Escape from New York (1981)

In retrospect, it’s incomprehensible that I waited all this time before finally watching John Carpenter’s “Escape from New York,” but here we are. Frankly I’m not quite sure what I expected, I somehow managed to be ignorant of the general storyline before I sat to watch the movie, but I was absolutely blown away almost immediately. It’s one of those few movies I’ve seen where everything just seems to come together and compliment each other perfectly well: To begin with, Carpenter’s direction is sure-handed without being ostentatious. He clearly knows this is a genre movie and he treats it as such by focusing on the necessary beats to keep the movie going and keep the audience engaged, so everything just functions like a well-oiled machine. Similarly, the sets, backgrounds and costume design are perfectly tailored to the grimy atmosphere Carpenter is aiming for; it’s clear that there’s a lot of money behind this movie, and yet it feels like gleefully disreputable grindhouse fare, like it should be seen at midnight on an old reel. And then, there’s the music… The glorious, glorious music. This is full-on synth heaven, with the kind of ’80s music you would expect from the indie director who came up with the immortal “Halloween” theme, and like his earlier classic, Carpenter’s music here succeeds at weaving the whole package together. But the movie’s best aspect is undoubtedly Kurt Russell, who seems born to play Snake Plissken. All the movie’s aforementioned attributes would be great on their own, but Russell is the final ingredient that makes this a goddamn masterpiece – he’s brutish without being a savage, ballsy without being careless, and just so, so frigging sexy you just want to *be* him. Do you know the feeling you get when you’re watching a movie for the first time and you just know you’ve discovered a new classic you’re going to watch over and over? That’s “Escape from New York” for me.

Rating: ★★★★★ (out of 5)

Stargate (1994)

“Stargate” should be much, much better than it actually is. Its interstellar-travel narrative is rife with exploratory potential, loaded as it is with imagination and grandiose implications for the human race, not to mention the kind of first-rate special effects only top-bidder money could buy at the time and an operatic, majestic score that underscores the narrative’s reach. But somehow, it just never really comes alive, beginning with the sharp contract in the casting of its leads: Kurt Russell is a marvel of charisma, confidence and machismo as Colonel O’Neill but he’s ill-paired with the lifeless, charmless James Spader, who is the cinematic equivalent of a limp noodle here. (It’s hard not to wonder how an appealing, nerdy-brainy actor like, say, Matthew Broderick would have brought the role to life, but as it is, it’s like watching fireworks get rained out right before launch). There’s also the strange case of Jaye Davidson, whose Ra is by the most fascinating thing about the movie but is introduced more than an hour in, and by that point we’re too bored for his enigmatic, visually striking appearance to register. There are some really cool moments and captivating elements here and there, but it’s like director Roland Emmerich seems more interested in showing off his wonderfully ornate sets and his access to the best special effects money can buy than populating his movie with enough likable, interesting characters to get the audience invested in more than his storyline’s flash-and-bang aspects, and sidelines his most interesting performer in the process.

Rating: ★★★ (out of 5)

Silkwood (1983)

“Silkwood” is one of those movies that unfolds quietly and steadily, ratcheting up the tension of its central story by focusing its narrative arc on the impact of Karen Silkwood’s moral crusade against a flagrantly immoral, irresponsible plutonium processing plant on her relationships with her friends, family and colleagues. It’s an interesting angle to take because one would expect the screenplay to eviscerate the company through pointed dialogue, but what happens instead is an observation of the casually crushing economic pressures forced onto folks who have little to nothing: Silkwood’s colleagues know their employment may lead to an early, undignified and unnecessary death, but the prospect of losing their paycheck is more of an immediate threat and therefore more important. That emotionally potent undertone extends to almost everything onscreen, in particular the set dressing: All the sets are so vividly lived in that it roots the story in the everyday, which heightens the stakes for the characters because their surroundings are so relatable it’s easy to see one’s self there. Additionally, the entire cast is absolutely sensational, in particular its trio of first-rate leading performances: Meryl Streep taps into Silkwood’s quietly simmering fury at life’s circumstances mixed with a growing awareness of her own hypocrisy and problematic behavior, while Kurt Russell plays her longtime boyfriend with a casual confidence that establishes their dynamics extremely effectively, making them seem like a real-life couple. But the movie ultimately belongs to Cher in an unglamorous, remarkably relaxed performance that downplays her natural charm and heightens her sincerity instead, and she positively disappears in the role.

Rating: ★★★★ (out of 5)

The Thing (1982)

Despite its advanced age, John Carpenter’s legendary remake of 1951’s “The Thing from Another World” has survived the passing of time nearly unscathed. That’s thanks to a combination of elements that all converge extremely well: Carpenter’s directorial work is assured, Ennio Morricone’s score is memorably eerie, and thanks to a steady editing job by Todd Ramsay, the pacing is admirably mannered – but really, they all play second fiddle to the truly remarkable special effects. Those effects are so well parsed that part of their appeal is their judicious use: Carpenter doesn’t exactly paint the walls red throughout the narrative, choosing instead of economically deploy his arsenal of grotesque practical effects, and their impact is heightened by his overall measured approach. Additionally, Bill Lancaster’s screenplay depthly plays on people’s general mistrust of others by augmenting the original movie’s paranoia by turning the characters against each other (although it’s occasionally hard to tell the overabundant characters apart, which can be a little confusing sometimes), and the juxtaposition of the psychological stress with the physical horrors establishes an unsettling atmosphere that gradually grows more oppressive. Ultimately “The Thing” is one of the best horror movies of the 1980s and one of the best genre movies ever made, in my opinion (and also makes a great Halloween viewing choice, nudge nudge wink wink).

Rating: ★★★★ (out of 5)

Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood (2019)

Quentin Tarantino’s latest effort has the same nostalgia-and-pop-culture-soaked streaks that the majority of his movies have, but here, there’s more sensitivity and vulnerability than his previous oeuvre. In the lead roles, Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt are walking contradictions in the most interesting way possible: They’re both relics of the man’s-man culture of the late 1960s finding itself growing out of fashion, yet they share a deeply personal and strikingly intimate friendship that’s the core relationship in both their lives. As a matter of fact, the role that women play in the narrative seems deliberately besides-the-point, with a definite and omnipresent homoerotic vibe between DiCaprio and Pitt that suggests a closeted intimate relationship between the two. It’s an intriguing – if often meandering – narrative to focus on, and it’s a shame that it’s marred by its parallel storyline of the Charles Manson cult slowly encroaching on DiCaprio’s neighbors (which includes the doomed actress Sharon Tate, who was murdered along with her house guests by the Manson family in August 1969). The link is never particularly strong between the two co-existing narratives, and while the climax has some the revisionist, narrative-redefining twists that Tarantino specializes in (like in, say, “Death Proof” or even “From Dusk Till Dawn”), it borders on the tasteless here, and it’s hard not to see it as rather cavalier. So it’s not one of Tarantino’s finest, and while it has some strong elements and looks absolutely gorgeous, it’s somewhere between compelling and misguided.

Rating: ★★★ (out of 5)

The Fate of the Furious (2017)

After a number of impressive, genuinely entertaining entries, the long-running “Fast and the Furious” series derails a bit in this eight (!) entry. On paper, having Charlize Theron join the cast as the villain sounds like a good idea: After all, Theron doesn’t shy away from franchises or genre entries, and she brings a significant amount of cache with her. Unfortunately, she’s entirely miscast: She takes the role dead seriously, which is admirable but also robs the movie of its entertainment factor. Whenever she’s on screen, the movie forgets its semi-serious, banter-heavy roots and instead becomes a serious action thriller, and is all the more tedious and forgettable for it. The usual crew is here (sans Paul Walker, who passed away while shooting the previous entry), but this time Vin Diesel is blackmailed by Theron onto the villain’s side, and it contributes to spoiling the familial and familiar vibe established by the other entries. Mind you, the climax is crazy good in all its glorious, over-the-top excesses, but after more than two hours, the resolution can’t come faster (and it’s hard not to notice that not much is resolved by the end, which robs the audience of a cathartic conclusion following so much unpleasantness). Helen Mirren pops up a few times as Jason Statham’s mother, and while the movie gets a lot of mileage out of her incongruity, it’s not enough to rescue the overall experience.

Rating: ★★★ (out of 5)

Furious 7 (2015)

It’s more of the same for this seventh entry in the long-running “Fast and the Furious” franchises, but unlike most movie series, that proves to be just the right thing to do. After all, these movies don’t thrive on innovation but instead augment the stunts and entertainment factor with each new entry, and the same is true here. Jason Statham makes a strong villain, with the physical affinity to pose a real threat to the protagonists but just enough charm to ensure that his contribution to the narrative doesn’t distract from the overall flow of the established internal universe. Of course, the stunts are absolutely ridiculous from beginning to end, and I mean that as a compliment: The action is high-octane without ever being unpleasant, and there are some crackerjack sequences that’ll have the audience hooting and hollering (a certain drop from an airplane comes to mind, for those who have seen it already). Dwayne Johnson, Paul Walker and company are all in top form, with the winning banter among the disparate group contributing to making the movie such a blast. Along with “Fast Five” and “Fast & Furious 6,” it seems like the producers figured out how to give the audience exactly what it wants without bogging the narrative down with off-putting machismo, and even at well over two hours, the whole thing is over before you know it.

Rating: ★★★★ (out of 5)

The Christmas Chronicles (2018)

This holiday movie from Netflix starts off slow but once it hits its stride, it’s a lot of fun. The story is fairly simple, going from one adventure to another (as suggested by the title) with the benefit of a strong budget and the star power of an engaged Kurt Russell, and while the special effects aren’t great, they’re pretty charming. The two lead characters – played by Darby Camp and the always-welcome Judah Lewis – aren’t particularly interesting and there isn’t much chemistry between the two, but luckily Russell does most of the heavy lifting throughout, and his enthusiasm is the movie’s best feature. There are a number of surprisingly suspenseful moments along the way, and while the tone veers wildly from family-friendly to borderline sleazy a few times, this is a fun way to spend two hours.

Rating: ★★★ (out of 5)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

It’s more of the same for this sequel to 2014’s runaway smash, and while I wasn’t a huge fan of the first one, it turns out to be the right move. Chris Pratt does the Christ Pratt thing as Starlord, while franchise newcomer Kurt Russell acquits himself well to the spirit of the movie and becomes an immediately integral part of the proceedings. The story is simple to follow and doesn’t require much investment from the audience, who are instead free to take it the gorgeous and imaginative sets and costumes, not to mention the carefully selected, crowd-pleasing use of music from beginning to end. On the downside, Zoe Saldana continues to elude likability or levity onscreen, but not even her particular brand of joylessness can ruin this party.

Rating: ★★★ (out of 5)