Not since Snakes on a Plane has a title for a movie  been so absurd that I just had to see the movie. While Snakes on a Plane delivered on its B-movie camp, it was still kind of a bad movie no matter how hard Samuel L Jackson seemed to try to carry that film.  Cocaine Bear embraces its absurd title, and it goes over the top and beyond with a black ear ingesting more cocaine than Tony Montana would ever dare to snort. The film is loosely based on true events, the truth being that a drug runner did die while tossing numerous bags of cocaine out of a plane in 1985 and that a bear was found dead after ingesting a large quantity of cocaine. This film attempts to rewrite history by posing the “what if?” that the bear encounters many unfortunate humans while on its cocaine binge.  For me the moment I heard they were making this a movie,  it was on my radar. I mean, this is the kind of storyline that gets me grinning ear to ear, because I know it has the potential to be great if put into the right hands. The Broken Lizard gang (Super Troopers) or David Wain (Role Models) would have been my first guesses at who would snatch up this project, but when I heard Elizabeth Banks was going to be at the helm, I’ll admit I was a bit hesitant. As an actress I love her work, but behind the camera she had Pitch Perfect 2, which was of course successful, but let’s face it, I’m not the film’s demographic. Then she had the recent Charlie’s Angels reboot, and we all know how that did.  I wanted to remain optimistic till I at least saw the trailer to see how she’d tackle the project, because honestly this was either going to be a hit or a miss, but when I saw that trailer my worries were put at ease, and this was back to being one of my more anticipated movies of the year.

The film opens up in 1985 over Georgia, and we see Thornton (Matthew Rhys) tossing the cocaine-filled bags out of the plane and then his unfortunate (yet humorous) demise. We  then get to met  a charming couple that is on a hike in the hills of Chattahoochee, Georgia. They are the first to cross paths with the “cocaine bear”, and, well, let’s just say nature isn’t too kind to them. While these opening minutes set the tone of the film, buckle up, because things are only going to get crazier as the film progresses. As for the actual plot of the film, it is a bit of an ensemble piece with a bunch of characters that are doing their own thing, but the “cocaine bear” just is wreaking havoc and is simply making everyone’s bad day even worse.

Yeah, this film didn’t really do it for me. Of late I’ve been on the prowl for a quality horror or suspense movie. Something with a compelling story, and while I didn’t initially believe that Ghost of Monday would live up to that desire, I left the door open to be surprised. As it turns out, I could have left that door closed with the lock latched. The Ghost of Monday is a slow-burning tale that I never really connected with. For one, the premise is a bit anti-climatic and has been addressed with box office films such as The Invitation and Ready Or Not, which I found to be the best. In this instance, a television director (Mark Huberman, Vikings Vahalla) travels to a supposed haunted hotel for the purpose of making a television pilot. Eventually, he and his crew find themselves wrapped up in a supernatural conspiracy that could have life or death consequences for them. Did you catch my use of the word “eventually”? Stay tuned, I’ll explain that in a bit. The biggest intended draw for the film was probably the inclusion of Julian Sands of Warlock fame, but his role is secondary in relation to the overall film. All in all, I’m still on the lookout for a quality horror or suspense film.

Now to address my use of “eventually.” That word was chosen carefully to emphasize how long it took for the film to get to interesting bits, i.e. the action. It took over forty minutes for this to occur. Now I can appreciate a slow burn and the need to build suspense, but that only works when your characters are interesting enough to carry the story until we can get to the meat and potatoes. This is not the case here. We initially follow Huberman’s character as he is basically attempting to put the pieces of his life back together. The long and short of it is that both his professional and personal lives have taken hits in recent years. A majority of the forty minutes are used to attempt to address his efforts to fix his situation in both areas. The problem is, Huberman’s character is not exactly loveable. He is quickly annoyed and short-tempered with the other members of the crew. Now a portion of that can be attributed to his desperation, and personal issues apparently have to do with a tragedy that resulted in the rift between him and his significant other. Even so, it still isn’t enough to balance the scales in my opinion. I will say towards the end he starts to have some redeeming moments, but again it feels too little too late.

“We deal in lead, friend.” 

In the fall of 1956, Anthony Quinn watched a special screening of Akira Kurosawa’s The Seven Samurai and had an epiphany: this Japanese masterpiece, inspired by the great American westerns of John Ford, would, itself, make a great American western. Quinn acquired the rights and contacted his then close friend Yul Brynner and pitched the idea of him playing the bad guy and Brynner the good guy. Brynner screened Kurosawa’s film and called in producer Walter Mirisch, who in turn contacted director John Sturges (Bad Day at Black Rock, Gunfight at the OK Corral, The Great Escape). Sturges loved the concept and immediately set about acquiring the rights, ultimately forcing Quinn out of the picture. Quinn sued, but lost.

"Life is not like the movies."

Maybe sometimes life is exactly like the movies. You know the old phrase of art imitating life and that kind of thing. That's exactly the territory that's covered in Steven Spielberg's latest film The Fabelmans. It's an autobiographical film where the names are changed to protect both the guilty and the innocent. It's also the first time that Spielberg has directed his own writing in over 20 years. In those 20 years Spielberg has become something of a moviemaking machine, and I think he felt it was time that the machine walked away from the spotlight for a minute and allowed the man behind the machine to show his face again. It used to be about heart; lately it's been about box office, and more recently it's been about surviving after the hit the industry took with COVID. I think Spielberg had a lot of things to get off his chest, and it looks like he might have found the time and place to do just that. While the film is a love letter to people who still think movies are a kind of wizard's magic, it was also a little bit of therapy for this particular wizard. Like all autobiographies, it's not really finished, and that's the most profound takeaway I had when the film ended.

I think it’s best that Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania is the last in the series. That is not meant as a condemnation of the film; in my opinion after this outing, it is hard to see how the series fits into Marvel’s overall plans. I’m sure Ant-Man and the Wasp will be featured in the future Avengers movies, and that is fine, but as a solo vehicle, this film kind of showed that the prestige for this franchise has faded. When the first film was released, I was skeptical of what value it could bring to the franchise, and I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed it far more than I expected to. The sequel was decent enough, while in some cases lacking some of the comedic elements of the first one. This time, the film seems to have lost all the lighthearted humor and felt forced. Rudd does his best to endear the character to the audience, but in this incarnation, he feels more like a secondary character in a film where he plays the titular character. Then there is the other titular character, the Wasp, a.k.a. Evangeline Lilly’s Hope Van Dyne. Her role, too, feels reduced. When the two main characters become the least significant characters in their own franchise, I believe that signifies that the writing is on the wall. It’s time to hang it up.

That said, there were still things that I greatly appreciated about the film. Most notably, another opportunity to observe Jonathan Majors as a villain. His introduction in Loki garnered a lot of intrigue, and despite that short appearance, it was clear that he was going to be a significant force going forward. It left us starving for more, and he did not disappoint on this second outing. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that he became the biggest draw for the film. Jonathan Majors is an actor who seems to have exploded on the scene. He brings something different to every performance. This is a quality that is greatly appreciated, and needed given the person that he is portraying. This version of Kang is not the version we met in Loki. In Loki, we met He Who Remains; here we are being introduced to the Conqueror for the first time. The film does a great job of building up the mystique of the character long before we see him on the screen via the fear that characters such as Janet Van Dyne (Pfeiffer) exhibit at the mere mention of him. And then we see him, and he embodies everything that you want in a Marvel villain. Majors delivers a compelling performance. Though his interpretation, Kang has a quiet strength. He hardly raises his voice, but he intimidates you all the same. There is an intensity to him; the smallest gestures have deep impact. A perfect example of this is shown when he disciplines an underling for stepping out of place. He barely twitches a finger, but the end result demonstrates why this character is as feared as he is. Only Majors could command that kind of presence in my opinion. Presence is what the franchise needs as they look to reestablish their dominance following the epic conclusion of the Infinity Saga. As we enter the Multiverse Saga, I believe Majors will be relied on greatly to propel the franchise forward, and I have no doubt that he is up to the task.

This may come to a surprise for some, but there was a time that comic book movies just weren’t taken seriously. We had Richard Donner and his Superman The Movie film, and then there was Tim Burton’s take on Batman.  Every other movie that was based on a comic book property was treated as cheesy camp fodder that no one took seriously. Wes Craven’s attempt at adapting Swamp Thing was slightly impressive for the time, but in retrospect I’m just not really a fan of the film despite how much I like the DC character. As for the sequel, The Return of Swamp Thing, I know I’m in the minority when I say how much I enjoy this camp classic.  The first Swamp Thing I felt took itself too seriously and was lacking in the fun practical FX department, but to be fair, it also had a low budget and felt the need to be an origin story. Helming the sequel is one of the B-movie workhorses of the industry, Jim Wynorski, who is responsible for the 80s kill-bot classic Chopping Mall. It’s time to return to the bog and deep dive into the camp classic from 1989, The Return of Swamp Thing.

The film wastes no time getting things started when a group of hunters are attacked by Leech Man in the swamp, and it is Swamp Thing (Dick Durock) that comes to the rescue.  I’m a fan of these practical FX suits, and just seeing this fun showdown in the film’s opening minutes definitely sets the tone for the rest of the film. If this sequence leaves you groaning and rolling your eyes, well, to be fair, this film just isn’t for you.  But if you like your old TOHO man-in-suit battles, and enjoys some goofy B-cinema from Roger Corman or Lloyd Kaufman, then this film you are going to eat up.  From the get-go we know this film is very tongue-in-cheek, and sure, I one day want to see a straight-up horror adaptation of the character, but till then, this is what we got.

"You see, the four of us have a very important job to do. In fact, it might be the most important job in the history of the world."

What is it about a cabin in the woods that makes it a good place for the apocalypse? When I think of those isolated cabins, I think of good ol' Abe Lincoln or a group of guys bonding over a fishing/hunting weekend. But when it comes to folks like Joss Whedon or now M. Night Shyamalan, they see disaster. Where I see a day on the lake, these guys see the end of the world. It's not like Shyamalan hasn't brought us there before. The box office bomb After Earth comes to mind. So what about his latest effort, Knock At The Cabin? The trailers appear to pretty much give the plot away, but pleasantly there's a little bit more to it than that. I'm a huge fan of the man's mostly early works. The Sixth Sense, The Village, Signs, Unbreakable, and even the more recent Split and Glass are all first-rate films in my book. But lately it's been more hit than miss from the guy who grew up in the same Philly area playpen where I grew up. So, flop or fantastic? Knock At The Cabin falls somewhere in the middle, which is a new experience for me from a Shyamalan movie.

"On the day America remembers its dead, a special salute today for the war dead in Vietnam. An American serviceman who died there took his place today in a place of honor, The Tomb Of The Unknown Soldier. Almost 10 years after the last American left Saigon, the men who fought in Vietnam got their parade. Muffled drums and dirges. A coffin and a flag wrapped in plastic to protect it from the rain. Families of the men still missing in Vietnam waited for the coffin and remembered. They wonder if their sons are still alive and why the world sits back and allows the Vietnamese government to flagrantly violate the Geneva Convention. Rumors of physical and mental torture have made the wait more agonizing."

If the story sounds somewhat familiar, there are two reasons for that. The first Missing In Action film was released in 1984, so you've had about 40 years of imitations and knock-offs along the way. The other is that the film shares more than a little history with the Sylvester Stallone film Rambo: First Blood Part II. When Sly was shopping around his original ideas, Cannon Film Group was one of the places that listened to the pitch. So it's not a complete coincidence that the films went into production at the same time, with Missing In Action beating the Stallone vehicle to the box office by a few months. Both films did well, and they started a genre of war films that involved rescuing Americans still missing in Vietnam. It was in the early 1990's that the plight of missing servicemen in Vietnam was brought to the public's attention. Ronald Reagan gave it a bigger voice than had been given earlier, and he made it a point to address the issue. It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Hollywood was on it as fast as they were. The franchise would become one of Chuck Norris's more iconic franchises, and the rest is, shall we say, history. Now Kino Studio Classics have brought the original three films together in a much deserved Blu-ray collection.

I get it. At first glance Ghost Warrior seems like a movie that is easy to disregard, but if you are looking to step outside the mainstream and dip your toe into the murky waters that is B cinema, Ghost Warrior is a heck of a fun place to start. The film is produced by Charles Band. He’s pretty much royalty when it comes to B cinema. His biggest claim to fame is the creation of Full Moon Features, and if you were around in the mom and pop video store days, you more than likely passed plenty of his work on the video store shelves. Movies like Puppet Master and little gems like Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama were Band’s bread and butter, and he’s been successful enough to produce well over 350 films. When it comes to Ghost Warrior, this is before Full Moon became notorious for low-budget horror, but this film does show that he could produce a quality film on a thin budget and have a running time of only 81 minutes.

The film opens up in Japan with Yoshi (Hiroshi Fujioka) as a samurai attempting to protect the woman he loves, but in the process he falls from a cliff and into a frozen lake where he remains frozen for 400 years until he is discovered by a pair of hikers. This opening sequence is a good looking sequence, and that is thanks to the cinematography from horror great Mac Ahlberg. Let me take a moment to just say that it is criminal that Mac Ahlberg isn’t a household name with horror fans, Just to name a few of the great horror films he shot: Hell Night, Re-Animator (personally my all time favorite horror film), House, From Beyond, and countless others. The look of this film elevates it to the point where it can hold its own with bigger 80s films released at the same time, and seeing the image cleaned up for this release, it looks really good.

A possibly innocent military man facing treason and war crime charges, a devoted wife who finds herself drawn to a man who is not her husband, and a prosecutor who is beginning to doubt the conviction of a lifetime. I can honestly say that Sergeant Ryker piqued my interest with this dynamic. And for me what was the key component to my successful viewing of the film, Lee Marvin of The Dirty Dozen fame embodies Sergeant Paul Ryker, an American solder charged with treason for allegedly aiding the enemy following a failed raid during the Korean War. Bradford Dillman plays Captain Young, the JAG officer who prosecutes Ryker for treason, who comes to doubt the conviction that could launch his career. Then there is Vera Miles of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho fame as Sgt. Ryker’s neglected wife, who begins to have eyes for the young captain. What can I say, I dig the drama.

Traitor or hero? That is the main question and theme that is explored in the film. Was Sergeant Ryker really aiding the enemy? On the surface he appears guilty as sin, and it seems like a no-brainer that he will hang for his crimes. However, there are discrepancies when it comes to his defense. Enough so that Captain Young begins to question if the Sergeant received an adequate defense. Or is it Mrs. Ryker who brings him around to the way of thinking? It’s hard to say. There is clearly chemistry between the two, and it is evident from their first exchange that while they care for one another, Mr. and Mrs. Ryker are far from a picturesque married couple. When she comes to see him, he is cold and distant, but in the next minute he expresses tender need. It was a fine line to walk, but Lee Marvin did a fairly decent job walking it. In the case of Capt. Young and Mrs. Ryker, the two find themselves bonded when they risk life and limb to get to the truth of what happened during that failed raid.