If you are a fan of Jack Nicholson you will love vintage Jack in this 1973 film. He’s very young and handsome. And all the traits that make him uniquely famous dance across the screen. The story line is a little slow. The footage of America in the 70’s, however, is interesting throughout.

The Last Detail is a 1973 American comedy-drama film directed by Hal Ashby, from a screenplay by Robert Towne, based on the 1970 novel of the same name by Darryl Ponicsan. The film stars Jack Nicholson, Otis Young, Randy Quaid, Clifton James, and Carol Kane. It follows two career sailors assigned to escort a young emotionally withdrawn recruit from their Virginia base to Portsmouth Naval Prison in Maine.

The Last Detail was theatrically released in the United States by Columbia Pictures on December 12, 1973. The film received positive reviews from critics, who praised the performances of Nicholson and Quaid, as well as Towne’s screenplay. It was nominated for two Golden Globe Awards, three Academy Awards, and four British Academy Film Awards (winning two).

Wiki

There’s a new romantic comedy out with some heavy-hitting actors like Eddie Murphy, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jonas Hill, David Duchovny, Nia Long and newcomer (at least to me) Lauren London. The film tackles all the social awkwardness around race relations when Jonas falls for Lauren and vice-versa.

It’s a Romeo and Juliet romance where the families serve to pull the lovebirds apart. One such scene occurs around the dinner table. Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Jonah’s mom, starts down the whole ‘our parents came to this country to work’ reasoning for success, and Nia Long, Lauren’s mom, challenges her with the benefits of heredity in the family profession.

As expected, Jonah’s father is a podiatrist, as was his grandfather and his great-grandfather. But what does the implication of this occupational lineage? In what does it offer an advantage? In a competitive situation, having access to information at any time or season has clear advantages. This may be knowledge about educational issues, school entrance requirements, course work, or internship insights. And not only can one tap a family member at any time, but there is also a stronger guarantee than with any other group that their response will serve your best interests.

This unconditional support is further enhanced through connections to others in the field who may serve to advance the student’s objectives. Favor trading within a group happens naturally. So a lineage of family members with contacts throughout the profession offers access to others who will also work on the child’s behalf. This reaching out to lend a hand may also occur with a sense of nostalgia- Remember when we were only twenty and had not a cent in our pockets?

It’s important to pull these tasks apart and take them on an individual level. Understanding how institutions work if it’s deemed important to get some outside blood into highly competitive professions.

As far as the movie goes- it was humorous, and that’s saying a lot given how worn out the black/white/wokeness dialogue has become in recent years. It made me laugh and I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say the girl gets her guy in the end.

Psychological thrillers are almost too creepy for me. And this one is no exception. Like a train wreck, however, something says not to look away. It’s hard to say too much without giving away spoilers. The actors were believable and alluring. The story is twisted in more than one sense.

In retrospect, the series also has a lot to say about addictions of various types, unhealthy interest in the affairs of others, and obsessions.

After feeling like I wasted two hours of my life watching the (supposedly) highly-rated Bullet Train on Friday night, I returned to an old franchise friend Mission Impossible. Mission Impossible 3 starring Tom Cruise was made twenty-two years ago, yet it was better on so many fronts than Bullet Train.

Japan’s bullet train is a cool vehicle, but that’s it. The producers don’t try to capitalize on any other geographic features of the surrounding countryside. The complete opposite is true in MI3. The last part of the film is all shot in Shanghai. If you’ve been following the development of this city, you will recognize the age of the film as it has since been developed even further than illustrated. But the producers do a cool job of street-level visuals of the older parts of town. This, of course, is while Cruise does all sorts of acrobatics and tricks through the streets and rooftops.

In MI3 the storyline has some subtleties, some twists, and some intrigue. Can’t find any of that in BT. There’s sloppy violence. I think it’s meant to be funny- but falls gruesomely short. And maybe I’m old fashion, but I expect the stras in an action-adventure film to be dashing, debonaire, or at least a little good-looking. Brad Pitt is a handsome man, except here where he takes on a hobo-type package. Again- not funny.

I want glamour and Cruise pull that off in spades. If you don’t believe me have a look at him here promoting his latest film, Tom Gun Maverick.

This movie is such an interesting melange. I was a little concerned in the beginning that it was one of those french films that is just a little too off for my tastes. The excellent Laure Calamy kept me engaged with her oh-so-typical french expressions and mannerisms. So charming. The tale starts from her perspective. And then we see it retold three more times from other vantage points, a technique that forces the viewer to confront how naturally narcissistic we all are.

The other actors do a superb job. There’s depth to the dimwitted farmer who misses his mother. There is grit and passion in the cuckolded husband who seeks love in the wrong places. There is a cruel frivolousness to the wealthy woman out for a fling. And then to keep us all alert, the frames cut over to West Africa where another crew of actors plays their parts.

It’s a little dark, and a little creepy in parts– but rich in affairs of the heart. And you’ll never guess the ending.

This 1998 Jackie Chan comedy is packed with good stuff. I’m not sure if I lost a lot of time getting to know the masterful Chan or if the serious lack of jest and comedy in today’s world makes him all the more valuable, but I really liked this movie. It is funny and smart and strong.

Within moments of the opening scenes, there is a flurry of completely inappropriate word choices. Wokeness be damned! Both actors (Chris Tucker is an excellent sidekick) are gifted in comedic gestures and facial expressions which simply amplify the use of cancellable verbal offenses. It’s so delightful.

Chan is endearing as he draws a laugh through self-deprecation and physical faux pas– but don’t let his warm-up show fool you. His use of trips and slaps and fake punches is there to set the bubbly laughter adrift in his audience. Once everyone is relaxed and ready to let go of a noisy guffaw, giggle or snicker, then Jackie Chan will show off his real moves. And they won’t let you forget the strength of this martial arts performer.

He also holds the film together with a credible yet not wholly predictable plot and lively scenes across neighborhoods, Burroughs, and architecturally interesting buildings. I loved the clips from pre-China Hong Kong.

The Staircase is an HBO series based on the real-life story of the death of Kathleen Peterson (Toni Collette) and the subsequent trial of her husband Michael Peterson (Colin Firth). Before you commit to the viewing time be forewarned that this series will play in the shadowy crevices of your brain. The film brings out the fears and uncertainties of relationships and the strength of their bonds. Your mind will be mulling over the hour-long episode well into the following day.

Full disclosure, I’m a fan of Toni Collette; and Colin Firth for that matter. They do not disappoint. But there are far more producing and editing tricks done with this story which leave the audience in a persistent state of questioning. The splicing of events as members of the family review and question past occurrences reminds of us of the complexities of kith and kin. Timelines with a six-year distance between them are run simultaneously. The overlay of the documentary being filmed and produced in real-time creates a window upon the world effect. (Here’s the link to the documentary.)

There are several interesting collisions between the intended use of the justice system and economic incentives. One is pretty typical. An agency authorized to review forensic material for jury trials is not operating at an arm’s length from the prosecuting office. An outside organization proves the bureau both fails to report pertinent information as well as distorts its level of experience. Another ho-hum, let’s protect our buddies, incident occurs when a homosexual lover threatens to provide a complete list of his liaisons should he be called upon to testify. Something about the word systemic comes to mind in the ability of the district attorney to waive away this witness.

But the more intriguing, or perhaps nefarious, turn of events occurs amongst the kids. Of the five college-age children in the Peterson household only one, Caitlin, was Kathleen’s biological offspring. She is also the only child who broke with the others in their unwavering support of Michael’s innocence. After testifying against her step-father she successfully sues him for claims to a large insurance settlement and other assets. It seems like a jury should receive some sort of incentive disclosure eventhough this may seem cynical.

This series will remind you that life is complicated. But you may not be satisfied that you have been given any answers.

Just yesterday I dropped off my daughter at her choice of college, which happens to be my alma mater. The day felt like a time warp. Memories, long pushed aside by a busy life, kept setting up film screenings in my head. As I blathered on about some irrelevant fact or another, she gave me the most endearing look of tolerance. Remembering the past as the present unfolds does the trick of revealing the granular difference of what seems like just a few years.

The movie Presideo, an action thriller from 1988, had me drawing similar comparisons. The shots of San Fransisco are so good. What you see is a city growing past a rough go through the 70’s. There are many street scenes, the cityscape with night lights, a bustling China Town and various residential options. I couldn’t help but thinking how wonderful it was to visit San Fransisco through the 90’s. And now, 20 years on, it’s back to a struggling mess.

The famous military base, The Presidio, was dismantled in 1994. Perhaps there was some motivation to preserve a sense of it in the film. The theme of the old guard military of mid-century, represented by Sean Connery’s role, and the younger generation runs throughout. The aging military man strides around in full uniform while Mark Harmon and Meg Ryan both slip in and out of bomber-styled jackets.

True to this genre, there is only one (ok- two if you count the GI who gets shot in the movie’s opening scene) female role. As usual, the lead lady is irresistibly attractive, funny, daring, and rebukes only in a way that everyone knows is temporary. Meg Ryan shines with grown-up Shirley Temple curls gently swirling around a beatific smile and large doe-like eyes. At least if there is only to be one woman, the producers picked one above the grade.

It’s certainly not the movie of the century but it does offer strong entertainment value. The car chases are genuine and done back in a time before AI, so they really set them on fire. And you will smile when Harmon looks at his pager with delight, pulls over to the curb, and pops into the near phone booth to call his buddy. Aside from a few brief lapses in acting, the actors do a great job. And the plot has a twist to boot. The past can still keep you on your toes.

If you are a 007 fan, you will be pleased with the last appearance of Daniel Craig as the debonair James Bond. Staying true to the brand, it shows off all the great features of a sprint to save the world from treacherous evil. Car chases in fabulous cars across European mega-scapes. Amazing stunts. The intrigue of who is double-crossing who.

A notable change from Bond movies of decades ago is the number of interesting female characters. There used to be the devoted secretary playing support worker and the super attractive girl plunged in the midst of the action. That was it. For decades. This film has a spectrum of female characters from somewhat comedic, to tough but still female, to gorgeous and even motherly.

Settle in for a long film, it’s worth it. I found it fresh yet true to everything I love about Bond movies.

Rotten Tomatoes only gives this 1980 action-adventure film a 5.2 out of 10, but I really enjoyed it. It is Steve McQueen’s (1930-1980) last feature film and he plays up the role of a bounty hunter who isn’t as spry as he once was. He is also an hysterically poor driver. I find it fitting that the mega star with a garage full of a hundred classic cars leaves the stage playing a parady of himself.

I was not aware of how rough a childhood Steve McQueen had endured. Raised by a handful of relatives, and beaten repeatedly by his mother’s new husbands, he found himself on the streets several times getting by with petty theft. He entered the Marines before he was eighteen and used the GI bill to pursue acting once he served his tour. In 1959 Frank Sinatra saw something in him and made sure the camera frequently found his close up in the movie Never So Few. By 1974 McQueen was Hollywood’s best paid actor.

If you lived through the 70s, and like cars, you will appreciate the array of vehicles throughout the film. The car chases are not edgy but they are fun. And there are plenty of stunts. The story takes you into some rough urban areas. When you see old footage of people living in buildings that are more or less slums, it is a good reminded of how far housing standards have come in most cities in America.

Lastly, you can’t help but notice the musical score. A full orchestra builds the auditory suspense and it is refreshingly original. Michel Legrad wrote the music; he wrote over 200 movie scores the most notable to me is “The Windmills of Your Mind” from the Thomas Crowne Affair (1968).

This movie could be a comedy to the right audience. Every identity is represented: immigrant, nerd, red neck, white male psychopath, victimized woman, and on it goes. A whole collection of cliche phrases clunk out of a beaten up tool box.

The takes on capitalism driving people only to care about money, money, money! Whereas the heroine is been coached by her white haired father to remember its always about the fight (or the struggle to some.)

There’s entertainment value, I guess, in keeping a scorecard for subtle and not-so-subtle messaging. And the physical fight prowess of the lead actress is impressive. If these don’t trip your trigger though- don’t invest the time.

Overall I rate this series a seven out of ten. Toni Collette carries the show but many of the secondary actors are also quite good. There is an interesting mix of social strata and ethnicity amongst the characters which helps keep the secrets that hold the audience’s attention in the first half of the series.

The story takes us to Belle Isle Georgia, an area of the US that is overlooked, to say the least. There is heightened intrigue when odd things happen in the most average of places. And the guessing of who has done what to whom continues well into the middle of the series. The end is a bit drawn out. Perhaps shortening the series to six or seven episodes would have kept the story crisper.

The relationship between a mother and her daughter explores some proven themes about mutual understanding across time. Not to the depth of a great literary novel, but as a reminder that few are perfect in their family roles. After all, this is an entertaining thriller, not a psychological inquiry.

It was a great weekend to take in two thrillers from the seventies. My husband was away and since he is not a big fan of vintage films, I took advantage of having full control of the TV. Three Days of the Condor (1975) and Marathon Man (1976) are both thrillers whose suspense relies on dishonest civil servants (thanks to Nixon I suppose). Both are better written than what usually presents itself on the screen. Both run quite a bit of interesting and creative footage of Manhattan. If you’ve been to New York lately you might enjoy comparing the then and the now.

The seventies are in full glory in both films. Who can wear a pair of jeans, aviation glasses, and a tweed jacket better than Redford? Cars are burly beasty things, there’s more garbage on the streets than we now expect, and business suits are more common than business casual. The runners who share the trail around the reservoir with Hoffman wear short shorts which have yet to have a fashion revival.

Both protagonists are intellectuals, not tough guys (although their tight abs both make a taught appearance). They are dupped or naive to the mechanics of greed and deception until shocked by the loss of life around them. Provoked, they put their smarts into solving for the villains. Alas, as per custom, there is only one female per film- gorgeous and seductive- in place to shine a brighter light on the lead character while making themselves available to aid and support the male lead as is required of them.

The ending of Three Days of the Condor was a little off for me (and ironic now some forty years later). Marathon Man is more gruesome but overall richer in the story and social context. I enjoyed them both but if only could pick one would recommend Marathon Man.

I’m three or four episodes in on this thriller-drama and am enjoying the intrigue. It’s one of those stories that introduces the audience to a variety of characters, only loosely linked at first. And then like a wide fishing net thrown over the water, it is drawn in tight until all the characters’ stories are touching. In the meantime, you are left wondering who means what to whom.

I was also attracted to the locality as the story takes place in Warsaw. Recently there’s been a photo cycling through Twitter feeds of Warsaw’s downtown skyline. It made me realize how little I knew about this city.

The characters are convincing. There’s some blood and gore but not too much. But most of all it’s fun as because it leaves you guessing.

Rewatching GoldenEye was a lot of fun. It takes the audience back to the West versus the Russians with all sorts of flair. My favorite visuals are the numerous arial scenes which are very well done. They don’t feel gimmicky or dated. Just about every other form of transportation is fit into a chase or explosion scene of some sort- including James driving down the villains in a tank. Q sets 007 up with a fabulous BMW convertible.

The supporting women have some depth to them. This is Judy Dench’s first Bond movie, and she is looking sharp in 1995. She blends beautifully the strength of the position with a parental caring for her prize agent. Femme fatal, Famke Janssen, pulls off the psycho-sexy armed and dangerous woman. She’s a soldier who enjoys her job a little too much. The glamorous nerd who wins James’ heart is played by Isabella Scorupco. Sure- she’s beautiful too, but her real skill to save the world is, wait for it, coding.

There’s quite a bit of humor throughout the movie. Most of it centers around poking fun at the philandering, cocktail drinking Bond. Laugh off the old to usher in a newer 007, I suppose. If you know the franchise, you will laugh along. The computers will also make you smile. They are deep desktop boxes the size of a small black and white TV.

Pierce Brosnan isn’t my overall favorite Bond, but he does a good job in the film. It is a classic blend of dramatic scenes, chases, international destinations, and stunts. I thought it was well worth a couple hours of my time.

I can recommend this Netflix series to those who enjoy the action-adventure, spy thriller type of film. There are a whole host of bad guys and chases, good guys and fistfights, the ‘I’m not so sure if you are good or bad guys and break out of the handcuff moves. Fortunately, the cast is excellent in both the male and female categories. The actors make the series.

Lior Raz is great as the romantic tough guy who is betrayed by a beautiful CIA operative played by Kaelen Ohm. To make up for the cheating wife, there are two other excellent female roles. Sanaa Lathan plays a NY journalist who is vested in getting the real story out to the public. She skillfully juggles her doubting husband with her professional obligations. Moran Rosenblatt pulls off a credible performance (if sometimes a little amusing) of a very pregnant Israeli policewoman.

The plot suffers a little in parts. Although, I’m not sure I’m a very good judge of espionage realism, as I have no first-hand experience. The intrigue is spooled out slowly and there are plenty of surprises. There’s also plenty of hand-to-hand combat by both genders. Perhaps a little too much death and destruction- but it goes with the genre.

The episodes are usually about 50 minutes in length which matches up nicely with the time I want to devote to a little TV downtime. The setting jumps from Israel to New York so I get my cross-cultural fix. The nine episodes are showing on Netflix.

I was hoping to watch the series Tehran but since I was on Netflix the algorithms offered me this instead (Tehran is on Apple TV). It’s only one season with ten half hour episodes.

The film takes you to a variety of settings as the story plays out in Oslo and Israel and Egypt. The characters are also interesting as they represent different aspects of each of these areas.

The plot is suspenseful and for the most part believable. We’re about two thirds of the way through but it won’t take long to view the rest of the episodes as it’s top of the list for TV entertainment.

I clicked on this 1983 comedy with Walter Matthau and Robin Williams on a bit of a whim. It is not highly rated, but I’ve been curious about comedy and what I failed to see in it back when I was younger. Much of the humor is derived from subtle plays on social norms. If you are not from the area, or lack proficient language skills, or are not in tune with current political situations, the laugh often slips right on by you.

Walter Matthau is admirable (I am just realizing what a tremendous career he had!) and keeps the movie together. Robin Williams is not my favorite even though he pulls offs some great lines and gestures. But mostly what I found interesting is the harsh review of US bureaucratic services. This was a time of high interest rates and high unemployment, and a discouraging mood is present throughout. As a result, one does come away impressed with the speed and fluidity of the disbursement of Covid relief funds.

Steve Carell has grown on me over the years and his skills are in high gear in this comic yet action-adventure-themed tale of a married couple’s big night out in the city. In addition to Tina Fey and Taraji Henson (Empire) being strong supporting actresses, a very young Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) makes an appearance.

There are a variety of ploys which will make you laugh, but the film is really an ode to couples who have been together for a while.

I’m a sucker for cop shows. I find a new series and watch it through to the last episode while sticking to a diet of no more than one a day. Bosch was a recent favorite; a grainy late age LA detective with the stomach for justice over politics. He had a great side kick in Jamie Hector (also know for appearances in The Wire).

I was looking for a new series while trying to switch things up a little bit, and found something fun and new in the BBC production of New Tricks (also on Amazon). It’s a little bit older having been produced in 2003, but that doesn’t take away from the interesting mix of detectives with their foibles or their unique skills. A snappy veteran cop is given a threesome of retired detectives and assigned cold case files.

The story lines are clever instead of gruesome. There are no car chases. There is a dose of unsavory behavior. And a dash of OCD mania. In other words it is very British and very un-Hollywood. A perfect replacement for Bosch. Happy viewing!

After I wrapped up Bosch, the story of a crusty police detective who hits the streets of LA to secure justice for the victims of crime, I was at loose ends for a replacement. I needed a new setting and a new protagonist. We had switched streaming choices recently which opened BBC up for viewing. That’s how I came across Unforgotten: Unforgotten is the critically acclaimed British crime drama series starring Nicola Walker and Sanjeev Bhaskar. 

Instead of the old-shoe-leather-worn-beat-policeman made detective, the protagonist is a mid-aged woman whose brain clicks through every clue and its potential like the wheels on a slot machine. She knows the odds are low for bringing to light the violent offender responsible for the skeletal bones under an old boarding house, but press on she does.

Her lighter step and softer expression is a nice contrast to the scowl of a graying cop who has seen more corruption than he cares to claim. Her compassion toward the mother of the lost son is displayed through action and not just words. She is interesting. She is sincere.

The story line is strong. Like any good mystery, part of the reason the audience cannot predict the outcome is because they are being denied information. But the plot in Unforgotten has you noodling right along with DCI Cassie Stewart and her partner DI Sunny Khan. They’re a good pair, contrasting yet supportive.

There’s a freshness about discoveries made due to new technologies or abilities, like pulling apart and refurbishing a diary. Although buried under a body for forty years, a little of this, a little of that, and the scientists are able to read the entries. And there is a dash of corruption to be sure there are plenty of gangsters in the mix.

Overall the series has everything I could ask for: interesting characters, thought provoking plot, sympathy to the victims (to take the edge off the violence), and super actors from across the pond. I recommend watching.