At the risk of sounding cliche, they just don’t make movies like this anymore, especially romantic comedies. The 1953 classic “Roman Holiday” from director William Wyler remains a blueprint for a genre that notoriously struggles with originality these days. The beloved film turns 70 this year and to celebrate its anniversary, “Roman Holiday” is having special screenings at select theaters all around the country. And on the eve of Valentines Day, what better time to see it.

“Roman Holiday” brought together the unlikely pair of Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn. It was a star-making role for a young Hepburn who at that point had mostly appeared in bit parts. But her performance in “Roman Holiday” caught the world’s eye. Her co-star Gregory Peck played a big part. He recognized Hepburn was going to be a star and was instrumental in getting her name out. Interestingly Peck wasn’t Wyler’s first choice. The director wanted Cary Grant, but Grant turned it down believing he was too old for the part (Peck once famously said that anytime he received a comedy script he knew Grant must have turned it down first).

The story for “Roman Holiday” was written by Dalton Trumbo but it was credited to Ian McClellan Hunter. At the time, Trumbo was one of the Hollywood Ten and had been blacklisted for his “communist ties” and failure to cooperate with Congress. To make things even more interesting, “Roman Holiday” won the Academy Award for Best Story (as the category was known at the time). Hunter would accept the award and it wasn’t until 2011 that Trumbo received full credit for his work.

Trumbo’s fairytale follows Ann (Hepburn), a princess of an unmentioned country who is on a European tour-stop in Rome. Ann is young and adventurous and has had enough of the strict itineraries and stuffy hobnobbing. She wants to experience life outside of her tightly controlled confines. One evening, after the royal family doctor gives her a sedative to calm her anxiety, she sneaks out before it kicks in, ready to take in the sites and sounds of Rome on her own.

Enter American reporter Joe Bradley (Peck). He stumbles across Ann who has fallen sound asleep next to a fountain. He doesn’t recognize her at first, but after a comical series of events he learns her identity and sees her as a big story and a potential career boost. One that could land him a coveted job back in New York.

Joe doesn’t reveal to Ann that he recognizes her, and Ann tries to keep her identity secret. He calls on a photographer friend of his, Irving Radovich (Eddie Albert), to secretly snap some photos of Ann for their big story as the three spend a playful day exploring Rome. But true to rom-com form, Joe begins to have feelings for Ann. So he’s faced with a decision: does he give in to his feelings or cash them in for a big payday?

The film was shot entirely in Rome by DPs Henri Alekan and Franz Planer. Shooting on location wasn’t quite as common as it is today, and the expense increased the budget so much that the original plans to shoot the film in color were scrapped. Regardless, it was the right choice. Rome, with all its history and beauty, plays a significant supporting role, and some of the movie’s more magical scenes feature Ann and Joe at some of the city’s famous locations. (A favorite is a playful moment at the famed Mouth of Truth where Peck pretends his arm is stuck in the monument and lets out a scream. It’s said Hepburn knew nothing of the gag and was genuinely startled, letting out a scream of her own. It was completely spontaneous and Wyler captured it in one take).

“Roman Holiday” would go on to earn 10 Academy Award nominations. Aside from Trumbo’s win, it was also awarded for Best Costume Design, and perhaps most notably for Best Actress. The win would catapult Audrey Hepburn, who was relatively unknown at the time, into the spotlight and open the door to what would be a stellar career. Peck was right with his appraisal of the young actress and she was always appreciative. The two remained close friends for the rest of their lives. The roots of their shared admiration is clearly seen in “Roman Holiday”, and is a big reason they’re such a memorable on-screen couple.

I still love “Roman Holiday” – the sparkling chemistry of its leads; its keen sense of humor; how it captures and incorporates the beauty and vibrancy of Rome. To this day it continues to be a movie easy to get lost in, which is what you want, especially from a romantic comedy. I want to be swept away with the characters. I want the story to be inviting, the humor to be smart, and the romance to be genuine. We get all of that and more in “Roman Holiday” which is a big reason why it’s still considered an all-time great, even after 70 years.

Riding on the wacky idea of Nicolas Cage playing the iconic Count Dracula, the blood-drenched vampire movie “Renfield” looked to have the markings of a potential sleeper hit. But after a grim opening weekend at the box office, it looks as if Universal Pictures has a major bomb on their hands. It’s hard to put much blame on the studio. They’ve had a nice run of successful surprises and they’ve certainly promoted this film. But I think it’s safe to say that something about “Renfield” hasn’t clicked with audiences.

What went wrong is anyone’s guess. Maybe there actually aren’t many folks out there smitten with the idea of Count Cage. Perhaps it was hard for some people to get a good read on this action-horror-comedy mashup. Whatever the reason, people haven’t turned out and its first-week numbers are dreadful. And it’s only amplified by the film’s hefty $65 million budget (before advertising).

I hate to kick a movie when it’s down. I really wish I could be a positive force and say it’s worth a trip to theater. Sadly “Renfield” is a unexpectedly limp and frustratingly hollow experience that squanders most of the potential it had. It starts with promise, setting up its goofy premise in a fun and imaginative way. But once it establishes itself it really has nothing else to offer. Instead it sputters along, milking its one good joke dry and leaving us to ponder what could have been. Even the unflappable Nic Cage can’t ham it up enough to save the movie from its many self-inflicted wounds.

It’s sad to say, but once you get past that initial setup it’s hard to find much to latch onto. There’s probably enough good material for a few SNL sketches, but the bulk of the rest is pretty tough to endure. The film is plagued with issues such as uninteresting side stories, revelations that come with poor buildups and (in some cases) no resolutions, humor that often lands with a deafening thud, and gory action that resembles what you would see in a cheap splatter film rather than a $65 million studio project.

For a while Cage is the film’s saving grace. His manic charm and giddy theatrics imbues his version on Dracula with the kind of preposterous spin we’re looking for. He completely goes for it which is a key reason he is so enjoyable. The bummer of it all is that he isn’t in the movie nearly as much as you might expect. And the movie certainly struggles whenever he’s away from the screen.

“Reinfield” comes from director Chris McKay (“The Lego Batman Movie”, “The Tomorrow War”). It’s written by Ryan Ridley who’s working from a story pitched by Robert “The Walking Dead” Kirkman. The script follows Robert Montague Renfield (Nicholas Hoult), the indebted and long-suffering servant of the Prince of Darkness himself. Renfield is tasked with supplying his master with human blood, the more innocent the tastier. But Dracula’s penchant for blood-sucking benders means the pair are constantly having to move from city to city. Their latest stop – New Orleans.

Dracula has blessed (or cursed) Renfield with immortality as a reward for his faithful service. Renfield also has been granted superpowers that are activated whenever he eats a bug (???). Yet despite the ‘benefits’, Dracula’s demanding personality and unbridled narcissism puts a strain on their relationship. So much so that Renfield wants out. He wants a normal life. He has joined a support group to help people with codependency, but so far it hasn’t helped him muster the courage leave his oppressive master.

The best material is found in the main storyline where Renfield tries to find the strength to stand up to Dracula. Unfortunately we have to endure all of the side stuff which really weighs the movie down. Awkwafina is woefully unconvincing playing a dutiful New Orleans cop named Rebecca Quincy. She has an axe to grind with a local crime family ran by matriarch Bellafrancesca Lobo (Shohreh Aghdashloo) and her obnoxious son Teddy (Ben Schwartz playing one of the most insufferable characters I’ve seen on screen all year). There’s nothing remotely fun or interesting about these characters, and their ill-conceived stories offer little more than dead weight.

I will say Hoult gives a good performance. His ingratiating timidity is both endearing and humorous, and the film is at its best when he and Cage are sharing the screen. But the movie’s misfires are aplenty – the half-baked storytelling; the flat and uninspired humor; the wildly inconsistent action sequences; the even more inconsistent visual effects. They take what should have been a goofy, over-the-top good time and turns it into a 90-minute slog. “Renfield” is in theaters now.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

Creepy kids continue to be all the rave in modern horror. The latest to tap into them is “Run Rabbit Run”, a haunting psychological horror film from director Daina Reid that premiered at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. The Australian made film stars Sarah Snook (“Succession”) as a mother dealing with the suddenly strange behavior of her 7-year-old daughter. In the process she’s taken back to deeply repressed memories from her childhood.

Written by Hannah Kent, “Run Rabbit Run” has a patience that sets it apart from the standard-issue horror fare we’ve grown accustomed to. It leans into the psychological aspect of its story as it examines a range of familiar themes, some better defined than others. And while you can’t help but recognize a few familiar horror movie tricks, Reid and Kent use them in a variety of ways that cleverly service their story.

After Elizabeth Moss dropped out due to a scheduling conflict, Sarah Snook was cast in the lead. She’s terrific playing a single mother named Sarah who’s still grieving the recent passing of her beloved father. She puts on a good show for her daughter Mia (Lily LaTorre), but deep down she still struggles with her loss. Her ex-husband Pete (Damon Herriman) and his new wife Denise (Naomi Rukavina) show concern, offering our first hint that something else might be going on with Sarah and Mia. It’s some really good table-setting from Reid and Kent.

Things take a wicked twist after a white rabbit suddenly shows up at their Melbourne home. Mia is intent on keeping it, but immediately begins acting peculiar upon its arrival. Her demeanor completely changes. She makes a crude bunny mask out of pink construction paper and wears it everywhere. She starts drawing ghoulish pictures on the back of her homework. Even stranger, Mia insists on being called “Alice” and demands to see Joan (Greta Scacchi), a grandmother she’s never met. “I miss people I’ve never met all the time,”she tells her concerned mom.

Several other things surface as the story unfolds, much of it to do with Sarah’s troubled past. We learn more about her broken relationship with her estranged mother Joan. And there’s a particularly painful loss from her past that resurfaces and begins chipping away at her psyche. Of course it’s all maneuvering towards several big final-act reveals, some of which become pretty obvious. But Reid holds enough of her cards close to the vest, and she doesn’t let her film get bogged down in genre routines.

Comparisons to Jennifer Kent’s “The Babadook” seem all but inevitable. And a few of the movie’s tricks (such as the metaphorical use of a festering wound that won’t heal) may seem a tad too familiar. But “Run Rabbit Run” carves out its own identity through its meticulous pacing and its backstory mystery. Reid’s prowess with the camera gives the film an unnerving sensation, especially in the second half. And then you have Snook who’s able to sell every scene, even the ones we feel like we’ve seen before.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

Something creepy is going on in room 203. And wouldn’t you know it, that’s just the apartment that two lifelong friends move into in this interesting horror film from director Ben Jagger. Based on a Nanami Kamon’s novel of the same name, the Japanese horror influence can be seen all over “Room 203”. You see it most in the slow, patient tension-building and in how its scares are often rooted in the psychological as much as the supernatural. And of course mood and atmosphere are essential.

But what surprised me most about “Room 203” was its welcomed patience. The trio of co-writers (Jagger, John Poliquin, and Nick Richey) clearly have something sinister at the center of their story. But they’re very deliberate and take their time getting there. In fact, for most of the second act, “Room 203” is more of a mystery movie than straight-up horror. Perhaps it’s a constraint brought on by the strict COVID-19 safety protocols and a limited budget. But it feels like a gutsy creative choice – one that works both for and against the film.

Shot and (I think) set in Shreveport, Louisiana, the movie introduces us to Kim (Francesca Xuereb), a journalism major ready for her first year of college, and her best friend Izzy (Viktoria Vinyarska), a boisterous aspiring actress. The two friends come with their own sets of baggage. Kim is at odds with her disapproving parents who see Izzy as a bad influence. Izzy is still struggling to cope with the death of her mom – a loss that took her to some dark places.

Problems aside, Kim and Izzy are all set to become roommates, renting an apartment together in a historic former commerce building. Upon arriving at the property they’re greeted by their pasty-faced and glaringly weird landlord, Ronan (Scott Gremillion) who shows them #203. It’s a dated but cozy pad with “vintage” furnishings and accented by a beautiful but strange stained glass window. He wraps up his tour with a warning, “The basement is off limits to residents”. That’s always an indicator that we’ll end up there at some point.

The one detail Ronan left out was the apartment’s blood-soaked history (It’s no wonder rent is so cheap). Of course it soon comes to haunt the new tenants. Before long Kim and Izzy begin noticing a rash of unexplainable occurrences. There’s the ugly hole in Kim’s bedroom wall and the growing stench emanating from it. There’s the appearance of an old necklace and music box – totems that are clearly channeling some kind of malevolent force. And then there’s Izzy’s sudden sleepwalking (that’s never good, especially in a horror movie).

Kim begins suspecting something’s not quite right with the apartment and recruits the help of her fellow journalism student and potential love interest, Ian (Eric Wiegand) to help her dig deeper into the building’s history. Along the way, Jagger sloooowly ratchets up the horror elements, never shying away from using a number of well-known horror tropes – figures scampering by in the shadows, mysterious foul smells, creaking floors, milky eyes, etc.

In a way I really appreciated the slow-burn and how it gave the characters more room to develop. But the movie does reach a point where the wait for the horror to kick in starts to feel long. And like so many other movies in its vein, “Room 203” leaves a lot of questions unanswered. But these are hardly dealbreakers, and the movie’s strong points are enough to offset, and in several cases overcome, its shortcomings. “Room 203” is now streaming on Hulu and on VOD.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

“Jaws” it’s not. Nor is it in the same category as “The Shallow”. Heck, I wouldn’t even lump it in with “The Meg”. But “The Requin” has sharks in it so at least they all have that in common. Unfortunately for it, the presence of sharks alone doesn’t make a movie entertaining. And in this case, when they do finally show up, they only add to the litany of problems that make this one of the worst movies of the year despite its good intentions.

“The Requin” is written and directed by Le-Van Kiet whose other 2022 film, “The Princess” was an underwhelming yet considerably better effort. With “The Requin”, the filmmaker’s story is all over the map. He tries to make an emotional family drama and a genre thriller at the same time. Sadly neither lands well and both are hampered with their own sets of problems that they simply can’t overcome.

Alicia Silverstone plays Jaelyn who is vacationing with her husband, Kyle (James Tupper). The couple are working through some heavy issues, namely losing their baby during a recent childbirth. It’s put a strain on their marriage as Kyle pushes to put it behind them while Jaelyn still struggles with PTSD and overwhelming feelings of guilt. So they’ve come to a luxury beach resort in Vietnam to try and save their marriage. But things start a little shaky and you can (sorta) feel the tension between the struggling couple.

Kyle has rented out an expensive above-water cabana with all the amenities, an exquisite ocean view, and snorkeling right outside their back door. Everything seems ideal except for one small detail – Jaelyn and Kyle came during monsoon season (smart). And wouldn’t you know it, a tropical storm hits in the middle of the night, shaking them from sleep. Before they’re able to escape, the storm knocks their cabana off its stilts and sends it drifting out to sea (don’t you hate it when that happens).

Thanks to this preposterous scenario, the movie quickly shifts from a relationship drama to an open-water survival thriller. But just as the undercooked relationship stuff is hard to get into, so is the survival angle, mainly because of the laughably hokey dialogue, the exaggerated performances, and the incredibly dumb decisions our two protagonists make. And when the CGI sharks finally arrive (nearly an hour into the movie), they actually make things even more ridiculous. It all culminates in an ending so mind-numbingly absurd, that it kills any sympathy you may have held for the film.

When watching “The Requin” you can see the gears turning as the film tries to bring something different to the screen. But the cheesy (and at times cringe-worthy) melodrama never remotely feels authentic. And the ludicrous character blunders and the laughably bad CGI make the whole man-versus-nature elements impossible to buy. And while its great to see Alicia Silverstone in a lead role, it’s a shame she’s give such bad material that more or less sets her up to fail. “The Requin” is now available of VOD and is streaming on Hulu.

VERDICT – 1 STAR

Two of my favorite working actors teaming up in an off-beat family dramedy? That’s too much for me to pass up on. And wouldn’t you know it, “Raymond & Ray” turns out to be right up my alley. It’s the kind of slice-of-life movie I’m often drawn to. It doesn’t strive to be innovative, nor does it pretend to be something momentous. It’s a simple and grounded look at the human condition through the experiences of two well-rooted characters. It’s tight in scope and honest with its emotions, but it also finds time for levity which is welcomed considering death is a key component.

Written and directed by Rodrigo García, “Raymond and Ray” features a story that’s a bit warped and even a little zany. Yet it always has its feet planted in reality. It follows two half-brothers. Both are very different people who have lived very different lives. Yet they do have one thing in common – they both detest their father. And that shared hatred has only driven them apart. Not because of any disdain for each other (they were actually inseparable as kids). But because being together only brings back the memories of the neglect and abuse they experienced.

Ewan McGregor plays Raymond, an straight-laced stiff with two divorces behind him who’s now separated from his third wife. Ethan Hawke plays Ray, a recovering heroin addict who once aspired to be a trumpet player but gave it (and everything else) up after his wife died of cancer. Both are damaged people whose lives never panned out they way they hoped. And they sought answers in places that only led to more problems.

The movie opens with Raymond arriving at Ray’s house to inform him that their father has died. It’s the first time the two have seen each other in years and even longer since either had seen their estranged father. Ray isn’t especially moved by the news, but he is surprised to learn that their father’s dying wish was that his sons attend his funeral. Ray says to brush it off. After all, the old man’s dead; he won’t know. But Raymond wants them to go (plus he recently lost his drivers license after a DWI so he needs a ride). Ray reluctantly agrees, and the two load up and make a trip to Richmond.

After arriving, Raymond and Ray discover that their late father’s last wishes didn’t end at attending his funeral. He also left word that his boys were to dig his grave and cover it up (their father was able to get the cemetery’s consent through a bogus religious freedom request – a funny gag that pops up several times). While Raymond sees it as their duty, Ray quickly begins to lose patience. Was this really a heartfelt wish of their dead dad or was he heartlessly screwing with them from beyond the grave?

From the very start, the story structure of “Raymond & Ray” is pretty obvious. There will be plenty of revelations along the way, both for the two half-brothers and the audience. These reveals come through their father’s various acquaintances who describe a much different man than Raymond and Ray experienced. Among them are their father’s attorney (Oscar Nunez), his former lover (Maribel Verdú), his pastor (Vondie Curtis-Hall), and his nurse (Sophie Okonedo). Raymond and Ray begin to discover who their father became in recent years. But it doesn’t erase who he was in the past, and those old wounds prove to be deep and painful.

While Garcia gives us plenty of great character moments and some genuinely good laughs, the story doesn’t fully stick its ending. Obviously I won’t spoil it, but let’s just say one lead character ends in a more believable place than the other. But for the most part, “Raymond & Ray” has all the heart and quirkiness it needs to work well as a dysfunctional family drama and a subtle black comedy. And it doesn’t hurt to have talent the caliber of McGregor and Hawke, two savvy seasoned actors who keep this oddball tale on a human level. “Raymond & Ray” premieres October 21st on Apple TV+.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS