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

Posted on August 15, 2026 by Arleigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Colors (dir. by Dennis Hopper)

Posted on August 13, 2026 by Arleigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Rollercoaster (dir. by James Goldstone)

Posted on August 12, 2026 by Arleigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Zulu (dir. by Cy Endfield)

Posted on August 7, 2026 by Arleigh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review: Scarface (dir. by Brian De Palma)

Posted on August 6, 2026 by Arleigh

“All I have in this world is my balls and my word.” — Tony Montana

Brian De Palma’s Scarface is one of those movies that seems almost impossible to discuss at a normal volume. Everything about it is loud, excessive, sweaty, violent, vulgar, and deliberately too much. The movie does not simply tell the story of Tony Montana, a Cuban immigrant who rises through Miami’s cocaine trade before destroying himself. It turns that rise and fall into a neon-lit, operatic explosion of greed, paranoia, sex, money, and violence. At first, Scarface can feel like an overlong, incredibly entertaining gangster fantasy. But underneath all the cocaine mountains and machine guns, it is also a deeply cynical story about the American dream and what happens when ambition is allowed to become a substitute for an actual soul.

Tony arrives in Miami during the Mariel boatlift, immediately presenting himself as someone who refuses to be intimidated. He is not interested in being grateful, polite, or patient. Tony wants power, and he wants it quickly. That impatience is both his greatest strength and the obvious source of his downfall. He is willing to do things that other people are too afraid to do, which helps him climb the criminal ladder. At the same time, he cannot understand the idea of limits. Every success only makes him want something bigger: more money, more cocaine, more influence, a bigger house, a more beautiful wife, and absolute control over everyone around him.

The screenplay by Oliver Stone gives Tony a kind of blunt, almost cartoonishly direct philosophy. He believes that the world belongs to people who take it. In Tony’s mind, morality is mostly an excuse invented by people who lack the courage to seize what they want. That attitude makes him magnetic, but the film never truly presents his worldview as admirable. Tony may have the confidence of a king, but he behaves more like a man who is constantly terrified that someone will discover he is not really in control. His bravado is a shield against humiliation, poverty, and powerlessness. The more successful he becomes, the more obvious it is that he is still fighting the same emotional battle he was fighting when he first arrived.

Al Pacino’s performance is the central reason Scarface remains so watchable. He plays Tony as a human grenade, a character who seems to be vibrating with anger even when he is sitting still. The accent, the posture, the rapid shifts in mood, and the exaggerated physical gestures could easily have turned Tony into a parody. In fact, there are moments when Pacino absolutely does push the character into parody. Yet that is also part of the performance’s strange power. Tony is a man who has constructed himself as a larger-than-life personality, so Pacino makes him seem like someone performing Tony Montana even while he is alone.

Pacino understands that Tony’s violence is not simply about cruelty. It is about insecurity, pride, and the panic of losing status. Tony cannot tolerate being laughed at, challenged, ignored, or treated as inferior. A casual insult can become a life-or-death confrontation because he experiences disrespect as an existential threat. Pacino makes those reactions frightening, but he also gives them a pathetic quality. Tony is powerful enough to terrify an entire room, yet emotionally he often behaves like a wounded child demanding recognition.

That contradiction is what keeps the performance from becoming empty scenery chewing. Tony is ridiculous, but he is also tragic. He is disgusting, but he has flashes of genuine feeling, especially in his relationship with his sister Gina. Unfortunately, even his love for her becomes possessive and destructive. Tony wants to protect Gina, but he also wants to own her choices, her sexuality, and her future. He cannot separate love from control. The same problem affects his relationship with Elvira, played by Michelle Pfeiffer, and eventually his entire empire. Tony does not know how to care for people without turning them into extensions of himself.

De Palma’s direction matches Tony’s personality. The film is staged like a gangster epic filtered through a fever dream. Miami becomes a place of bright colors, glass surfaces, giant mansions, tropical heat, and constant artificial light. The city feels less like a real environment than a hallucination of wealth. Tony’s home is especially important because it looks like a monument to success but gradually becomes a prison. The famous final shootout transforms that mansion into a battlefield, with Tony defending his kingdom even after it has already collapsed around him.

The violence in Scarface is often shocking, but it is also theatrical. De Palma uses suspense, wide compositions, sudden bursts of brutality, and moments of grotesque visual humor to make the violence feel both horrifying and unreal. The movie’s excess can be exhausting, particularly in the middle section, where Tony’s rise begins to blur into an endless parade of deals, parties, arguments, and drug use. The length is part of the point: we are meant to feel Tony’s world becoming bloated and unstable. Still, some of the film’s scenes repeat ideas that it has already established. Tony is ambitious, Tony is paranoid, Tony is violent, and eventually Tony is high. The movie sometimes keeps shouting after the audience has already heard it.

That criticism matters because Scarface is not a flawless film. Its dialogue can be clumsy, its supporting characters are sometimes more functional than fully developed, and its treatment of women is frequently limited by Tony’s perspective. The film wants to condemn male domination and criminal capitalism, but it is also fascinated by the same things it condemns. It shows us the luxury, the clothes, the cars, the glamorous parties, and the apparent freedom of Tony’s lifestyle. Even while warning that this life ends in misery, it makes the fantasy visually seductive.

That tension helps explain the movie’s complicated legacy. When Scarface was first released in 1983, many critics found it excessive, ugly, and morally confused. Over time, however, its reach expanded dramatically through home video and popular culture. The movie became especially important to hip-hop, where artists recognized Tony’s language of survival, hustle, ambition, and self-invention. Al Pacino has credited hip-hop with helping the film find its audience, saying that rappers understood and embraced it. That relationship became one of the most important parts of Scarface’s afterlife.

Hip-hop did not simply treat Tony as a cool gangster. It also turned him into a symbol. The character could represent ruthless ambition, immigrant struggle, street credibility, material success, or the danger of becoming trapped by one’s own myth. Lines from the movie entered rap lyrics, album skits, music videos, and stage names. The film’s imagery became a shorthand for a certain kind of rise-from-nothing fantasy, even when the original movie was trying to show how poisonous that fantasy could be. In this sense, Scarface became bigger than its initial critical reputation. It stopped being only a crime film and became a cultural text that people could quote, remix, parody, and reinterpret.

Its influence on video games is just as obvious, especially in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. That game’s 1980s Miami setting, neon colors, criminal empire structure, radio culture, and flamboyant protagonist clearly operate in the same general territory as Scarface. The film has also been connected directly to other games, including Scarface: The World Is Yours, which imagines an alternate continuation after the movie’s ending. The game allows players to rebuild Tony’s empire, purchase businesses, intimidate rivals, and expand across Miami. It turns the movie’s rise-and-fall structure into an interactive fantasy in which the player gets to ignore the ending and keep climbing.

That difference between film and game is revealing. Scarface ultimately insists that Tony’s dream cannot survive because Tony himself is incapable of moderation, trust, or self-knowledge. Video games can take the same world and make the player feel rewarded for doing exactly what Tony does: acquiring territory, collecting money, buying weapons, and becoming more powerful. In that format, the critique of excess can easily become a celebration of excess. Yet that is also why the film remains so influential to games. It provides an instantly understandable fantasy of criminal ascent, complete with a distinctive visual style and a protagonist whose personality is impossible to ignore.

In the end, Scarface is both a warning and a temptation. It tells us that Tony Montana is doomed, but it makes his climb so entertaining that we understand why generations of viewers, rappers, and game designers kept returning to him. Al Pacino’s performance is the movie’s beating heart: outrageous, funny, frightening, and occasionally heartbreaking. De Palma’s film may be messy and overstuffed, but its messiness is part of its identity. Scarface does not want to be tasteful or balanced. It wants to overwhelm you, seduce you, and then leave you staring at the wreckage of a man who mistook having everything for being somebody.

Review: A Fistful of Dollars (dir. by Sergio Leone)

Posted on August 3, 2026 by Arleigh

“When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, you said, the man with a pistol’s a dead man. Let’s see if that’s true.” — Joe

When examining the films that fundamentally reshaped a genre, 1964’s A Fistful of Dollars stands as an undeniable cornerstone. Directed by Sergio Leone, this movie didn’t just accidentally stumble into creating a new genre; it grabbed the classic American western by the collar, dragged it into the mud, and spat on its shiny boots. This was the first leg of Leone’s “Dollar’s Trilogy,” and honestly, looking back at it now, it’s kind of crazy to think about how much of an underdog this production was. It was made on a shoestring budget, shot in Spain with a bunch of Italian and Spanish actors speaking different languages and then dubbed over, and it featured a lead actor who was mostly known for playing a lovable cowboy on a little American TV show called Rawhide. Nobody expected A Fistful of Dollars to become a massive international hit, but it did, and it permanently altered the cinematic landscape.

The story itself feels incredibly familiar today, but that’s only because it has been copied and homaged about a million times since. Unapologetically lifting the plot from Akira Kurosawa’s Yojimbo, the film follows a gritty, chain-smoking drifter who rides into a dusty, miserable border town called San Miguel. But the fun part about this cinematic lineage is that Yojimbo wasn’t entirely original either. Kurosawa openly borrowed the core concept from Dashiell Hammett’s hardboiled detective novels, specifically Red Harvest and The Glass Key. Both of those books featured a lone, cynical protagonist who manipulates warring criminal factions fighting it out for control of a corrupt town. So Leone was essentially taking a Japanese interpretation of an American noir trope, stripping it down, and repackaging it as a western. Once our drifter arrives in San Miguel, he quickly realizes the town is torn apart by two rival gangs: the Baxters, a family of American gun-runners, and the Rojos, a ruthless group of Mexican smugglers. Instead of playing the traditional white-hat hero who immediately picks a side and saves the day, our guy does the exact opposite. He decides to play both sides against each other, hiring himself out to the highest bidder, switching loyalties at the drop of a hat, and essentially bleeding the town dry for his own profit. It is a brilliantly cynical setup that completely subverted what western audiences were used to seeing at the time.

And then there is Clint Eastwood. Now, pop culture famously knows him as the Man with No Name, but that is actually the result of a very clever piece of US marketing. In A Fistful of Dollars, his character absolutely has a name: Joe. The American distributors thought the mysterious, anonymous angle sounded cooler for the posters, and the moniker stuck so hard over the decades that most people forget he literally introduces himself as Joe to the locals early on in the movie. Regardless of what you call him, when Leone cast Eastwood, American studios were apparently confused, wondering why an Italian director would want a TV actor to lead a movie. But Leone saw something in Eastwood’s squint, a kind of rugged, lazy menace that was perfect for this new brand of anti-hero. Joe isn’t a knight in shining armor. He’s greedy, he’s manipulative, and he kills people without losing a wink of sleep. But he has an undeniable coolness to him that is just magnetic. The costume design plays a massive part here too. The weathered brown poncho, the stubble, the short cigar clamped in his jaw, and that iconic hat all combined to create a look that felt lived-in and dangerous. Compared to the impeccably groomed, brightly dressed cowboys of the 1950s, Eastwood looked like he actually smelled like sweat, horse hair, and gunpowder.

Of course, a conversation about A Fistful of Dollars is totally incomplete without talking about the villains, because Leone knew how to cast bad guys who were genuinely terrifying. Gian Maria Volonté plays Ramón Rojo, the main antagonist, and he is absolutely phenomenal. Ramón isn’t just a cartoonish thug; he is smart, cold-blooded, and utterly devoid of mercy. There is a famous scene where Ramón is demonstrating the accuracy of his rifle by shooting at the heart of a man he has just murdered at long range, and Volonté plays it with such a creepy, casual indifference that it makes your skin crawl. The Baxters are mostly just pathetic pawns, but the Rojos feel like a legitimate, organized threat, which makes the stakes feel incredibly real. You genuinely believe that if Joe slips up even once, these guys will brutally torture and kill him without a second thought.

Visually, A Fistful of Dollars is an absolute masterclass in atmosphere. Leone was working with a limited budget, but he used what he had to create a style that felt massive. He employed these extreme, lingering close-ups of people’s eyes, sweaty faces, and flies buzzing around, which gave the film an almost unbearable tension. Then he would suddenly cut to these massive, sweeping wide shots of the barren Spanish desert, making the characters look like tiny, insignificant specks in a cruel, uncaring world. The violence was also shockingly graphic for the time. People didn’t just clutch their chests and fall over gracefully like they did in older westerns. They bled, they grimaced in agony, and the gunfights felt loud, chaotic, and messy. Leone stripped away the romanticism of the Wild West and replaced it with a gritty, dirty reality that felt much more authentic, even if it was entirely a fabricated Italian fantasy of America.

You also absolutely have to talk about Ennio Morricone’s legendary musical score. It is basically a character in the film itself. Before A Fistful of Dollars, western soundtracks were mostly made up of traditional orchestral arrangements and folksy songs. Morricone threw that playbook out the window. He used electric guitars, twanging banjos, screaming trumpets, whip cracks, choral chants, and even a bizarre, wailing coyote sound that sounds like a human having a mental breakdown. The main theme is so incredibly catchy and weird that it burrows into your brain and stays there for days. The music didn’t just support the action on screen; it told the audience exactly how to feel, ramping up the tension during the standoffs and giving Eastwood’s character a larger-than-life aura. Without Morricone’s score, the Spaghetti Western genre simply would not exist as we know it.

The pacing of the movie is something that modern audiences might need a minute to adjust to, but it is completely intentional. Leone was in absolutely no rush to get from point A to point B. He wanted to linger on the tension, letting scenes breathe and stretch out to almost uncomfortable lengths. When Eastwood is staring down a group of thugs in the street, Leone holds the camera on their faces for what feels like an eternity. You can see the sweat dripping, you can see the fear building, and by the time the first shot is finally fired, the release of tension is almost physical. It is a slow burn that requires a bit of patience, but it makes the eventual bursts of violence so much more impactful and satisfying. It is the exact opposite of the fast-paced, action-packed blockbusters we get today, and that deliberate slowness is a huge part of its strange, hypnotic charm.

Despite all of Joe’s outward greed and manipulation, there is a subtle emotional core to the film that keeps you totally invested. It comes in the form of Marisol, a woman who is being held captive by Ramón Rojo and used as leverage against her husband. When Eastwood sees the absolute misery of this family, his cold exterior cracks just a little bit. He risks his entire scheme, and his own life, to sneak Marisol and her son out of town in the middle of the night, giving them money to start over. It is a beautifully quiet, understated scene that proves there is still a shred of humanity left underneath all that grit and cynicism. He doesn’t make a big speech about it or ask for thanks; he just does it because it is the right thing to do. It gives the character a moral center without turning him into a traditional good guy, which is a really difficult balancing act that the film pulls off perfectly.

The climax of the film is where everything comes together in a spectacular display of style and sheer badassery. After getting brutally beaten by the Rojos, Eastwood escapes and returns for revenge, utilizing a makeshift iron chest plate hidden under his poncho. Watching him walk slowly down the empty street, taking bullet after bullet to the chest without flinching, while the electric guitar wails in the background is just pure, unadulterated cinema magic. He outdraws Ramón in a final, agonizingly tense standoff, proving that his wits and his nerve are just as deadly as his revolver. It is the perfect payoff to the slow build-up of the entire movie, cementing Joe as an absolute icon of pop culture.

And this endless game of cinematic telephone didn’t stop with Leone. Just as A Fistful of Dollars was heavily “inspired by Yojimbo“—which itself transplanted the 1920s pulp noir concept into the 1860 Edo period—it went on to inspire a whole new wave of imitators looking to put their own spin on the formula. The most obvious example is the 1996 action flick Last Man Standing starring Bruce Willis, which takes the exact same plot of warring factions and a lone drifter playing them against each other, but moves the action to a Prohibition-era Texas border town. It is wild to trace that DNA from a 1920s pulp novel to the 1860 Edo period, to a 1960s Italian western, and all the way to a 1990s Bruce Willis shoot-em-up, proving just how durable and universally cool this basic storyline really is.

Looking at A Fistful of Dollars today, it is easy to see the cracks in its foundation. The dubbing is notoriously clunky, some of the supporting performances are a bit wooden, and the fact that it is a direct rip-off of a Japanese masterpiece is impossible to ignore. But honestly, none of that really matters in the grand scheme of things. Leone took a great story and injected it with so much style, so much attitude, and so much raw energy that it became its own completely distinct entity. As the first leg of Leone’s “Dollar’s Trilogy,” it laid the foundational blueprint that he would later perfect with For a Few Dollars More and absolutely master with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. But there is something special about this first outing. It has a rougher, scrappier, and more experimental vibe that is incredibly fun to watch. It is the movie that killed the old western and birthed the new one, and for that alone, it deserves every bit of its legendary status.

Review: Shot Caller (dir. by Ric Roman Waugh)

Posted on July 28, 2026 by Arleigh

“The fact is, we all started out as someone’s little angel. And a place like this forces us to become warriors or victims. Nothing in between can exist here.” — “Bottles”

Shot Caller (released in 2017), directed by Ric Roman Waugh, is a gritty, morally complex crime drama that dives deep into the brutal world of prison gangs, redemption, and the blurred lines between justice and survival. Clocking in at just over two hours, it’s a tense, character-driven story that doesn’t shy away from the harsh realities of its setting, delivering a raw and unfiltered look at life behind bars and the psychological toll it exacts.

The film follows Jacob Harlon, played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, a successful businessman whose life spirals out of control after a DUI accident leaves his best friend dead. Sentenced to prison, Jacob is thrust into a violent, hierarchical world where survival means adapting to the rules of the Shot Callers—high-ranking gang members who control the prison’s underground economy. The film’s title itself is a nod to this brutal hierarchy, where every decision, every move, is dictated by those at the top. As Jacob navigates this treacherous landscape, he transforms from a naive new inmate into a hardened, strategic player, adopting the moniker “Money” for his financial acumen. His journey is as much about physical survival as it is about the psychological toll of losing his identity and grappling with the moral compromises he’s forced to make.

What makes Shot Caller stand out is its unflinching portrayal of prison life. Waugh, who also co-wrote the screenplay, doesn’t romanticize the violence or the characters. The film opens with a visceral, almost documentary-like sequence of Jacob’s first days in prison, where he’s immediately targeted by a white supremacist gang. The brutality is shocking, but it sets the tone for a story that refuses to sugarcoat the realities of incarceration. The prison scenes are claustrophobic, the tension palpable, and the stakes feel painfully real. Waugh’s direction ensures that every punch, every stab, every whispered threat carries weight. There’s no glorification here—just the cold, hard truth of a system that chews people up and spits them out. Even the brief but chilling appearance of Holt McCallany as The Beast, a high-ranking Aryan Brotherhood member, leaves a lasting impression. Though his screen time is limited, McCallany’s performance is unforgettable, exuding a quiet, menacing authority that underscores the danger lurking in every corner of the prison.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau delivers a career-best performance as Jacob. Known to many as Jaime Lannister from Game of Thrones, Coster-Waldau sheds his noble, charismatic image to embody a man broken by guilt and reshaped by circumstance. His physical transformation is striking—he bulked up significantly for the role, but it’s his emotional range that truly impresses. Jacob’s arc is one of the most compelling aspects of the film. Early on, he’s a fish out of water, a man clinging to his old life and morals. But as the story progresses, we see the gradual erosion of his principles. The moment he finally snaps and fights back is a turning point, not just for his character but for the audience’s perception of him. By the time he’s released from prison, he’s almost unrecognizable—both physically and psychologically. Coster-Waldau makes you believe every step of this transformation, and it’s a testament to his skill as an actor that you’re rooting for Jacob even as he makes increasingly questionable decisions.

The supporting cast is equally strong. Omari Hardwick plays Shotgun, a high-ranking member of the black gang who becomes Jacob’s reluctant mentor. Hardwick brings a quiet intensity to the role, balancing threats with moments of unexpected humanity. Lake Bell plays Jacob’s wife, Kate, and her performance is heartbreaking in its restraint. Kate’s struggle to hold her family together while her husband is in prison is a grounded counterpoint to the chaos unfolding behind bars. Jon Bernthal, another standout, plays a prison guard with a morally ambiguous role in Jacob’s journey. Bernthal, as always, brings a raw, simmering energy to his scenes, making his character’s motivations feel authentic, even when they’re not entirely clear.

The film’s pacing is deliberate, almost methodical. Waugh takes his time building the world and the characters, and while this might frustrate viewers looking for constant action, it pays off in the long run. The first act is heavy on exposition, introducing the prison’s power structures and the various factions at play. But once Jacob starts to find his footing, the story picks up momentum. The middle act is where Shot Caller really shines, as Jacob’s alliances and rivalries become more complex. The film’s climax is a high-stakes heist that feels both inevitable and earned, a culmination of everything Jacob has learned—and lost—during his time inside.

One of the most interesting themes in Shot Caller is the idea of control. The title itself refers to those who call the shots, but the film constantly questions who really has power in this world. Jacob starts as a man who thinks he’s in control of his life, only to have that illusion shattered. In prison, he learns that control is a fragile, often violent thing, constantly shifting hands. Even after his release, he’s not truly free—he’s still bound by the rules of the criminal underworld he’s now a part of. The film suggests that in a system as broken as this one, no one is ever truly in control. It’s a bleak message, but one that feels authentic to the story being told.

The cinematography, by Dana Gonzales, is another highlight. The prison scenes are shot in a way that emphasizes the claustrophobia and tension of the environment. The color palette is muted, with lots of grays and blues, reflecting the cold, harsh reality of Jacob’s new world. The action sequences, when they do occur, are brutal and realistic, with a handheld camera style that puts you right in the middle of the chaos. There’s no glamour to the violence here—it’s messy, desperate, and often over in seconds.

If Shot Caller has a weakness, it’s that some of its themes and plot points might feel familiar to fans of the genre. The story of a man falling into the criminal underworld and struggling to escape isn’t exactly new. What saves the film from feeling derivative is its commitment to authenticity and its strong performances. Waugh’s script also avoids easy answers. Jacob isn’t a hero, and the film doesn’t pretend he is. He’s a flawed, complicated man making the best of a series of terrible situations. The ending, without spoiling too much, is bittersweet and ambiguous, leaving you to ponder just how much of Jacob’s old self is left—and whether he can ever truly escape the life he’s been drawn into.

Another aspect worth praising is the film’s soundtrack. The score, composed by Antonio Pinto, is understated but effective, using a mix of electronic and orchestral elements to underscore the tension and emotional beats of the story. The use of silence is also notable—there are moments where the absence of music makes the violence or the weight of a decision hit even harder.

Shot Caller is a film that lingers with you long after the credits roll. It’s not an easy watch, and it’s certainly not for the faint of heart. The violence is graphic, the language is harsh, and the themes are heavy. But for those willing to engage with it, the film offers a gripping, thought-provoking experience. It’s a story about survival, identity, and the cost of redemption. Ric Roman Waugh has crafted a prison drama that stands alongside classics like The Shawshank Redemption and American History X, even if it doesn’t quite reach their lofty heights. What it lacks in originality, it makes up for in execution, with stellar performances and a relentless commitment to its vision. In a world where crime dramas often glorify the outlaw life, Shot Caller is refreshingly honest. It doesn’t ask you to root for Jacob because he’s a good guy—it asks you to understand him, flaws and all. And by the end, you do. You understand the choices he makes, even if you don’t agree with them. That’s the mark of a great character study, and Shot Caller delivers on that front in spades. It’s a film that will leave you thinking, long after the final shot fades to black.

Review: Under Paris (dir. by Xavier Gens)

Posted on July 27, 2026 by Arleigh

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, it is the one that is most adaptable to change.” — Sophia

Under Paris is one of those movies that grabs you by the throat and doesn’t let go—literally, in this case. Directed by Xavier Gens, the mind behind gritty, high-octane thrillers like Frontier(s) and The Divide, this creature feature dives headfirst into the claustrophobic nightmares lurking beneath the City of Light. And let me tell you, if you’ve ever romanticized the Parisian catacombs, this film will cure you of that real quick.

The story kicks off with a team of scientists exploring the unexplored tunnels under Paris, only to stumble upon something that definitely shouldn’t exist. What starts as a routine expedition turns into a fight for survival when they realize they’re not alone down there. The creatures in question are blind, feral, and terrifyingly fast, with a taste for human flesh. It’s The Descent meets Tremors, but with a distinctly French flair. The film wastes no time setting up its premise, throwing the audience into the dark, cramped corridors where every shadow could be a predator. The tension is palpable from the jump, and Gens doesn’t bother with slow-burn scares—this is a full-throttle horror ride.

What makes Under Paris stand out is its commitment to practicality. The creatures are brought to life with a mix of practical effects and CGI, and for the most part, it works. The designs are grotesque yet believable, with elongated limbs, jagged teeth, and a primal way of moving that makes them feel like something out of a nightmare. The practical effects, in particular, give the creatures a tangible weight that CGI alone often struggles to achieve. When they’re on screen, you believe they’re real, and that’s half the battle in a monster movie. The sound design deserves a shoutout too—the way the creatures communicate through clicks and hisses is unsettling in the best way, adding to the immersive dread.

The characters are, admittedly, a mixed bag. The cast is led by a group of scientists and urban explorers, each with their own quirks and backstories, but the film doesn’t spend much time fleshing them out. This is a survival horror flick, not a character study, so don’t expect deep emotional arcs. That said, the actors do a solid job with what they’re given. The standout is probably the team’s leader, whose growing desperation as the situation spirals out of control feels authentic. There’s also a refreshing lack of the usual horror-movie stupidity—most of the characters make decisions that, while not always smart, at least feel human. They panic, they argue, they try to rationalize the irrational, and it makes their plight all the more relatable.

The setting is a character in its own right. The labyrinthine tunnels under Paris are a horror fan’s dream—narrow, dimly lit, and filled with the kind of eerie silence that makes every distant noise sound like a death sentence. Gens and his cinematographer make the most of the claustrophobic environment, using tight camera angles and rapid cuts to keep the audience on edge. There’s a sequence early on where the team’s headlamps flicker, plunging them (and us) into total darkness, and it’s a masterclass in building tension without relying on jump scares. The film also does a great job of playing with sound, or the lack thereof. In the quiet moments, all you hear is the characters’ ragged breathing and the distant, unsettling skittering of something inhuman.

If Under Paris has a weakness, it’s that it doesn’t always know when to slow down. The pacing is breakneck, which works for the most part, but there are moments where a little breathing room would’ve helped. Some of the CGI, particularly in the wider shots, can look a bit rough, though it’s never bad enough to pull you out of the movie. And while the creatures are terrifying, their backstory is a bit thin. The film hints at a larger mythology—something about evolution and isolation—but it’s never fully explored. That’s not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it does leave you with a few unanswered questions.

All that said, Under Paris delivers exactly what it promises: a tense, visceral, and often downright terrifying descent into madness. It’s a film that understands the assignment—give the audience scares, gore, and a sense of dread that lingers long after the credits roll. Gens has a knack for blending horror with social commentary, and while Under Paris doesn’t dive as deep into the latter as some of his other work, it’s still there in the margins. The idea of something monstrous lurking beneath the surface of one of the world’s most romanticized cities is a potent one, and the film doesn’t shy away from the metaphorical implications.

In the end, Under Paris is a must-watch for horror fans, especially those who appreciate their scares with a side of action. It’s not a perfect movie, but it’s a damn effective one. It’s the kind of film you’ll want to watch with the lights off, the volume up, and maybe a friend or two to clutch onto when things get really intense. And trust me, they do. Xavier Gens has crafted a creature feature that’s as brutal as it is brilliant, and it’s a testament to his skill as a director that, even in the darkest, most chaotic moments, you’re never quite sure what’s going to happen next. Just don’t blame me if you start side-eying manhole covers after this one.

Guilty Pleasure No. 124: No Escape (dir. by Martin Campbell)

Posted on July 26, 2026 by Arleigh

So, No Escape is a movie that, if you’re a fan of mid-90s action flicks, you’ve probably stumbled across on late-night cable at some point. Directed by Martin Campbell, a guy who would go on to resurrect James Bond with GoldenEye, this 1994 sci-fi romp is a strange, almost forgotten artifact from a time when every action movie seemed to be set in a grim, corporate-run future. It’s a movie that borrows so heavily from its predecessors that you could make a drinking game out of spotting the references, yet it does it all with such earnest, sweaty commitment that it’s hard to completely hate. It’s a film that, in a perfect world, should have been a genre classic, but its own bloat and inconsistent rhythm drag it down to the level of a solid, slightly-defective guilty pleasure.

The setup is pure B-movie gold. It’s the year 2022, which felt super futuristic back then, and the world has privatized its prison system. Ray Liotta stars as Captain Robbins, a man sentenced to life on the brutal island prison of Absolom after he kills his commanding officer. The premise of a super-max prison on a remote island, a “civilized” versus “savage” faction of inmates, and a hero who just wants to escape is a greatest-hits medley of Escape from New York, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, and Papillon. The film’s villain, Marek, played by a gloriously over-the-top Stuart Wilson, leads a tribe of leather-clad maniacs called the Outsiders, while Lance Henriksen’s Father leads the peaceful, agrarian community of Insiders. Our hero is thrust between them, forced to navigate tribal politics while plotting his getaway. It’s as familiar as an old pair of boots, but there’s a comfort in that familiarity, a sense that you know the beats and can just enjoy the ride.

And for a while, the ride is genuinely fun. Campbell, who clearly has an eye for widescreen spectacle, makes the lush Australian location look both beautiful and hostile. The production design is actually one of the film’s strongest assets; the Outsiders’ camp is a junkyard nightmare, while the Insiders’ village is a quaint, shanty-town paradise built from salvaged scrap. It gives the film a distinct, tactile feel that a lot of sterile sci-fi movies lack. Liotta is perfectly cast as the tough, morally ambiguous soldier. He brings a rough, cerebral quality to the role, making Robbins feel like a guy who’s seen too much and is just plain tired. Stuart Wilson, meanwhile, hams it up as the villain Marek, delivering a performance so broad and gleefully evil that he borders on self-parody, but in a way that’s weirdly compelling and provides some much-needed comic relief. The film feels like it’s building to something great, a tense and explosive showdown between these two drastically different tribes.

The problem is that No Escape simply does not know when to stop. This is a movie with a lean, mean premise that somehow stretches itself out to nearly two hours, and you feel every single minute of the back half. The pacing is wildly inconsistent, lurching between tense survivalist stuff, full-blown action set pieces, and stretches of world-building exposition that just sit there and deflate the momentum the film worked hard to build. There are entire sequences that feel like they exist purely to pad the runtime, and by the time the third act rolls around and Robbins is organizing his prison-break uprising, you’re less excited by the payoff and more just relieved that the movie is finally getting somewhere. A tighter edit, trimming maybe twenty to thirty minutes of the connective tissue, would’ve turned this into a genuinely great B-movie instead of a good one hamstrung by its own indulgence.

That’s really the frustrating thing about No Escape. Everything that makes prison-island and dystopian-exile movies fun is present and accounted for here: a charismatic antihero, a nasty villain, a societal allegory bubbling under the surface, brutal action, and a satisfying underdog uprising. Campbell clearly understood the assignment and delivered those elements competently, sometimes even excitingly. But competent execution of familiar beats can only carry a movie so far when the film refuses to trim the fat, and the sluggish, uneven pacing keeps dragging you out of scenes that should be gripping. It’s the kind of movie that probably could’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with its genre influences if someone in the editing room had been a little more ruthless.

As it stands, No Escape lands squarely in guilty-pleasure territory. It’s not a film you’d necessarily recommend to someone as an essential genre entry, but if you’re already the type who loves this stuff, the dystopian island prisons, the tribal factions, the gruff antihero clawing his way toward freedom, there’s a lot here to enjoy despite the flab. It wears its influences on its sleeve, executes them with more skill than it probably gets credit for, and then undercuts itself by overstaying its welcome. Somewhere in this movie is a tight, mean ninety-minute action flick that could’ve been a minor classic. Instead we got a longer, baggier version that’s still worth a watch on a lazy afternoon, just with the fast-forward button within easy reach for the slower stretches.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

Guilty Pleasure No. 123: Old School (dir. by Todd Phillips)

Posted on July 16, 2026 by Arleigh

Old School is one of those comedies that feels like it was made in a lab to be the perfect guilty pleasure, a film that knows exactly what it is and doesn’t apologize for a second of it. Directed by Todd Phillips in 2003, it’s a raucous, often ridiculous ode to arrested development, where three thirtysomething men decide the solution to their midlife crises is to start a fraternity and relive their college glory days. On paper, it sounds like the kind of premise that could either be hilariously relatable or painfully cringe-inducing. In execution, it somehow manages to be both, which is exactly why it works as well as it does.

The story centers around Mitch, Frank, and Beanie, played by Luke Wilson, Will Ferrell, and Vince Vaughn, respectively. Mitch is a mild-mannered attorney whose world implodes when he walks in on his girlfriend, Heidi (Juliette Lewis), mid-orgy in his own bathroom. Frank, a former legendary party animal known as “Frank the Tank,” is about to get married but can’t seem to let go of his wild past. Beanie, the most level-headed of the trio, is a family man who still feels the pull of his youth. When Mitch impulsively buys a house near a college campus, Beanie suggests they turn it into a fraternity, and thus, the most chaotic midlife crisis in cinematic history begins. The premise is thin, but the film doesn’t need much more than an excuse to string together a series of increasingly absurd set pieces.

What makes Old School so much fun is the chemistry between its three leads. Wilson plays the straight man to Ferrell and Vaughn’s antics, grounding the film with a relatable everyman quality. Vaughn, with his rapid-fire delivery and sharp wit, is the glue that holds the trio together, while Ferrell steals every scene he’s in as the unhinged, beer-chugging, streaking force of nature that is Frank the Tank. Ferrell’s performance is a masterclass in commitment to the bit, whether he’s chugging beers in his underwear, delivering a motivational speech about the importance of “earning” respect, or streaking through a neighborhood in one of the most iconic comedy scenes of the 2000s. His energy is infectious, and it’s hard not to laugh at the sheer audacity of his character, even when the humor leans into the absurd or the juvenile.

The supporting cast is packed with familiar faces who add texture to the film’s world. Jeremy Piven is delightfully slimy as Dean Pritchard, the smug, power-tripping dean of students who holds a grudge against the trio from their own college days. Ellen Pompeo, pre-Grey’s Anatomy, plays Nicole, Mitch’s high school crush, who re-enters his life at Frank’s wedding and becomes a romantic subplot that feels both sweet and slightly out of place in a movie this committed to chaos. Leah Remini, Juliette Lewis, and Elisha Cuthbert round out the cast, each bringing their own flavor to the proceedings. The film also features a slew of cameos, from Snoop Dogg as himself to James Carville, which adds to its anything-goes vibe.

Todd Phillips’ direction leans heavily into the film’s frat-house aesthetic, with a loose, improvisational feel that mirrors the energy of its characters. The movie doesn’t bother with subtlety or nuance; it’s a series of escalating gags and set pieces designed to elicit laughs, and for the most part, it succeeds. The humor is often crude, sometimes dumb, but always delivered with a sense of enthusiasm that’s hard to resist. The film’s pacing is brisk, jumping from one ridiculous scenario to the next without much time to breathe, which works in its favor. There’s no pretension here—Old School isn’t trying to be a smart comedy or a biting satire. It’s a beer-soaked, testosterone-fueled romp, and it owns that identity with pride.

One of the film’s most memorable sequences is the “Mitch-A-Palooza” party, a rager that cements the trio’s status as campus legends. The party is a microcosm of everything Old School does well: it’s loud, it’s messy, and it’s filled with the kind of over-the-top antics that make you laugh even as you shake your head in disbelief. The scene where Frank the Tank rallies the troops with a speech about the importance of “earning your letters” before chugging a beer in his underwear is a perfect example of the film’s brand of humor. It’s stupid, it’s juvenile, but it’s also undeniably funny, thanks in large part to Ferrell’s commitment to the bit.

That said, Old School isn’t without its flaws. The film’s humor often relies on shock value and crude jokes, which won’t land for everyone. Some of the gags feel dated, and the film’s treatment of women is, at times, simplistic. The female characters are often relegated to the roles of either love interests or obstacles, and the movie’s worldview is unapologetically male-centric. It’s a product of its time, and while that doesn’t excuse some of its more problematic elements, it does explain them. The film also suffers from a lack of depth in its storytelling. The plot is thin, and the character arcs are minimal, but that’s almost beside the point. Old School isn’t trying to be a deep or meaningful film—it’s trying to be a fun, raucous comedy, and on that front, it largely delivers.

What makes Old School such a great guilty pleasure is its sheer unapologetic joy in its own ridiculousness. The film doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is: a celebration of immaturity, friendship, and the kind of chaos that can only come from a group of grown men trying to relive their youth. There’s something oddly endearing about the way Mitch, Frank, and Beanie cling to their college days, as if they’re afraid of what comes next. It’s a theme that resonates with anyone who’s ever felt a pang of nostalgia for a time when life felt simpler, even if that time was also filled with questionable decisions and questionable haircuts.

The film’s soundtrack is another standout element, packed with a mix of classic rock, hip-hop, and pop hits that perfectly complement its vibe. From Whitesnake’s “Here I Go Again” to Metallica’s “Master of Puppets,” the music adds an extra layer of energy to the film’s already high-octane proceedings. The soundtrack isn’t just background noise—it’s a character in its own right, helping to set the tone for each scene and amplifying the film’s sense of fun.

In the years since its release, Old School has only grown in stature as a cult classic, a film that’s frequently quoted, referenced, and revisited by fans. Lines like “You’re my boy, Blue!” and “Frank the Tank” have entered the comedic lexicon, and the film’s influence can be seen in the wave of bro comedies that followed in its wake. It’s a testament to the film’s enduring appeal that it still feels fresh and funny, even as some of its jokes and sensibilities have aged less gracefully.

At its core, Old School is a movie about friendship and the lengths we’ll go to hold onto the past. Mitch, Frank, and Beanie may be thirtysomethings, but their hearts are still stuck in their college days, and their journey is as much about reconnecting with each other as it is about reliving their youth. The film’s message isn’t exactly profound—sometimes, you just need to let loose and have fun—but it’s delivered with such enthusiasm and charm that it’s hard not to get swept up in it. And if that message comes wrapped in a package of crude jokes, ridiculous antics, and a healthy dose of nostalgia, well, that’s just part of the charm.

Ultimately, Old School is the kind of movie that you don’t so much watch as you experience. It’s a film that demands to be seen with friends, preferably with a few beers in hand and a willingness to embrace the chaos. It’s not perfect, and it’s certainly not for everyone, but for those who are willing to go along for the ride, it’s a wildly entertaining, laugh-out-loud romp that never fails to deliver on its promise of fun. It’s a guilty pleasure, sure, but sometimes, the best kind of movies are the ones that don’t take themselves too seriously. Old School is a reminder that it’s okay to be a little immature, to embrace the chaos, and to never stop chasing the things that make you happy—even if those things involve starting a fraternity in your 30s.

Previous Guilty Pleasures