It’s a sad day in Hollywood and in every circle of movie lovers. Authorities have confirmed that screen legend Gene Hackman and his wife, classical pianist Betsy Arakawa, were both found dead in their Santa Fe, New Mexico home. An investigation is underway, and while it has been stated that no foul play is suspected, their deaths have since been categorized as “suspicious”. Gene Hackman was 95.
With a career that spanned six decades, Gene Hackman deservedly became a top name in Hollywood. He has excelled in countless iconic roles across nearly every genre. He won two Academy Awards, two BAFTAs, one Screen Actors Guild Award, and four Golden Globes. So many of his movies are considered timeless including “Bonnie and Clyde”, “The French Connection”, “The Conversation”, “A Bridge to Far”, “Superman”, “Hoosiers”, “Mississippi Burning”, “Unforgiven”, and “The Royal Tenenbaums”.
Hackman retired on his own terms in 2004. As a huge fan of his work, I really missed seeing him on screen. But he has left us with so many treasures to enjoy – treasures that will undoubtedly stand the test of time. Rest in peace Mr. Hackman.
As a proud kid of the 1980s, I cut my cinema-loving teeth on the wild array of movies from that decade. Sitting comfortably among the features I watched most during that time was the horror gem “Fright Night”. Everything about it won over my mid-teen self and I would watch it whenever I had the chance. But sadly I never had the opportunity to see it on the big screen. That is until last night, when “Fright Night” screened at the 2025 El Dorado Film Festival in celebration of its 40th anniversary.
“Fright Night” marked Tom Holland’s directorial debut and over time the film evolved into a bona fide cult classic. To no surprise to its fans, the movie still holds up remarkably well, offering a delightful mix of horror and humor. In 1985, part of the charm of “Fright Night” was in how it celebrated elements of classic horror that came before it. That enjoyment is two-fold for fans watching it today. We look back on it with the same appreciation it had for the movies it was paying homage to.
Image Courtesy of Columbia Pictures
Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a normal suburban 17-year-old with a nice life, a caring mother (Dorothy Fielding), and an adoring girlfriend named Amy (Amanda Bearse) who he’s crazy for. About the only thing he loves as much as Amy is Fright Night, a late night horror television show that is hosted by the famed (and fictional) vampire hunter extraordinaire, Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
The movie kicks into gear after a new resident moves into the creepy old house next door to Charley. His new neighbor is Jerry Dandrige who’s played by a perfectly cast and devilishly alluring Chris Sarandon. Over the next several days, a nosey Charley secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) observes some alarming happenings at the Dandrige house eventually leading him to a shocking conclusion – his new neighbor is a vampire.
Both Amy and his mother are quick to dismiss his theory as ridiculous. He next calls the police who investigate. But they find nothing to back his claims and he manages to irritate Dandrige in the process. Out of options, a determined Charley seeks the help of his hero, Peter Vincent. Bad ratings has the disillusioned television host ready to give up the whole vampire hunter act. But Charley’s persistence (and a little cash from his friends) wins Peter over and he reluctantly agrees to humor his loyal and sincere fan.
Of course this is horror movie so we learn quick that Charley is right about Dandrige. But the real fun is in watching him trying to convince Peter and their eventual tag-team effort to vanquish this “foul creature of the night”. Together, Ragsdale and McDowall have a terrific mix of dramatic and comic chemistry. Holland has said “Charley Brewster was the engine, but Peter Vincent was the heart.” I agree yet neither works without the other. And together they don’t work without the energy brought by Ragsdale and McDowall.
Image Courtesy of Columbia Pictures
A healthy bulk of the movie’s $9-plus million budget went to the special effects and you can certainly tell. Academy Award winner Richard Edlund led a talented team of VFX wizards and makeup artists who used an impressive array of pre-digital trickery including optical photography, matte paintings, furniture dollies, contact lenses, facial prosthetics, and body suits. It gave us what remains a true highlight of the bygone practical effects age.
In the grand scheme of vampire movies, I wholeheartedly believe “Fright Night” to be an underrated classic. And as mentioned above, it’s a horror movie that still holds up today. It’s driven by a fabulous collection of characters, an unabashedly fun story, some deliciously gory effects, and a steady seasoning of good humor. Along the way Holland has a blast in the vampire movie sandbox, playing with the well-established mythologies that so many of us know by heart.
What started as a modest side project evolved into one of director William Friedkin’s very best films and one of the unheralded masterpieces of the 1970s. Released in 1977, “Sorcerer” was Friedkin’s feature film follow-up to his enormously popular “The Exorcist” and it couldn’t be a more different movie. Given the massive success of “The Exorcist”, Friedkin was pretty much given carte blanche for whatever he chose to do next.
But as his vision grew, notoriously so did his budget. Friedkin’s insistence on filming on location deep in the jungle and his intense dedication to a documentary-style authenticity led to expensive shoots and costly delays. To make matters worse, the movie was not well received by critics. And its troubles were only compounded when it released in the same window as George Lucas’s groundbreaking “Star Wars”. As a result, “Sorcerer” earned back less than half of its production budget.
Here’s the thing, while Friedkin’s ambition pushed production to (and sometimes past) its limit, that very ambition is the fundamental reason “Sorcerer” is a truly great movie. His determination to shoot on location and his commitment to realism cements the very foundation of the film and impacts everything including the austere visuals and nontraditional storytelling. As for the critical response, there has been a significant reassessment in recent years with the movie finally getting the positive appraisal it deserves.
Image Courtesy of Universal Pictures
Written for the screen by Walon Green (his first script since penning 1969’s “The Wild Bunch”), “Sorcerer” is based on Georges Arnaud’s 1950 novel “Le Salaire de la peur”. Of course “Sorcerer” isn’t the first adaptation of Arnaud’s book. That honor belongs to director Henri-Georges Clouzot’s acclaimed 1953 thriller “The Wages of Fear”. Many have referred to “Sorcerer” as a remake of Clouzot’s film. But Friedkin rejected that notion, stating his focus was always on Arnaud’s original source material.
The film opens with a prologue that plays out through four vignettes. Each is dedicated to an unsavory criminal and the crime that put them on the run. In Mexico, an assassin named Nilo (Francisco Rabal) neatly executes an unsuspecting target. In Jerusalem, a terrorist named Kassem (Amidou) is the only member of his group to escape after detonating a bomb in the city. In Paris, a crooked businessman named Victor (Bruno Cremer) is about to be charged for fraud. And in New Jersey, an Irish gangster named Jackie (Roy Scheider) gets in hot water after his crew steals money that belongs to the Italian Mafia.
Among its several themes, “Sorcerer” is a cynical treatise on the inescapable hand of fate. That comes fully into focus once all four men end up in the same small impoverished South American village of Porvenir. Friedkin and his cinematographer John M. Stephens (who took over for Dick Bush) render the village with jaw-dropping authenticity. Every frame is teeming with detail and there is a tangibility to everything – the sweat, the rust, the grime, the despair.
Porvenir is essentially a forsaken spot marred by poverty, corruption, and unrest – a place where hope is as foreign as prosperity. There our four criminals take on aliases and go about their individual lives, laying low and working menial labor for low pay. But fate reemerges following a massive explosion at a nearby oilfield that’s ran by an American oilman named Corlette (Ramon Bieri).
To extinguish the raging fire Corlette needs to cap the oil well. But he needs dynamite to do it. And the only available dynamite is miles away in an old shed deep in the jungle. To make matters worse, the dynamite has sat in crates for nearly a year and is seeping nitroglycerin making it dangerously unstable. But Corlette is desperate. So he heads back to Porvenir in search of four experienced truck drivers, offering a big payday for anyone willing to transport the dynamite to the oilfield.
Image Courtesy of Paramount Pictures
The offer brings together Jacki, Victor, Kassem, and Nilo, each needing the money if they’re ever to get out of Porvenir. And that sets up the tension-drenched second half which follows the four men as they attempt to navigate two trucks, carrying three cases of dynamite each, across 218 miles of mountainous jungle terrain. Along the way they face muddy roads, treacherous bridges, and torrential rainstorms, all while transporting cargo that the tiniest vibration could cause to explode.
This is where Friedkin’s filmmaking reaches its pinnacle as he creates scene after scene of white-knuckle suspense. None are more harrowing than them crossing a dilapidated suspension bridge as their trucks are battered by violent winds and sheets of rain. Meanwhile the character work remains strong as the four strangers bound by fate are forced to work together if they’re to have any hope of surviving. Nothing close to friendships ever form, making their relationships feel more grounded. And we find ourselves thoroughly invested in seeing these ‘bad guys’ through to the end.
With “Sorcerer”, William Friedkin pushed aside all traditional methods of big screen storytelling to make something uniquely timeless. Its world is cruel and forbidding; its characters are flawed and unglamorous; its story is dark and downbeat. But those are hardly faults. “Sorcerer” remains top-tier cinema and a true 70’s hallmark that’s highlighted by immersive storytelling, strong performances, and extraordinary craftsmanship. And as the film’s more recent reassessments have shown, those are the kind of things that never age out.
To celebrate its 20th anniversary, “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” is returning to theaters on April 25th. “Revenge of the Sith” premiered May 15, 2005 at the Cannes Film Festival before releasing wide on May 19th. It was the final film in creator George Lucas’s ambitious prequel trilogy and to this day it remains one of the franchise’s very best movies.
“Revenge of the Sith” is the final chapter in the story of Anakin Skywalker’s rise and fall from a powerful young Jedi to the villainous Darth Vader. Returning Star Wars alum Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Frank Oz, and Peter Mayhew fill out the spectacular ensemble.
To promote the movie’s return to theaters, Disney and LucasFilm has released a killer new poster. Check it out below and let me know what you think.
Kyle Hausmann-Stokes makes an impressive directorial debut with “My Dead Friend Zoe”, a deeply personal feature inspired by the tragic deaths of two of his platoonmates. There’s a number of powerful themes sewn into the fabric of his movie. But its chief interest is in exploring the experiences of military veterans in America. Hausmann-Stokes honors them through a poignant and honest examination of the wartime scars combat vets often return home with.
Merit (played by a brilliant Sonequa Martin-Green) is a troubled veteran who spent eight years in Afghanistan as a light-wheel mechanic for the U.S. Army. While serving she became close friends with the brash and boisterous Zoe (Natalie Morales). But Zoe’s life met a tragic end which is revealed to us over the course of the movie. Now Merit sees visions of her late friend and the two routinely carry on conversations. During their frequent tête-à-têtes, Zoe’s barbs range from darkly funny to piercingly cruel.
The idea of a deceased friend popping up to crack jokes and needle our protagonist may sound insensitive, especially considering the weight of the film’s subject matter. And this certainly isn’t the first movie to use this device in its storytelling. But kudos to Hausmann-Stokes who takes a thoughtful and schmaltz-free approach. At no point does his handling of the material feel insincere or gimmicky. Instead it adds a crucial emotional layer to the story that helps ground it in reality.
Aside from the flashbacks in Afghanistan, most of the story takes place in Oregon. Following an accident at her warehouse job, Merit is charged with criminal negligence and ordered by the court to attend group therapy meetings for former soldiers struggling with PTSD. The sessions are led by Dr. Cole (Morgan Freeman), a VA counselor who refuses to coddle Merit but also shows her a great deal of compassion.
Meanwhile Merit gets a call from her mother, Kris (Gloria Reuben) telling her to go check on her grandfather, Dale (Ed Harris) who has been taken to the hospital. The doctor diagnoses Dale with early stage Alzheimer’s leading Merit and her mother to consider some difficult choices. As they do, Merit moves in with her surly grandfather at his beloved lakeside cabin, rekindling a strained but cherished relationship that may help her finally confront her own emotionally crippling pent-up trauma.
Hausmann-Stokes does a superb job delicately balancing a post-service soldier story with an affecting domestic drama, connecting them in a way that raises awareness to a number of potent real-world issues. The performances are top-to-bottom strong led by Sonequa Martin-Green’s eye-opening leading turn. And the sturdy Ed Harris proves again why he’s such a cherished actor. Morgan Freeman is effortlessly solid in what is a small-ish role while Utkarsh Ambudkar adds some levity playing an awkward retirement home administrator and part-time cemetery caretaker.
On the surface, its concept may sound far-fetched. But nothing about “My Dead Friend Zoe” comes across as exaggerated or inauthentic. Even the measured and well-tuned injections of humor fit well with the story Hausmann-Stokes is telling. We have to maneuver through a few narrative cliches to get to the ending and it’s a bit rushed once we get there. But those things do nothing to hinder the clarity of the filmmaker’s firsthand inspiration. It pulsates all throughout this stirring and insightful slice of reality. Opening in theaters February 28th.
Osgood Perkins crafted one of 2024’s very best films with his exceptional serial killer horror thriller “Longlegs”. It was a movie that was rightly met with positive reactions from audiences and critics. But it was good enough to deserve serious awards season consideration. Sadly, the film was mostly ignored by end of the year voting members from critics associations (including my own) to major award groups.
And just like that Perkins is back with his follow-up, “The Monkey”. This warped and twisted horror blend is based on Stephen King’s 1980 short story. Perkins writes, directs, and takes countless liberties in his adaptation of King’s work. The most noticeable addition is the infusion of comedy into what is an otherwise a hyper-gory splatter film. Perkins keeps his tongue firmly lodged in his cheek as he has us chuckling one minute while spraying us with blood and guts the next.
Unfortunately his mix of horror and humor doesn’t quite gel the way he wants it to. The movie features several wild and spectacularly gory deaths that are sure to earn some audible gasps. And there are genuinely funny lines of dialogue scattered all throughout. But it’s the story that attempts to connect it all that underwhelms. Not only is it a mess, but it bungles the heavier themes it introduces. So we’re left with little more than gore and goofiness and both wear out their welcome over time.
Back in 1999, twin brothers Hal and Bill Shelburn (Christian Convery) lived with their single mother, Lois (Tatiana Maslany). The boys weren’t especially close as the punk Bill relentless bullied and belittled his more timid brother Hal. Their lives are violently turned upside down after they discover a wind-up musical monkey in a closet among their absent father’s old things.
Now to the movie’s rules. Apparently whenever someone winds the key on the monkey’s back and it plays it drum someone is killed in a gruesomely outrageous manner. Why? We never know. Who or what is behind the monkey’s ‘power’? Your guess is as good as mine. The movie has no interest in answering such questions which naturally come from such a story.
The closest we get to answers are in the film’s abject cynicism. As one character states, “Everyone dies and that’s life” – no purpose, no point, no pattern. That may make for an interesting philosophical discussion, but it doesn’t automatically equal good cinema. In “The Monkey” it feels more like a cop-out than a thought-provoking statement on the absurdity of death. It gives Perkins a reason to splash the screen with viscera in a creative array of ways.
Some 25 years later, the estranged brothers (now played by Theo James) haven’t spoken in years. Hal lives in seclusion but has a son named Petey (Colin O’Brien). In one of the film’s most underdeveloped story threads, Hal goes to pick up Petey for their once-a-year visit. While there, he’s informed by his ex-wife (Laura Mennell) that her successful new husband (Elijah Wood in a rather silly cameo) is adopting Petey. It’s a wonky domestic angle that feels thrown together rather than thought out.
But of course the monkey finds its way back into their lives. Hal and Bill thought they were rid of it and each other when they threw it down a well as kids. But it returns with another string of grisly and graphic deaths. And it brings the estranged brothers back together in a way that’s more ridiculous than convincing. It all plays out in an outrageous final act that’s either care-free to the point of incoherence or smugly poking fun at genre fans and their willingness to consume anything as long as it’s coated in blood.
“The Monkey” continues a growing trend in modern horror. It’s yet another movie that goes all-in on gore while making no real attempt at being scary. In this case, far more effort is put into being funny. But too often the horror and the humor are working against each other. At times they click, leading to some pretty good comic payoffs. But those efforts are overshadowed by the tonal chaos, its lack of tension, and the half-baked story which almost feels like an afterthought.
Keith & the Movies 