Guilty Pleasure No. 94: Revenge of the Nerds (dir. by Jeff Kanew)

Posted on December 18, 2025 by Arleigh

Revenge of the Nerds captures the wild, unfiltered spirit of 1980s college comedies, blending underdog triumph with over-the-top raunchiness that feels both nostalgic and awkwardly dated today. Released in 1984, this Jeff Melman-directed flick stars Robert Carradine and Anthony Edwards as Lewis and Gilbert, two freshmen nerds who face relentless bullying from the jock-dominated Alpha Beta fraternity at Adams College. What starts as a straightforward tale of misfits fighting back evolves into a chaotic mix of pranks, parties, and questionable morals, making it a polarizing watch that still packs a punch for fans of the era’s humor.

The story kicks off with Lewis and Gilbert arriving full of optimism, only to have their dreams torched—literally—when the Alpha Betas accidentally burn down their dorm during a hazing gone wrong. Relocated to a rundown gym with other campus outcasts, the nerds band together under the banner of Tri-Lam, turning their rejection into fuel for clever retaliation. From panty raids to talent show showdowns, the film barrels through a series of escalating antics, peaking at the Greek Games where brains battle brawn in absurd competitions like tricycle races and tug-of-war twists. It’s pure 80s escapism, with a runtime under 100 minutes that keeps the energy high and the laughs coming in rapid-fire succession, even if not every gag is a home run.

The nerd ensemble steals the show, each character a walking stereotype brought to vivid life. Carradine’s Lewis is the slick-talking instigator with a knack for schemes, while Edwards’ Gilbert provides the earnest heart, delivering a pivotal speech about acceptance that gives the movie unexpected emotional depth. Curtis Armstrong as Booger delivers unforgettable gross-out moments, from belching symphonies to shameless flirtations, and Larry B. Scott’s Lamar brings flamboyant athletic flair that subverts expectations. The jocks, led by Ted McGinley’s smug Stan, serve as perfect foils—arrogant, muscle-bound villains who embody the era’s macho excess. Supporting turns, like Julia Montgomery’s Betty navigating boyfriend drama, John Goodman’s boorish Coach Harris, or Bernie Casey’s wise U.N. Jefferson, add layers to the campus power struggle.

Humor-wise, Revenge of the Nerds leans hard into juvenile territory: fart jokes, streaking, and wild panty raid sequences filmed with hidden cameras that push boundaries even for the time. The film’s climax involves Lewis impersonating Stan to woo Betty, a plot point that plays as triumphant revenge but lands as deeply problematic through today’s lens, highlighting consent issues amid the cheers. Similarly, the sorority spying and casual objectification reflect 80s attitudes toward women and minorities that feel crass now, contributing to its mixed modern reception. Yet, these elements are balanced by genuine camaraderie among the nerds, fostering a sense of belonging that resonates as a counter to real-world bullying.

Technically, the movie holds up as a product of its time. The soundtrack, featuring the iconic title track by The Rubinoos and funky cues during party scenes, amps up the fun, while practical effects like the nerds’ gadget-filled house add quirky charm. Cinematography emphasizes the divide between polished frat row and the nerds’ scrappy turf, with wide shots of campus chaos underscoring the rebellion. Written by Tim Metcalfe, Steve Zacharias, and Jeff Buhai, the script zings with quotable lines—”We are the sons of the sons of bitches”—and smartly flips the slobs-vs-snobs formula by rooting for the geeks.

Culturally, Revenge of the Nerds helped define the “nerd pride” archetype, paving the way for films like PCU and influencing pop culture’s embrace of geek culture from The Big Bang Theory to Marvel dominance. It spawned three sequels, a musical adaptation, and endless references, cementing its place as a time capsule of Reagan-era college life—rowdy, rebellious, and unapologetically politically incorrect. For balance, its strengths lie in infectious energy, memorable characters, and a pro-outsider message, but weaknesses include uneven pacing in setup scenes and humor that too often punches down rather than up.

The film continues the trend of 80s raunchy teen comedies first popularized by Bob Clark’s Porky’s, ramping up the gross-out gags and frat-house antics while shifting the focus to nerd empowerment over sexual hijinks. The nerds’ talent show finale, uniting misfits in a joyous medley, delivers pure catharsis, proving brains and heart can topple bullies. It’s not flawless—some jokes bomb, and the ending rushes a bit—but its scrappy spirit endures for those who grew up quoting Booger’s lines or cheering Tri-Lam’s win. Fans of Animal House or Old School will find familiar thrills, while modern audiences might prefer the cleaner satire of The Good Place. Ultimately, Revenge of the Nerds earns a solid recommendation with caveats: a rowdy good time if you roll with the 80s vibe, but skip if consent gags are deal-breakers.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Review: Lethal Weapon 2 (dir. by Richard Donner)

Posted on December 16, 2025 by Arleigh

“We’re back, we’re bad. You’re black, I’m mad. Let’s go!” — Martin Riggs

Lethal Weapon 2 is the kind of sequel that doesn’t really try to reinvent what worked the first time so much as crank the volume on everything: the action is bigger, the jokes come faster, and the chaos feels almost constant. Depending on what you loved about Lethal Weapon, that approach delivers more of the high-energy partnership in a flashier package. It’s a confident, very entertaining 80s action movie that knows it’s a sequel and leans into the spectacle that status allows.

Plot-wise, Lethal Weapon 2 wastes no time reminding you what this world feels like. It drops Riggs and Murtaugh into a wild car chase almost immediately, and from there the story locks onto a case involving South African diplomats hiding behind apartheid-era “diplomatic immunity” while running a massive drug and money-laundering operation. It’s a cleaner, more high-concept hook than the original’s murkier web of Vietnam vets and heroin smuggling, and the script makes the villains broad on purpose, almost cartoonishly arrogant, to give the audience someone very easy to hate. The trade-off is that the plot feels a bit more mechanical this time; you always know who the bad guys are and what the destination is, so the film’s real energy comes from the detours, jokes, and set-pieces rather than any mystery.

One of the big shifts from Lethal Weapon to Lethal Weapon 2 is tone. The first film balanced brutal violence and dark humor with a surprisingly heavy focus on Riggs’ suicidal grief and Murtaugh’s fear of getting too old for the job. The sequel keeps those elements in the background but leans harder into banter, slapstick timing, and outrageous gags like the now-famous exploding toilet sequence, with Richard Donner’s direction pushing the script toward action comedy. It’s still R-rated and not shy about blood or cruelty, but the emotional intensity is dialed down compared to the original’s raw edges.

Mel Gibson and Danny Glover remain the anchor, and their chemistry is as sharp as ever. Gibson’s Riggs is still reckless and unhinged, but there’s a looser, more playful side to him this time; he’s less haunted and more of a live-wire prankster until the story gives him something personal to latch onto. Glover’s Murtaugh continues to be the grounded center, constantly exasperated and always half a step away from just walking off the job, and the film has a lot of fun putting his straight-man persona through increasingly humiliating situations while still letting him be competent when it counts. Compared to the first film, where their partnership slowly thawed from suspicion to genuine trust, Lethal Weapon 2 starts from “these guys are already a team” and builds its best moments from how comfortably they now bounce off each other.

The biggest new ingredient is Joe Pesci as Leo Getz, a federal witness turned tagalong who basically functions as the franchise’s third stooge. Pesci leans into the motor-mouthed, paranoid, endlessly complaining energy that would become his signature, and his presence tips some scenes from gritty cop story into broad comedy. He undercuts tension at times, but he also gives the movie a different rhythm, especially in the quieter in-between beats where the first film might have lingered more on Riggs’ inner damage.

In terms of action, Donner clearly has more money and confidence to play with, and it shows. The chases are bigger, the shootouts are staged with a slicker sense of geography, and there’s a steady escalation in scale that makes the film feel like a genuine summer sequel rather than just another mid-budget cop movie. The original had a grimy, street-level intensity, with brutal fistfights and sudden bursts of violence; Lethal Weapon 2 is more interested in creative set-pieces, crowd-pleasing payoffs, and moments designed to make an audience cheer. It’s less intimate, but it is rarely dull.

Where the film lands in a more complicated space is its attempt to keep some emotional stakes alive while also going bigger and funnier. Riggs’ grief over the loss of his wife is still part of his character, and the story finds ways to poke at that wound again, including a new relationship that lets him imagine some kind of future beyond the constant death wish. Those beats are there to echo what worked so well in the first movie, but they have less room to breathe, often getting squeezed between an action scene and a joke instead of shaping the entire film’s tone. You can feel the push and pull between wanting to keep the darker emotional spine and delivering the kind of lighter, more easily marketable sequel a studio would understandably chase.

The villains themselves are effective in that pulpy 80s way: not nuanced, but very punchable. Arjen Rudd, with his smug talk of “diplomatic immunity,” is a villain designed to make audiences grind their teeth, and his main henchman adds a physically intimidating, quietly sadistic presence to the mix. Compared to the original’s more grounded ex-military antagonists, these guys feel one step closer to Bond territory, and that shift mirrors the film’s overall move toward heightened, almost comic-book stakes. What the sequel loses in plausibility, it gains in revenge-fantasy satisfaction.

When stacked directly against Lethal Weapon, the second film feels like a classic case of “if you liked hanging out with these characters once, here’s more time with them.” The original is tighter, more emotionally focused, and arguably more distinctive, with a stronger sense of danger and genuine unpredictability around Riggs’ mental state. Lethal Weapon 2 smooths some of those jagged edges and replaces them with quips, bigger set-pieces, and a more overtly crowd-pleasing structure, which makes it an easier, more consistently fun watch but also a slightly less resonant one. It is still a good film, but in many ways it is also the moment where the franchise shifts from a character-driven cop thriller with action to a full-on action-comedy machine.

As a fair, middle-of-the-road assessment, Lethal Weapon 2 works very well on its own terms and delivers exactly what most people want out of a late-80s buddy-cop sequel. The chemistry is intact, the action is energetic, and the film moves with the kind of confident pace that never really lets you get bored. At the same time, the tonal tilt toward broader humor and more cartoonish villains means it doesn’t quite have the same staying power or emotional punch as Lethal Weapon, especially if what hooked you the first time was how wounded and volatile it all felt. For fans of the original, it’s an enjoyable continuation—a louder, flashier second round that may not hit as hard, but still knows how to entertain.

Review: Lethal Weapon (dir. by Richard Donner)

Posted on December 15, 2025 by Arleigh

“I’m too old for this shit.” — Roger Murtaugh

Lethal Weapon is one of those action movies that looks like pure genre formula on paper but somehow plays like lightning in a bottle on screen. From the opening moments, it feels like a film that knows exactly what kind of ride it wants to deliver and leans into that mission with confidence, attitude, and just enough heart to make the bullets and explosions actually matter.

The premise itself is as straightforward as they come, and that simplicity is part of the charm. Martin Riggs is the textbook “cop on the edge,” a former special forces sniper whose life has completely fallen apart after the death of his wife. He’s volatile, depressed, and teetering on the edge of suicidal, which gives everything he does an extra layer of danger. On the other side of the pairing is Roger Murtaugh, a seasoned detective staring down his 50th birthday, trying to balance a long career in homicide with the quiet, constant pull of his family at home. When these two are thrown together and assigned to a case involving drugs, dead bodies, and shady ex-military criminals, the story plays out across familiar beats: suspicious deaths, escalating confrontations, close calls, and a trail that leads them deeper into a dangerous operation. The crime plot is pulpy and direct rather than twisty, but the film uses it as a sturdy framework rather than the main point of interest, keeping the investigation moving while the characters come into focus. Much of that sharp setup and snappy progression comes from Shane Black’s script, which crackles with knowing genre savvy, pitch-perfect banter, and a keen eye for how personal pain fuels action-hero antics.

What really makes Lethal Weapon feel alive is how much time it spends letting Riggs and Murtaugh exist as people before they fully morph into the “classic duo” that pop culture remembers. The film doesn’t rush past the small stuff. Riggs is introduced living in a rundown trailer on the beach with his scruffy dog for company, drinking and stumbling through life with the casual recklessness of someone who genuinely doesn’t care if he sees tomorrow. Those early moments of him alone, flirting with self-destruction, give his later heroics a sense of tragic context: he’s not just fearless, he’s half-convinced he has nothing left to lose. Murtaugh’s introduction is a complete contrast: a crowded home, kids, a loving wife, and the kind of loud, chaotic domestic life that’s full of relatable irritation and warmth. Seeing him grumble through birthday milestones or awkwardly handle family situations does more for his character than any speech about his years on the force could. These slices of everyday life build a strong emotional foundation so that when the bullets start flying, there’s something at stake beyond catching bad guys. Black’s writing shines here, weaving those intimate details into the thriller beats without ever feeling forced or preachy.

The chemistry between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover is the film’s true secret weapon. Gibson plays Riggs as an unpredictable live wire, able to flip from goofy physical comedy to chilling seriousness in an instant. He sells the idea that this is a man barely keeping it together, yet still razor-sharp when it comes to the job. There’s a constant sense that his jokes and antics are a flimsy barrier over something very raw. Glover, by contrast, keeps Murtaugh grounded and human; his performance is packed with little sighs, muttered reactions, and weary facial expressions that speak volumes. He comes across as a guy who has seen too much, loves his family, and genuinely wants to do the right thing, but is exhausted by how hard that is in practice. Their initial friction hits the expected “mismatched partners” beats: Murtaugh thinks Riggs is unstable and dangerous, while Riggs treats Murtaugh like a fussy old man who doesn’t get it. Yet as they move through stakeouts, interrogations, and gunfights, their banter evolves from pure irritation into an easy rhythm filled with barbs, mutual respect, and eventually real affection. Shane Black’s dialogue is the glue for all of it—witty, profane, and laced with just enough vulnerability to make the laughs land harder and the tension feel real.

Richard Donner’s direction is a huge part of why all of this clicks as well as it does. He has a knack for blending big, commercial genre instincts with an eye for character detail, and Lethal Weapon is a textbook example of that balance. He stages action scenes with clear geography and rhythm, so even when things get loud and chaotic, you always know where you are and what everyone is trying to do. At the same time, he’s just as interested in the quiet beats: a pause on Riggs’ face after a joke lands flat, Murtaugh’s body language when he walks into his noisy home after a brutal day, the way a conversation in a car can shift from banter to confession in a couple of lines. Donner keeps the film moving at a brisk pace, but he knows when to let a shot linger or a silence hang long enough to tell you what the characters can’t quite say out loud. His tonal control—jumping from dark to funny to tense without completely losing the thread—is a big reason the movie doesn’t collapse under its own genre juggling, and it pairs beautifully with Black’s script that sets up those shifts so precisely.

Tonally, Lethal Weapon walks a tricky line, and that’s a big part of its identity. On one hand, this is a story with genuinely dark undercurrents. Riggs’ suicidal impulses are not a throwaway character quirk; the film gives time to scenes where he nearly acts on them and struggles in a very raw way with his grief and loneliness. The case they’re working breaks open into territory involving drugs, exploitation, and violence that’s sometimes nasty rather than cleanly heroic. On the other hand, the film is full of humor, ranging from quick one-liners to broad physical bits. The Murtaugh household provides a lot of that levity: awkward conversations with his kids, Riggs stumbling through family dynamics, and the contrast between domestic calm and the chaos of the streets. The movie often jumps from heavy emotional beats to comedic ones and back again, and while the transitions can be abrupt, that mixture is part of what keeps it from feeling like just another grim cop story. The laughter doesn’t erase the darker material, but it does give the movie a sense of momentum and charm that keeps it entertaining instead of oppressive. Black’s screenplay nails this push-pull, using humor as both release valve and revelation.

As an action film, Lethal Weapon delivers a steady run of sequences that are energetic, clear, and tactile. The action is built around physical stunts, dangerous-looking falls, and gunfights that feel chaotic without becoming incoherent. One memorable sequence has Riggs dealing with a jumper on a rooftop in a way that instantly tells you everything about his mentality and willingness to risk himself. Another set piece in a more open, exposed environment lets the film escalate tension step by step before violence finally erupts. Through it all, Donner keeps a strong sense of spatial clarity; you can track where the characters are, what they’re trying to do, and how each decision raises the stakes. The fights feel scrappy and painful rather than overly slick, and that slightly rough quality actually works in the movie’s favor, making each impact land harder. Riggs, especially, moves like a human weapon, hurling himself into situations with a recklessness that ties directly into his psychological state, all fueled by Black’s clever plotting that makes those risks feel personal.

Underneath the gunfire and explosions, there’s a surprisingly sturdy emotional core tying everything together. Riggs’ grief isn’t just window dressing; it’s the lens through which his every decision makes sense. The movie doesn’t lecture you about what he’s feeling, but it shows it—through quiet moments alone, through the anger that erupts at all the wrong times, and through the way he throws his body into danger almost as if daring the world to take him out. Murtaugh’s arc is more subtle but still strongly drawn. He’s at an age where he has to confront the reality that he can’t keep pace with younger, more reckless colleagues forever, and yet his sense of duty keeps pulling him into situations where his family might lose him. Throughout their investigation, Murtaugh’s protective instincts—toward his loved ones, toward Riggs, and toward innocent people caught in the crossfire—become as important as his skills as a detective.

The relationship that develops between Riggs and Murtaugh is the heart of the film and the main reason it sticks in the memory. At first, Murtaugh just wants to survive partnering with a man he genuinely believes might be unhinged, while Riggs seems to treat their pairing as just another chaotic twist in a life already off the rails. As they trade confessions, back each other up in tight spots, and slowly understand what the other is carrying, their bond shifts into something like brotherhood. Murtaugh becomes a kind of anchor for Riggs, offering not just backup in a fight but also a place at the table, both literally and figuratively. Riggs, in turn, forces Murtaugh out of his comfort zone, reminding him that he still has plenty of courage and fire left in him. The film doesn’t turn their connection into a sentimental soapbox, but it lets small moments—a shared laugh after a narrow escape, a quiet conversation after the chaos—do the emotional lifting, with Black’s words giving those scenes their understated power.

If there’s a clear weak spot, it’s that the villains are fairly thinly drawn, operating more as looming threats than fully realized characters. They are dangerous and organized, capable of serious brutality and clearly involved in serious criminal operations, but the movie doesn’t spend much time exploring their motivations or inner lives. They’re the kind of antagonists designed to be obstacles: formidable enough to make the heroes’ victories feel earned, but not so complex that they distract from the central duo. For a character-driven action film, that trade-off mostly works. When Lethal Weapon is firing on all cylinders, the tension doesn’t come from wondering what the bad guys will do next so much as from seeing how Riggs and Murtaugh will handle whatever gets thrown at them and what that reveals about who they are.

Structurally, the film keeps a tight pace, always nudging the story forward even when it pauses for character beats. Expository scenes rarely feel like dry info dumps; they’re often laced with jokes, personal jabs, or subtle shifts in how the two leads relate to each other. The downtime moments—a quiet drink, a shared meal, a conversation in a car between partners who would rather pretend they’re fine—are as important as the louder ones. By the time the case ramps up to its most intense passages, there’s been enough time with these characters to care less about the mechanics of the plot and more about whether these two damaged, stubborn men can come out the other side with something to hold onto.

What ultimately makes Lethal Weapon work so well is that it doesn’t settle for being just a checklist of genre requirements. Yes, it has gunfights, dark humor, car chases, and tough-guy posturing. But wrapped around all of that is a story about grief, aging, loyalty, and how unlikely partnerships can change the trajectory of a person’s life. Donner’s steady hand behind the camera, Shane Black’s razor-sharp script, and the powerhouse performances turn what could have been a forgettable cop thriller into something much more memorable. For anyone who enjoys action movies that care as much about the people pulling the triggers as the bullets they fire, Lethal Weapon stands out as a defining entry in the buddy-cop mold, powered by the messy, heartfelt dynamic at its center and the sure-footed craftsmanship that brings it all together.

Review: Rare Exports (dir. by Jalmari Helander)

Posted on December 14, 2025 by Arleigh

“The real Santa was totally different. The Coca-Cola Santa is just a hoax.” — Pietari Kontio

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is a quirky Finnish film that turns the cheerful Santa story upside down, mixing horror, laughs, and holiday vibes in a bold way. Directed by Jalmari Helander in 2010, it builds on his earlier short films and unfolds in the bleak, snowy wilds of Lapland. Starting with a kid’s innocent curiosity, it dives into creature-filled madness, offering a fun alternative to typical Christmas movies. The film’s unique premise grabs you right away, promising something far removed from the sanitized holiday fare we’re all used to, and it delivers on that with a blend of folklore, tension, and unexpected twists that linger long after the credits roll.

The plot centers on young Pietari in a remote village where his dad and neighbors herd and slaughter reindeer for a living. An American-backed dig nearby uncovers something ancient and icy, sparking trouble like missing kids and odd thefts. Pietari reads from a book portraying Santa as a terrifying punisher rather than a gift-bringer, and soon the village captures a wild, elf-like creature to exploit, only to confront the bigger threat emerging from the frost. This setup masterfully builds suspense through everyday rural life clashing with supernatural intrusion, where the slow reveal of the mound’s secrets heightens the stakes. Pietari’s journey from wide-eyed boy to resourceful hero forms the emotional core, as he grapples with myths coming alive while the adults bumble through denial and desperation. The narrative weaves in economic pressures on the herders, adding a layer of realism to the fantastical elements, making the horror feel grounded in human struggle.

The movie’s mood captures that chilling isolation of deep winter, with vast snowscapes and biting winds making every sound feel ominous. Practical effects bring the skinny, feral beings—wild-eyed old men with fangs who move like beasts—to life in a raw, creepy style that avoids digital gloss for something viscerally unsettling. Pietari, played with earnest intensity by a young actor who nails the mix of fear and determination, anchors the emotion as he outsmarts the clueless grown-ups. It blends youthful adventure with sharp violence, from brutal bites and chases across frozen lakes to fiery clashes that punctuate the cold palette. Cinematography plays a huge role here, using long takes of barren landscapes to evoke vulnerability, while close-ups on the creatures’ grotesque features ramp up the dread without relying on jump scares. The film’s pacing ebbs and flows like a blizzard—calm buildup giving way to frantic bursts—keeping viewers on edge throughout its compact runtime.

Humor keeps things lighthearted, skewering Christmas clichés with glee, from red-suited abominations to the absurdity of weaponizing holiday icons against ancient evils. Burly locals stuffing their caught creature into a Santa outfit for a quick ransom scam leads to hilarious chaos, blending slapstick with dark undertones as plans unravel spectacularly. The short runtime flies by, blending Finnish authenticity—complete with subtitles that capture the dry wit—with brisk energy that never lets momentum sag. Deeper notes on faith, family bonds, and rural struggles hide under the fun, all tied to old pagan roots of the holiday myth, prompting thoughts on how modern traditions mask primal fears. These comedic beats provide relief without undercutting tension, creating a tonal tightrope walk that Helander navigates with confidence, much like his protagonists dodging fangs in the snow.

Still, it has rough edges holding it back from perfection. Some plot turns feel too convenient, like the hasty shift from fear to scheming among the villagers, which can pull you out of the immersion if you’re paying close attention. A few characters lack depth, especially the overconfident American outsider whose motivations come off as cartoonishly smug without much backstory to flesh them out. Women barely appear, relegated to minor roles or off-screen mentions, giving it an old-school, male-dominated feel that hasn’t aged as gracefully in modern viewing. The monsters, while initially shocking, grow predictable in their attacks after repeated encounters, diluting the novelty midway through. The wild finale, packed with explosive action and a cheeky resolution, might leave straight horror seekers cold—it’s more a playful genre mash-up than nonstop unrelenting terror, prioritizing fun over lingering nightmares.

The real locations sell the unforgiving outdoors, with Finland’s rugged terrain ramping up the ancient-evil vibe through authentic blizzards and icy caverns that no studio set could replicate. A clever soundtrack pairs eerie hums and dissonant strings with festive twinkles for ironic tension, underscoring scenes of quiet horror or frantic pursuits without overpowering the natural sounds of cracking ice and howling gales. Acting feels grounded across the board, with the dad character delivering tough warmth through gruff line delivery and physical comedy, while the ensemble of villagers comes across like real, weathered folks rather than polished performers. Helander expands his original shorts smartly, keeping the cheeky core intact while scaling up the stakes for feature-length thrills, showing a director comfortable with both intimate scares and big set pieces.

Beyond the surface-level scares and laughs, Rare Exports invites reflection on cultural myths and commercialization—how Santa’s image has been sanitized from something feral into a mall mascot, and what happens when the wild origins claw their way back. It’s a film that thrives on subverting expectations, starting as a kid’s adventure tale before morphing into a survival thriller with creature-feature flair. The practical makeup and prosthetics on the beasts deserve special mention for their handmade creepiness, evoking classic horror without the uncanny valley pitfalls of CGI. Editing keeps the energy taut, cutting between Pietari’s discoveries and the adults’ mishaps to build parallel dread.

As holiday counterprogramming, Rare Exports shines for fans of weird cult picks, great for group watches where reactions to the escalating weirdness become part of the fun. It holds up on repeats with hidden nods to its short-film origins, like recurring motifs and visual gags that reward eagle-eyed viewers. If you like folklore twists in films with adventure flair—think pseudo-documentaries hunting trolls or rural legends gone wrong—this delivers original entertainment despite its quirks. Ultimately, its charm lies in balancing the grotesque with the gleeful, crafting a Christmas tale that’s equal parts frightful and festive, proving that sometimes the best gifts come wrapped in fangs and fur.

Guilty Pleasure No. 93: Porky’s (dir. by Bob Clark)

Posted on December 13, 2025 by Arleigh

Porky’s is one of those movies that plays very differently depending on when you first see it. On the surface, it is a loud, lewd early‑’80s teen sex comedy about a bunch of high‑school boys in 1950s Florida trying to get laid and get even, but underneath the pranks and bare flesh there are streaks of surprisingly serious material about prejudice, masculinity, and power. That mix of dopey laughs and darker undercurrents is exactly what makes the film interesting to talk about, and also what makes it so divisive today.

Set in the 1950s and released in 1981, Porky’s follows a tight‑knit group of teenage boys whose main goals in life are sex, sports, and practical jokes. Their adventures eventually take them to Porky’s, a sleazy backwater strip club run by the hulking, corrupt Porky, who humiliates them and sets up the revenge plot that drives the back half of the film. Around that spine, the story wanders through locker‑room banter, elaborate pranks, and various attempts to sneak into the girls’ showers or otherwise spy on naked bodies. It is very much a “horny boys on the prowl” narrative, and the film never pretends to be anything else.

What keeps it from being just another disposable sex comedy is the way some of those side stories hit harder than expected. One of the kids is brutally abused by his father, and the film doesn’t treat it like a throwaway detail; those scenes have a rawness and anger that clash with the goofy tone elsewhere. There is also a thread about anti‑Semitism and racism in their community, with one character confronting his own bigoted upbringing as he befriends a Jewish classmate and pushes back against the prejudice around him. That material is handled in a pretty straightforward, earnest way, which is jarring given how crude the surrounding humor can be, but it does show that writer‑director Bob Clark had more on his mind than dirty jokes.

The humor, for better or worse, is what most people remember. Porky’s leans heavily on slapstick and sex‑obsessed gag setups: peeping through holes in shower walls, mistaken identities during sex, ridiculous anatomical bragging, prank phone calls, and elaborate schemes that escalate into full‑on chaos. Some of the set pieces are staged with real comic timing, and if you’re on its wavelength, these sequences can still land as big, cathartic laughs. Others feel juvenile in the worst way, stretching one joke way past its breaking point, or punching down at easy targets rather than punching up at the hypocritical adults the boys are constantly butting up against.

Viewed from today’s lens, a big chunk of that humor is undeniably uncomfortable. The movie is saturated with sexist, homophobic, and racist language, and a few of the “pranks” involving the girls are essentially sexual harassment played for laughs. At the time, it was sold as a gleefully politically incorrect romp; now, those same scenes read as mean‑spirited or creepy in a way that undercuts the supposed lighthearted tone. The film occasionally tries to complicate this by giving some of the female characters sharper edges or letting them turn the tables, but it never fully escapes the fact that the camera is mostly aligned with the boys and their fantasies.

That said, Porky’s is not entirely dismissive of its women. There are moments where adult women, in particular, are allowed to call out the boys’ behavior or assert their own sexuality in ways that undercut the usual “conquest” narrative. The movie also makes a point of ridiculing hypocritical authority figures—teachers, coaches, cops, and parents—whose prudish public morals don’t match their private behavior. When Porky’s is skewering bigotry, religious hypocrisy, and small‑town moral panics, it feels sharper and more progressive than its reputation as a dumb “tits‑and‑ass” comedy suggests. Those flashes of insight are part of why some viewers argue that, beneath the sleaze, the film is quietly critical of the very attitudes it seems to indulge.

Performance‑wise, the cast is made up largely of unknowns who sell the illusion that this is a real, scrappy group of friends rather than polished Hollywood teens. The camaraderie feels genuine; their constant ribbing, in‑jokes, and shifting alliances are believable enough that you can see why the movie became a touchstone for a certain generation of viewers. Bob Clark’s direction is surprisingly controlled for such an anarchic script. He keeps the story moving, balances multiple subplots, and stages the bigger comic payoffs in a way that feels almost like a live‑action cartoon. The downside is that this slickness can make the nastier gags pop more, for better and worse.

On a technical level, Porky’s is very much a product of its time, but not a cheap one. The period detail—cars, music, clothing, diners, and dingy roadside bars—helps sell the 1950s setting, giving the film a nostalgic sheen that softens some of its rougher edges. The soundtrack leans on era‑appropriate rock and roll, which adds energy to the locker‑room and party scenes. The film also doesn’t shy away from male nudity, which was less common in comedies of the time and adds to its reputation as equal‑opportunity when it comes to what it exposes, even if the gaze is still clearly tilted toward ogling women.

Where Porky’s can stumble is in tone. The shifts between broad farce and serious drama can be abrupt. One minute you are watching a drawn‑out gag about a teacher trying to identify a student by his anatomy; the next, you are plunged into a grim confrontation with an abusive parent. That whiplash can pull you out of the movie, because the emotional weight of the dramatic scenes doesn’t always get enough breathing room before the script lurches back to naughty antics. As a result, some viewers feel the darker elements trivialize real issues, while others think those same scenes give the film more substance than its imitators.

Even if someone has never seen Porky’s, they have probably felt its influence. The film was a massive box‑office hit relative to its budget and paved the way for a wave of raunchy teen comedies through the ’80s and ’90s, eventually echoing into movies like American Pie and beyond. Its success made it clear that there was a huge audience for R‑rated, adolescent sex comedies that mixed crude jokes with a veneer of coming‑of‑age sentiment. You can see its blueprint in later films: packs of horny friends, elaborate revenge schemes, school authority figures as comic foils, and a big, raucous set piece as the payoff.

Whether Porky’s “holds up” is going to depend a lot on your tolerance for outdated attitudes and offensive language. If you go in expecting a cozy nostalgia trip, you may be surprised by how sour some jokes taste now, and how casually the film treats behavior that would be framed very differently in a modern story. If you approach it as both a time capsule and the prototype of a genre, it becomes easier to see its strengths—the lively ensemble, the willingness to poke at racism and hypocrisy, the low‑budget ingenuity in its set pieces—alongside its very real flaws.

Porky’s is neither the hidden gem some defenders make it out to be nor the irredeemable trash its harshest critics describe. It is a messy, uneven, often funny, often cringeworthy movie that captures a particular moment in pop culture, both in what it laughs at and what it takes for granted. If you are curious about the roots of modern raunchy teen comedies and prepared for the rough, politically incorrect ride, it is still worth a look as a piece of film history and as an example of how comedy ages—for better and for worse.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 92: Brewster’s Millions (dir. by Walter Hill)

Posted on December 12, 2025 by Arleigh

Walter Hill’s Brewster’s Millions (1985) isn’t a perfect movie by any stretch, but it’s the kind of film that sneaks up on you. It may not be sharp enough to qualify as great satire or consistent enough to hit every comedic note, but it has an undeniable charm that pulls you in regardless. It’s loud, uneven, and often ridiculous, yet few comedies from the 1980s are as weirdly entertaining when they’re firing on all cylinders. For many movie fans, it’s that quintessential “guilty pleasure”—a film you know has problems, but that somehow feels impossible to turn off once it starts. And in many ways, that’s exactly where Brewster’s Millions finds its lasting appeal.

The setup alone is too fun to resist. Richard Pryor stars as Montgomery Brewster, a minor league baseball pitcher who unexpectedly inherits the opportunity of a lifetime—to claim a $300 million fortune from a distant relative. The catch? Before he can get it, he has to spend $30 million in 30 days under a bizarre set of conditions that make financial ruin easier said than done. He can’t give the money away, can’t destroy it, can’t buy assets or investments that retain value, and can’t tell anyone why he’s doing it. Fail, and he gets nothing. Succeed, and he becomes one of the richest men alive. It’s the sort of gleefully absurd premise that could only have come from Hollywood in the 1980s, and it’s immediately clear that the film wants audiences to sit back, grab some popcorn, and watch Pryor tear through cash in increasingly funny and desperate ways.

Richard Pryor is, without doubt, the heart and soul of the movie. He imbues Montgomery Brewster with equal parts manic energy and human frustration, giving the character a real emotional arc beneath all the comic spectacle. Pryor’s talent for blending humor with exasperation makes Brewster’s predicament believable, even when it’s insane. Watching him scramble to lose money while the world keeps rewarding him is strangely satisfying. Pryor understood how to play ordinary men caught in extraordinary circumstances, and that quality grounds the film when it could have easily spiraled into total silliness. In scenes where he loses his patience with accountants, schemes wild spending sprees, or watches his good intentions backfire, Pryor’s comic timing keeps the chaos enjoyable.

John Candy adds another layer of charm as Brewster’s best friend and teammate, Spike Nolan. Candy brings warmth, loyalty, and that unmistakable good-heartedness that made him one of the decade’s most beloved comedic actors. The chemistry between Pryor and Candy keeps the film buoyant even through its weaker stretches. Their friendship defines the film’s tone—it’s loose, goofy, and full of bro-ish camaraderie. Without Candy’s infectious energy, the movie’s more hollow comedic beats might have hit the floor with a thud. Together, they create a dynamic that feels real, even inside a premise that’s totally absurd.

As a director, Walter Hill feels like an odd fit for this kind of broad comedy, but that’s part of what makes Brewster’s Millions interesting. Hill, better known for tough, kinetic action films like The Warriors and 48 Hrs., approaches this farce with a surprising amount of structure and visual precision. The film looks slicker and sharper than most comedies of its kind, which gives the excess on-screen an unintentionally epic flair. Hill’s direction keeps the story moving, and though he’s not naturally a comedic filmmaker, his grounded style adds a peculiar edge to all the craziness. It’s chaos with discipline—an aesthetic that somehow works in the movie’s favor.

Still, Brewster’s Millions can’t quite escape its shortcomings. The pacing is uneven, especially in the middle, where the film loses some steam as Brewster cycles through increasingly repetitive spending gimmicks. The story flirts with satire but rarely commits, brushing up against deeper commentary on wealth, politics, and capitalism before retreating to the comfort of broad comedy. The “Vote None of the Above” subplot, where Brewster’s money-wasting political campaign taps into voter cynicism, is one of the smartest parts of the film—but it’s introduced and resolved too quickly to leave a mark. And while the movie is full of lively energy, not every gag lands; a few supporting performances veer into caricature, and some jokes feel very much of their time.

Yet these flaws are partly what make Brewster’s Millions such a delightful guilty pleasure. It’s the cinematic equivalent of junk food—high on calories, low on nutritional value, but deeply enjoyable all the same. Pryor’s constant exasperation, the sheer absurdity of trying to “waste” money legally, and the exaggerated set pieces (like the overblown parties or his failed attempts to lose at gambling) make for irresistible entertainment. Even when the humor dips into predictable territory, the concept keeps pulling you back in. There’s a giddy satisfaction in watching Brewster try—and fail—to lose money, especially because the universe just won’t let him.

The romance subplot with Lonette McKee’s character, Angela Drake, adds just enough heart to balance the absurdity. McKee gives a grounded, intelligent performance that prevents the love story from feeling tacked on, even if it never fully takes center stage. Her presence keeps Brewster tethered to some kind of reality, and the moral through-line—learning that not everything valuable can be bought—lands gently rather than preachily. It’s not profound, but it fits the breezy tone perfectly.

As a comedy of excess, Brewster’s Millions is very much a product of its time. The slick suits, the gaudy parties, the blind faith in wealth, and the Reagan-era optimism about money’s moral neutrality all ooze from every frame. That time-capsule quality is part of its modern appeal. Watching it today, you can’t help but smile at how on-the-nose it feels—a movie from the “greed is good” decade that accidentally ends up mocking the very mindset it sprang from. It’s self-aware only in flashes, but those flashes are enough to make you recognize the movie’s satirical edge hiding beneath its loud surface.

In the end, that’s what makes Brewster’s Millions endure as a lovable guilty pleasure. It has flaws you can’t ignore—uneven pacing, scattershot tone, underdeveloped ideas—but none of them outweigh its charm. Pryor’s comic genius makes even the weakest joke land better than it should. Candy’s warmth keeps the film light. And Hill’s straightforward direction infuses the lunacy with just enough realism to make it believable. The result is a movie that’s too silly to take seriously but too fun to dismiss. You watch it, laugh at its audacity, shake your head at the logic gaps, and yet somehow come away smiling.

Brewster’s Millions may not be a comedy classic, but it’s easy to see why people keep revisiting it. It’s comfort food cinema—lighthearted, clumsy, and endlessly watchable. And like all the best guilty pleasures, it doesn’t need to be perfect to make you happy. Sometimes, seeing Richard Pryor outsmart the meaning of money for two hours is more than enough.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Review: Doomsday (dir. by Neil Marshall)

Posted on December 11, 2025 by Arleigh

“Same shit, different era.” — Eden Sinclair

Doomsday tries to be a wild post-apocalyptic romp but ends up as such a profound disappointment, especially coming from Neil Marshall, whose previous two films, Dog Soldiers and The Descent, were much better entries in the horror genre where his attempts to inject new ideas landed the mark with precision and style. Here, Marshall shifts gears into a sprawling, uneven action-horror hybrid that feels like a highlight reel of better movies, bloated and unfocused where his earlier works thrived on tight scripting and fresh twists. While there are flashes of fun in the chaos, the film’s glaring flaws in plotting, tone, and originality outweigh any guilty-pleasure moments, leaving it as more of a curiosity than a recommendation.

The story kicks off with a decent hook: a deadly Reaper virus wipes out much of Scotland, prompting the government to seal it off behind a massive wall and leave the population to fend for itself. Years later, the virus resurfaces in London, and intel suggests survivors—and possibly a cure—lurk inside the quarantine zone. Major Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) leads a ragtag military squad across the wall to hunt down a rogue scientist. It’s a setup that echoes classics like Escape from New York, but Doomsday quickly abandons any tension for a parade of borrowed set pieces that rarely gel, a far cry from the inventive werewolf siege of Dog Soldiers or the claustrophobic crawler terror in The Descent.

Once inside, the movie lurches from one aesthetic to the next without much logic or buildup. First comes a punk-anarchist wasteland with cannibals hosting gladiatorial freak shows amid flames and mohawks, then a sudden pivot to medieval knights in castles complete with jousts and sieges. These shifts feel arbitrary, like Marshall couldn’t decide on a vibe and just threw them all in—a scattershot approach that lacks the confident genre-blending of his prior successes. The worldbuilding is shallow—how did feudalism sprout up so neatly amid the apocalypse?—and the transitions are jarring, undermining any sense of immersion or stakes.

Rhona Mitra holds the center as Sinclair, a one-eyed badass who dispatches foes with grim efficiency, but even she can’t overcome the script’s limitations. Her character is a walking archetype: tough, quippy, and competent, with zero emotional depth or growth. The supporting players, including Malcolm McDowell as a scenery-chewing lord and Bob Hoskins as a gruff boss, are wasted on one-note roles. They’re recognizable enough to highlight how little the film does with its cast, turning potential strengths into reminders of squandered talent.

Visually, Doomsday has some grit thanks to practical effects and location shooting, especially in the grimy urban ruins and over-the-top chases that nod to Mad Max. The gore is plentiful and messy, which might appeal to splatter fans. But the action often devolves into incoherent shaky-cam slogs, and the pacing drags in spots despite the constant escalation. Worse, the film’s self-indulgent excess tips into silliness that undercuts its own grim premise, making it hard to buy the horror of the virus or the desperation of survival.

Tonally, Doomsday is all over the map, swinging from bleak quarantine dread to campy medieval farce without warning. This inconsistency is its biggest sin—serious moments clash with cartoon violence, and the humor lands flat or feels forced. Influences from 28 Days Later, The Road Warrior, and even Excalibur are blatant, but Marshall doesn’t elevate them; he just remixes them into something louder yet less impactful. The result feels like fan fiction for genre nerds rather than a fresh take, missing the spark that made his earlier horrors stand out.

Thematically, there are glimmers of commentary on government abandonment, class divides, and viral panic, but they’re buried under the bombast and never explored. Instead of probing the ethics of walling off a nation, the film prioritizes spectacle, leaving those ideas as window dressing. It’s a missed opportunity that makes the whole endeavor feel hollow, especially when real-world parallels to pandemics could have added bite.

Doomsday struggles to stand on its own amid a crowded genre field, weighed down by narrative sloppiness and tonal whiplash that overshadow its few strengths. The positives—like visceral kills and Mitra’s presence—fail to overcome the disjointed plotting and lack of fresh ideas. Ultimately, it feels like a missed chance for something more cohesive, leaving little reason to revisit beyond a one-off curiosity.

In the end, Doomsday is a swing-and-a-miss for Neil Marshall, ambitious in scope but sloppy in execution, a letdown after the highs of Dog Soldiers and The Descent. The negatives dominate: uneven pacing, logical gaps, borrowed aesthetics without innovation, and a tone that alienates more than it entertains. If you’re in the mood for undemanding B-movie chaos on a slow night, it might scratch a minor itch. Otherwise, skip it for the films it rips off—they deliver the thrills without the frustration. At around 105 minutes, it’s not a huge time sink, but better options abound in the post-apoc genre.

Review: 48 Hrs. (dir. by Walter Hill)

Posted on December 10, 2025 by Arleigh

“This ain’t no god damn way to start a partnership.” – Reggie Hammond

48 Hrs. bursts onto the screen with a gritty prison breakout that sets the stage for chaos in the foggy streets of San Francisco, where a pair of ruthless killers slip away after gunning down a cop’s partner in cold blood. Jack Cates, the surviving detective, is left battered and furious, piecing together a case that points to a slick convict named Reggie Hammond holding the key to the crooks’ whereabouts—and a stash of stolen cash. With time ticking down, Jack pulls strings to get Reggie out on a 48-hour pass, thrusting these two polar opposites into a reluctant alliance that turns the city into their personal battlefield of bullets, banter, and bad blood.

From the jump, Jack comes across as the ultimate rough-around-the-edges cop, nursing a flask under his trench coat, snapping at colleagues, and charging headfirst into danger like a man who’s got nothing left to lose. His apartment is a mess of empty bottles and regret, and his rocky relationship with his girlfriend underscores how the job has chewed him up and spit him out, leaving him more beast than man. Reggie, by contrast, rolls in with street-honed swagger, his prison jumpsuit barely containing the energy of a guy who’s survived by being quicker on his feet and sharper with his mouth than anyone around him. He’s got a girlfriend waiting with that hidden money, and no intention of playing nice with a cop who’s eyeing him like fresh meat.

The beauty of their pairing lies in how the film lets their friction spark from the very first shared car ride, where Jack’s growled commands clash against Reggie’s nonstop ribbing, turning a simple stakeout into a verbal demolition derby. Picture them peeling out after a lead goes south, tires screeching through narrow alleys while Reggie gripes about the beat-up car and Jack slams the dash in frustration—it’s these raw, unscripted-feeling moments that make the movie breathe. As they hit up seedy bars, chase informants through strip joints, and dodge ambushes, the script peels back layers: Jack’s not just a bully, he’s haunted by close calls; Reggie’s bravado masks real fear of ending up dead or broke.

One standout sequence drops them into a hillbilly roadhouse packed with hostile locals, where Reggie grabs the mic for an impromptu takedown that flips the room from menace to mayhem, buying them time while Jack backs him up with sheer firepower. It’s tense, hilarious, and perfectly timed, showing how their skills complement each other—Jack’s brute force meeting Reggie’s silver tongue—in ways neither saw coming. The villains, led by a stone-cold Luther and his trigger-happy sidekick, keep the heat cranked high, popping up for savage hits that leave bodies in the gutter and force the duo to improvise on the fly, like hot-wiring rides or shaking down lowlifes for scraps of intel.

Walter Hill’s direction keeps it all taut and visceral, with handheld cameras capturing the sweat and grime of every punch thrown or shot fired, no glossy filters to soften the blows. The San Francisco backdrop shines through rain-slicked hills, neon-lit dives, and shadowy piers, giving the action a grounded, almost documentary edge that amps up the stakes. Sound design punches too—the roar of engines, the crack of gunfire, the thud of fists—layered over a pulsing ’80s score that shifts from funky grooves during chases to ominous drones in quieter beats, mirroring the push-pull between comedy and threat.

Diving deeper into the characters, Jack’s arc feels earned through small touches: a hesitant phone call to his ex, a flicker of respect when Reggie saves his skin, moments that humanize the hardass without forcing redemption. Reggie evolves too, his initial scam-artist vibe giving way to flashes of loyalty, like when he risks his neck to protect that cash not just for himself, but to build something real outside the walls. Supporting roles flesh out the world—the precinct captain barking orders, the sultry singer tangled with the bad guys, Reggie’s tough-as-nails woman who won’t take guff—but they never overshadow the core duo, serving as sparks for conflict or comic relief.

Pacing-wise, the film rarely pauses for breath, clocking in under two hours yet packing in a full meal of twists, from double-crosses at motels to a frantic foot chase across rooftops that leaves you winded. The 48-hour ticking clock adds urgency without gimmicks, every dead end ramping tension as dawn breaks on their deadline. Humor lands organically too, not from slapstick but from character-driven zingers—Reggie calling out Jack’s outdated tough-guy schtick, Jack grumbling about Reggie’s flashy clothes—keeping the tone light even as blood spills.

Of course, watching through modern eyes, the dialogue packs some era-specific punches, with raw language around race, cops, and crooks that reflects ’80s attitudes head-on, for better or worse. It’s unapologetic, mirroring the film’s macho pulse, but adds texture to the time capsule feel, making replays fascinating for how boldly it leaned into taboos. The women, while fierce in spots, often play second fiddle to the bromance brewing, a hallmark of the genre that 48 Hrs. helped cement before it evolved.

What elevates this beyond standard action fare is how it nails the buddy dynamic’s slow burn: no instant high-fives, just gradual thaw from shared survival, culminating in a dockside finale where alliances solidify amid explosions and last stands. The editing zips between high-octane set pieces and downtime breather scenes, like a roadside diner heart-to-heart that reveals backstories without halting momentum. Cinematography plays with shadows and neon to heighten paranoia, turning everyday spots into pressure cookers.

Influence-wise, you can trace lines straight to later hits—the grizzled vet and smooth-talking newbie formula got refined here, blending Lethal Weapon grit with Beverly Hills Cop wit years ahead of schedule. Performances anchor it all: the leads’ chemistry crackles, carrying weaker beats on sheer charisma, while Hill’s lean style ensures every frame earns its keep. Runtime flies because it’s efficient, no fat, just muscle.

Final stretch ramps to operatic violence on those windswept docks, bullets flying as personal scores settle, leaving our heroes bloodied but bonded in a way that feels hard-won. 48 Hrs. endures as a rowdy blueprint for the genre, blending laughs, thrills, and toughness into a package that’s addictive on first watch and rewarding on revisit. It’s got heart under the bruises, edge in the jokes, and a vibe that’s pure ’80s adrenaline—grab it for a night of no-holds-barred entertainment that still packs a wallop over four decades later.

Review: Law Abiding Citizen (dir. by F. Gary Gray)

Posted on December 9, 2025 by Arleigh

“Christ! Whatever happened to right and wrong!? Whatever happened to the people!? Whatever happened to justice!?” — Clyde Shelton

Law Abiding Citizen is one of those thrillers that grabs you right from the start and refuses to let go, even as it spirals into moral chaos. Directed by F. Gary Gray and released in 2009, the film pits two central performances—Gerard Butler as Clyde Shelton and Jamie Foxx as Nick Rice—against each other in a brutal chess match of justice, revenge, and control. On the surface, it’s a revenge thriller about a man wronged by a broken justice system. But dig a little deeper, and it becomes a dark commentary on the limits of law, the manipulation of morality, and the ethics of punishment. It’s not perfect—it veers toward implausibility at times—but it’s undeniably gripping, stylishly cold, and lingers in your mind long after the credits roll.

The film begins with a horrifying scene that immediately sets the tone for what’s to come. Clyde Shelton, an inventor and family man, watches helplessly as his wife and young daughter are brutally murdered in their home. When the killers are caught, Assistant District Attorney Nick Rice cuts a deal that lets one murderer go free in exchange for testifying against his partner. The decision, made in the name of efficiency and legal pragmatism, destroys Clyde’s faith in the justice system. Ten years later, when the murderer is executed under mysterious and gruesome circumstances, Clyde resurfaces—not as a grieving victim but as a brilliant, calculated force determined to expose the system’s corruption in the most explosive way imaginable.

What makes Law Abiding Citizen so effective early on is its sympathy play. The audience initially feels the same fury Clyde does. We understand his pain and disillusionment, and for a brief moment, we want him to succeed in making the system accountable. Butler captures that emotional transition perfectly—from quiet devastation to methodical vengeance. The scene where Clyde calmly watches his first victim die, having orchestrated the man’s death with near-surgical precision, is shocking yet disturbingly satisfying. This is where the film hooks its audience: it asks whether revenge can ever be justified when justice fails.

But as the killings pile up and Clyde’s plan grows more elaborate, that empathy begins to slip. The real tension of the film lies in that moral gray space—where Clyde’s righteous anger turns monstrous. His war isn’t just against the criminals but against the entire justice system, targeting judges, lawyers, and anyone he sees as complicit. Nick Rice, on the other hand, becomes the face of that system. He’s young, successful, and smug—a prosecutor obsessed with his win-loss record. Jamie Foxx’s performance gives Rice an icy veneer of confidence that slowly cracks as Clyde’s campaign escalates. The interplay between these two men—the avenger and the pragmatist—is the film’s heartbeat. It’s less about who will win and more about whether either man can still claim moral authority when the dust settles.

From a narrative standpoint, Law Abiding Citizen is structured like a dark puzzle. Each scene unveils another layer of Clyde’s intelligence and ruthlessness. The tension comes not from knowing who’s doing it—we know—but from wondering how he’s doing it. The film’s most audacious twist is that Clyde continues orchestrating murders even while locked in a high-security prison cell. This push toward psychological warfare turns the story into a cat-and-mouse game with shades of Seven and The Silence of the Lambs. However, where those films maintained a clear thematic direction, Law Abiding Citizen sometimes stumbles under the weight of its ambition. The logic of Clyde’s omnipotence starts to stretch believability, and the film sacrifices realism for spectacle. Still, it’s hard to look away when the spectacle is this sharp and aggressive.

Visually, F. Gary Gray directs with a crisp, metallic style. The cinematography uses muted tones and sharp contrasts to reflect the film’s moral ambiguity. The more the story dives into Clyde’s schemes, the colder and more sterile the visuals become, echoing his detachment from human empathy. The editing is snappy and kinetic, especially during the interrogation scenes and courtroom exchanges. Brian Tyler’s score underscores the tension with brooding, pulsing beats that heighten the sense of dread. Every technical element supports the emotional core—revenge as obsession, intelligence as a weapon.

Gerard Butler, best known for roles that highlight his physicality, delivers one of his most controlled performances here. His portrayal of Clyde is chilling because of how calm it is. He doesn’t yell or flail; his menace is intellectual. Even in scenes where the dialogue leans toward theatrical monologues about justice and morality, Butler maintains focus, grounding the performance in conviction rather than chaos. Jamie Foxx, meanwhile, brings subtlety to Nick Rice. His transformation from ambitious lawyer to shaken moralist is gradual. By the final act, Nick’s self-assurance has eroded into doubt—about the system, his choices, and his own complicity. Foxx and Butler’s dynamic never feels forced; it’s built on escalating tension, mutual respect, and bitter irony.

Where Law Abiding Citizen truly provokes is in its ethical questioning. What does justice mean when the system serves convenience instead of truth? Is it right to play by the rules if those rules protect the guilty? Clyde’s crusade, as twisted as it becomes, emerges from a very real frustration—one viewers can sympathize with, especially in a world full of technicalities that favor the powerful. But the film also serves as a warning. In trying to dismantle corruption, Clyde becomes its reflection. His vigilante justice ultimately mirrors the same indifference he condemns. By the time the film reaches its explosive climax, viewers are left torn—not cheering for Clyde’s punishment, but not wanting him to win either. This ambiguity gives the film an edge that lingers long after the credits roll.

That said, the story’s final act is where opinions tend to divide. Once strategy gives way to spectacle, the film trades nuance for action. The ending, while satisfying in terms of closure, feels somewhat abrupt and simplified compared to the build-up. The moral complexity that defined the first two acts begins to blur into a conventional revenge-thriller showdown. Still, even in its imperfections, the film sustains a dark fascination. It never feels lazy or hollow—it’s just that its ideas might have deserved a slightly more refined execution.

Despite its narrative stretches, Law Abiding Citizen remains a standout in the late-2000s thriller landscape. It’s unapologetically intense, dramatically charged, and philosophical enough to make its explosions feel earned rather than gratuitous. The film thrives on its contradictions: it condemns violence while indulging in it, critiques the system while sensationalizing its collapse. For all its over-the-top plotting, the emotional truth stays intact—when justice becomes negotiable, vengeance becomes inevitable. And whether viewers side with Clyde or Nick, the uneasy feeling the film leaves behind is its greatest triumph.

At its core, Law Abiding Citizen is less about revenge and more about control—who wields it, who loses it, and how the pursuit of it can consume both sides. F. Gary Gray’s direction, backed by two commanding performances, turns what could’ve been a formulaic thriller into something more charged and psychological. It’s a film that asks uncomfortable questions about morality, justice, and the price of vengeance, even if its answers are messy. And maybe that’s the point—justice, like humanity, rarely fits into a clean equation.

Review: The Accountant (dir. by Gavin O’Connor)

Posted on December 7, 2025 by Arleigh

“What I do is not against the law. What I don’t do… is.” — Christian Wolff

The Accountant is a 2016 action thriller that mixes elements of character drama, crime mystery, and family dynamics into a unique storyline. The movie follows Christian Wolff, a man with autism and exceptional math and accounting skills, who works as a freelance accountant for criminal organizations. Raised by a strict military father who pushed him to develop precision and discipline, Christian has a rigid moral code that guides his actions. As Christian unravels financial fraud within a robotics company, he finds himself hunted by a Treasury agent. The film blends intellectual mystery with high-stakes action, presenting a different take on the typical thriller formula.

Ben Affleck leads as Christian Wolff, bringing a quiet intensity that captures the character’s inner complexities and unique worldview. Anna Kendrick plays Dana Cummings, the robotics company accountant whose discovery of financial irregularities kicks off the central conflict, offering a relatable and warm counterpoint. J.K. Simmons portrays Raymond King, the sharp Treasury agent on Christian’s trail, adding layers of tension and moral ambiguity. Jon Bernthal embodies Braxton Wolff, Christian’s estranged brother and a rugged former military operative, whose presence heightens the family drama. The brothers’ strict and demanding father is portrayed by Rob Treveiler, who appears mainly in flashbacks that showcase the rigorous military-style training and discipline shaping Christian’s development. These performances ground the film’s ambitious mix of genres, making the characters feel lived-in and believable.

Christian Wolff stands out as a well-rounded character whose autism shapes his personality without becoming a mere plot device. The film shows his struggles alongside his strengths, like sensory sensitivities, social awkwardness, and laser focus on details. He relies on strict routines and coping tools to handle his surroundings, mirroring real experiences on the autism spectrum. Affleck’s portrayal draws from this backstory—those intense father-son training montages with Treveiler—to explain Christian’s discipline and guarded emotions, giving audiences a clear window into what drives him.

At the movie’s core sits Christian’s personal moral compass. He might balance the books for shady clients, but he draws a hard line at true ethical breaches, stepping in with his own form of justice. This anti-hero vibe keeps things gray and intriguing. His bond with Dana, played by Kendrick, offers rare moments of connection amid the chaos, though it stays somewhat surface-level and misses chances for deeper emotional pull.

The plot tracks Christian’s dive into massive fraud at the robotics firm, all while dodging Simmons’ relentless agent. The accounting scenes impress with their detail—Christian pores over ledgers, spotting irregularities that expose embezzlement on a grand scale. This cerebral side contrasts sharply with the brutal action, like the raw fights between Affleck’s Christian and Bernthal’s Braxton, which mix physical showdowns with buried family pain. Those brotherly clashes tie back to their shared traumatic past, ramping up the stakes beyond just numbers and guns.

The Accountant handles autism with real care, steering clear of clichés. It spotlights Christian’s sensitivities, routine needs, and social hurdles while celebrating his smarts and toughness. Affleck makes these traits feel authentic, turning what could be quirky into profoundly human. This approach avoids stereotypes, letting viewers connect with Christian on a deeper level and appreciate how his mind works in high-pressure situations.

The film has room for refinement in a few spots. It crams in crime plots, sibling secrets, and shadowy ops, which can jumble the pace as it bounces from fights to feels to financial deep dives. Relationships like Christian and Dana’s, or the Wolff brothers’, might hit harder with extra screen time to build that emotional core and make the risks feel more intimate.

Tonally, The Accountant strikes a balance—serious stakes lightened by Christian’s offbeat interactions and fresh outlook. Autism never turns into a joke; instead, it builds empathy. The ethical murk in his world—cooking books for crooks one day, punishing them the next—flips hero tropes on their head, keeping you guessing.

Overall, The Accountant shines by fusing brainpower and brawn in its lead and narrative, transcending standard shoot-’em-ups as a thoughtful character piece that honors its hero’s nuances. It probes unconventional strengths and ethics in a murky reality while illustrating thriving with distinct abilities and hurdles in a harsh landscape, all while clinging to personal principles—delivering thrills with substance on neurodiversity and payback. Fans of smart action will dig this blend of suspense, puzzles, and character depth, even if the threads tangle at times, making it a solid pick for thriller seekers wanting more than explosions.