I reviewed the film The Highwaymen (directed by John Lee Hancock) earlier this week and there was always one scene from the entire film that I always go back to rewatching. It’s pretty much a sequence where Texas Ranger Frank Hamer (played by Kevin Costner) stops by a local gun store and begins naming off pistols and rifles that he wants to examine.
It’s a random scene, but it also shows how much has changed from how American treated the purchase and ownership of guns during the Prohibition and gangland era of the late 20’s and early 30’s. This was a time when any adult could go into a store and purchase any type of gun (from pistols, rifles, shotguns and all the way up to machine guns) as long as they had the money. No license required to purchase whatever one desired and no waiting period and background check.
All of this would just a month after the deaths of Bonnie and Clyde as depicted in the film when Congress would pass the National Firearms Act of 1934 when certain firearms would be heavily restricted (such as short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, short-barreled rifles aka submachine guns, etc.) requiring specific licenses and up to restricted for law enforcement use-only.
This scene shows a time that was still holding onto the ways of the frontier and the Old West, but was about to end as the government began to centralize regulation on the federal level and away from the states. It’s a scene that on its own was a small random one that almost borders on the ridiculous as Hamer just names off guns after guns then answering the store owner’s question of which he would buy with a simple answer of “all of them.”
I also love this scene being a gun enthusiast who has his own large collection. What I wouldn’t give to be able to just do what Frank Hamer did in this scene. Though my wallet would cry if I was given the chance.
As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in a few weekly watch parties. On Twitter, I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday and I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday. On Mastodon, 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 10 pm et, I will be hosting #FridayNightFlix and celebrating the event’s 5th birthday with an encore presentation! The movie? 2010’s Easy A!
If you want to join us this Friday, just hop onto twitter, find Easy A on Prime, start the movie at 10 pm et, and use the #FridayNightFlix hashtag! I’ll be there happily tweeting. It’s a friendly group and welcoming of newcomers so don’t be shy.
I guess the question right now is whether or not Wicked: For Good will receive a Best Picture nomination. Tradition would seem to dictate that, like The Lord of the Rings films and the Dune films, Wicked: For Good would get a nomination to go along with the first part of the story. However, the reviews of Wicked: For Good have not been particularly good.
That said, those reviews have not had much effect when it comes to the film’s box office. And that’s why I think, despite bad reviews, Wicked: For Good will be nominated. I don’t think it’s going be quite the Oscar powerhouse that some were expecting but it will still, at the very least, be nominated. It’s too big to fail at this point.
After her father dies in an accident, teenage Nicole (Aimee Teargarden) is sent to Santa Cruz for the summer by her mother. In Santa Cruz, Nicole meets her grandmother, Sue (Patricia Richardson), for the first time. At first, Nicole is bitter and angry and doesn’t want a thing to do with Santa Cruz or its culture of surfing. That changes when she learns about her grandfather, Max (Lance Henriksen). Max was a legendary surfer who went to Vietnam and never returned. When Nicole comes across Max’s old map of surfing spots, she and her friend Kayla (Alicia Ziegler) go on a journey that leads to Nicole not only appreciating surfing but also discovering the truth about her grandfather.
Beautiful Wave is pretty predictable and, at first, Nicole is so sullen that she can sometimes be difficult to take even if she does have a good reason for not being in a cheerful mood. I liked the idea of Nicole and Kayla going on a journey together but I didn’t like that they brought two knucklehead surfers with them. What could have been a celebration of sisterhood instead became a film about two women having to deal with two idiots.
Beautiful Wave still won me over, with its gorgeous beach footage and its story of paying respect to the past and discovering your own roots. Even with the two idiot surfers getting in the way, I appreciated the way the film showed the bond between Nicole and Kayla. The ending was heartwarming, even if it did raise more questions than it answered. There are some movies that you have to be in the right mood for and I guess my mood was the right one for Beautiful Wave.
Since we had a few hours to kill before the Cowboys game started, Lisa and I decided to watch a movie. I wanted a love story. She wanted something with dancing. We settled on Sidelined 2.
Sidelined 2 picks up where the first Sidelined ended. Drayton (Noah Beck) is the starting quarterback at USC, even though he’s only a freshman and he’s really scrawny for a football player. (All of the football players in this movie looked too scrawny to be playing for a top-ranked program.) Dallas (Siena Agudong) is studying dance at Cal Arts and trying to figure out how to pay for her semester after she learns her scholarship won’t cover everything.
They’re in love but they still struggle because they’re going to different schools and they both have to figure out how to balance their relationship with all of their other responsibilities. Drayton tears his ACL and becomes bitter. Dallas gets a job at a coffeehouse and her boss has really messy bangs and keeps singing songs on his guitar. Dallas and Drayton realizes that there are other possibilities out there. Will their relationship last?
I thought the first Sidelined was cute for what it was. The second one was pretty boring and whatever charm the two leads had in the first film disappeared during the sequel. Drayton’s not much of a boyfriend, even before he ruins his knee. Dallas says she’s never even been to Dallas, which is weird. If I was named after a city, I would visit. It’s a Wattpad movie and all of the dialogue sounds like it was written by an AI that had been programmed to try to sound young by dropping random slang. Drayton asks Dallas if she’s “hangry.” Lisa made me go back three times to make sure he actually said that.
James Van Der Beek comes back for five minutes. He used to be the teenager with a dream. Now, he’s playing the father of a teenager with a dream. Feel old, yet?
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.
On this Thanksgiving, here are four films that I am thankful for.
This scene, from Planes, Train, & Automobiles, epitomizes everything that I love about Thanksgiving. It’s a reminder that home can be anywhere that is welcoming and that family doesn’t just include those with whom you share a common ancestor.
When John Candy finally admits the truth, that Marie is dead and that he hasn’t had a home for years, it brings tears to my eyes. That’s great acting. After everything that has happened, he finally gets to spend Thanksgiving with someone who cares about him.
I hope everyone is having a good Thanksgiving today. Enjoy it however you celebrate.
“This year, there will be no leftovers.” — Sheriff Eric Newlon
Thanksgiving (2023) is Eli Roth’s ambitious take on the slasher genre, blending elements of gory horror, dark comedy, and social commentary rooted in the holiday’s American origins. The film follows a masked killer, inspired by the historical Plymouth Colony governor John Carver, who stalks the small town of Plymouth, Massachusetts, weaving a path of violence around the Thanksgiving festivities. The movie opens strongly with a tense, chaotic Black Friday mob scene that effectively captures the frenzy of consumerism and sets a sharp tone of societal critique through horror. However, as the film progresses, it drifts more into a conventional slasher revenge plot that lacks the depth expected from its promising premise.
Visually, Thanksgiving is sharp and well-crafted, abandoning the low-budget aesthetic of Roth’s original 2007 fake trailer and adopting a slick, modern horror style reminiscent of recent elevated slashers. The kills are signature Roth—extremely graphic and creatively brutal—offering plenty of gore that will satisfy fans of extreme slasher violence. The cast delivers solid performances, portraying a range of characters that touch on themes from corporate greed to family tension. While some characters feel underdeveloped, the film does maintain a whodunit element that keeps the mystery alive until the later stages, engaging the audience in the killer’s identity.
The film attempts a tricky balance between paying homage to nostalgic slasher films and delivering dark social satire. This tonal uncertainty emerges as its main weakness; the mix of campy horror and dramatic narrative sometimes feels disconnected and uneven. Although the premise hints at a sharp critique of consumerism and the problematic legacy of Thanksgiving, these themes remain superficially explored. The clashing tones—between over-the-top murder scenes and serious town investigations—can disengage viewers, leading to a jarring experience that affects overall cohesion.
The film leans heavily on extreme violence and a parade of signature kills, but it lacks the sharp wit or cohesive satire needed to maintain sustained interest. It tries to balance being both artful and absurd, yet ends up feeling off-balance and somewhat numbing, stretching a brief satirical concept into a 106-minute feature without clear follow-through or a unified purpose. While it delivers plenty of gore and horror moments, Thanksgiving ultimately falls short of being a polished homage or a compelling modern reinvention of the slasher genre. The result is entertaining mainly for fans who appreciate relentless slasher violence but may leave others feeling the film is uneven and overstuffed without fully satisfying either as a tribute or as a fresh take on the genre.
In terms of entertainment value, Thanksgiving offers a chaotic mix of gore, dark humor, and missed opportunities that make it an uneven but occasionally thrilling watch. It delivers a fresh avalanche of horror and inventive kill sequences packed with kitschy Thanksgiving references and humorous touches, especially in its opening Black Friday massacre. Fans of Eli Roth’s style will recognize his penchant for mixing intense violence with comedic timing, and the film does a respectable job reviving the feel of classic ’80s slashers with a modern twist. However, it’s a film best suited for devotees of graphic slashers rather than casual horror viewers seeking strong narrative or thematic depth.
Ultimately, Thanksgiving stands as a gutsy effort buoyed by bold kills and nostalgic flair, but one that struggles to find a fully satisfying balance between homage, horror, and social commentary. Its impact is intense but uneven, making it a film that may carve out a cult following among gore enthusiasts while leaving others wishing for a sharper, more cohesive final product.
BREAKING IN (1989) opens with veteran safecracker Ernie Mullins (Burt Reynolds) pulling a job at a rich guy’s house, only to be surprised when a young, amateurish thief named Mike (Casey Siemaszko) turns up at the same place to raid the fridge. Immediately taking a liking to the kid, Ernie decides to offer Mike a chance to learn his trade. Thus begins a partnership, and odd-couple friendship, where the two men pull a series of jobs together, with Ernie passing on his knowledge to his young protege who seems to be enjoying the sudden influx of cash into this life. Unfortunately, the generation gap causes some problems as Mike doesn’t necessarily take heed to Ernie’s advice to never being too greedy or flashy. Soon, Mike is renting high rise apartments and buying fancy cars with cash. When they pull a big job on the 4th of July, will Mike’s less than frugal ways drag them both down?!
Written by the excellent, independent writer and director John Sayles (MATEWAN, EIGHT MEN OUT) and directed by Scottish director Bill Forsyth (LOCAL HERO), BREAKING IN is a reminder of just how great Burt Reynolds is in the right role. In his 50’s at the time this was filmed, Reynolds gives a relaxed, lived-in, character performance that comes across as effortlessly cool, and he does it without having to rely on his trademark charm and big grin. The late 80’s were a time when Burt was no longer a box office superstar, and BREAKING IN seems to be an unjustly forgotten entry in his hugely successful career. After this, Burt would find TV success on EVENING SHADE, and he’d be nominated for an Oscar for his role in BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997), but his Ernie Mullins stands out to me as one of his last great film roles. Casey Siemaszko is good as Mike, but this is Reynolds’ show and he’s overshadowed even in a solid performance. As far as the other supporting performances, Sheila Kelley stood out to me as a sharp-tongued prostitute who Siemaszko falls in lust with. The poem she shares about a man’s “balls” is a highlight of the film as far as I’m concerned, and further illustrates the quality of Sayles’ screenplay!
I like the way that BREAKING IN feels low-key, even as the characters engage in their various criminal heists. This can be credited to director Bill Forsyth who turns what could have been a standard master / apprentice crime film into something that feels somewhat realistic. The pacing is slow as Reynolds passes on his knowledge, and for some people it may be too slow, but that’s one of the things I really liked about the movie. The two men really get to know each other. That way, when they have disagreements and blow ups a couple of times, they’re still able to respect each other and patch things up. That’s how things are in the real world, as opposed to most movies where a simple disagreement will almost certainly lead to ridiculous consequences. BREAKING IN respects its characters in a way that’s unique to most crime films.
At the end of the day, BREAKING IN is a gem that is at its best as a lighthearted character study of a professional thief whose time is passing him by. Burt Reynolds rarely got to play roles this subtle, and I think he made the most of the opportunity. As a big fan of Reynolds, I highly recommend this one.
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.
Today, the Shattered Lens wishes a happy birthday to director Mark L. Lester. It’s time for….
4 Shots From 4 Mark L. Lester Films
Roller Boogie (1979, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Dean Cundey)
Class of 1984 (1982, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Albert Dunk)
Commando (1985, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Matthew Leonetti)
Public Enemies (1996, dir by Mark L. Lester, DP: Misha Suslov)
Through the Shattered Lens