoy “women in prison” films, I think you’ll probably like this one. It’s certainly not perfect, but being a fan of Cannon Films and Angel Tompkins, I thought it was an enjoyable way to spend a Friday night while I was waiting for my wife to get home from work!
Through the Shattered Lens 