Drama – Page 5 – The Magnificent 60s

Regretting You (2025) ****

It’s my own fault, I suppose. There’s probably no need to try and cram in as many movies as possible on my weekly visit to the cinema. I generally aim to catch two but, more usually, if the timings of showings align, I can see three. But, honestly, I’m fed up of posting two-star reviews of movies that have come garlanded with critical praise and some prize from a film festival.

So, let me get the duds out of the way first. I hadn’t expected a great deal from Good Fortune (2025) and that was just as well because it was awful, nary a laff, and some pious virtue-signaling sermon about the wealthy vs the workers.

I had expected much more from Springsteen: Deliver Me from Nowhere (2025). I’m a big fan of movies (and books) about creative endeavor, be they concerning painters, sculptors, writers and rock stars. But I have to confess I’ve never seen Brucie in concert and I’ve probably owned only ever owned a couple of albums, and one of those would probably be a greatest hits compendium.

And I’ve never seen The Bear so Jeremy Allen White is new to me. But this was just so boring, an angst-ageddon, consisting mostly of the character looking mournful. It was more like an extended Classic Albums documentary and although it followed the same trajectory as the Bob Dylan picture of a singer changing his career path, it was still just dull. Yes, it’s a shout-out for people with mental health problems, but, hey, that’s still a documentary and forgive me for going against the grain here but White hasn’t an ounce of the charisma of Timothy Chamalet, who, when the camera bores into his soulful face, you want to know what he’s thinking. So another virtue-signaling effort that I doubt will connect with anyone but the Brucies.

So that brings me to Regretting You, the picture of which I had least expectations on my weekly Monday outing to the multiplex. And it was, as it happened, last on the agenda, so I came at it not at all anticipating that it would save the day.

And it’s not, thank goodness, what used to be called a “woman’s picture” because the two male leads are giving plenty rope and, in some regard, actually have the stronger emotional scenes. But all the characters come across as real and there’s none of the jazzing up of narrative by someone opening a flower shop or a café. And there’s a very reflective attitude to sex, which may be woke-inspired, but certainly leans more into character than I would have expected.

The story is quite simple. Opposites attract and find that actually they’re not as attracted as all that in the lifetime sense and then swing back to people with the same attitudes to life and chaos ensues.

Outgoing uninhibited muscular jock Chris (Scott Eastwood) marries quiet reflective Morgan (Allison Williams) rather than the equally fun-loving Jenny (Willa Fitgerald). Way down the marital line after Jenny has had a baby with their college pal Jonah (Dave Franco), Chris and Jenny have an affair that only comes to light when they die together in a car crash.

Dependable Morgan doesn’t want to detract from her 17-year-old daughter Clara’s (Mackenna Grace) adoration of her beloved father so keeps this aspect from her. In her grief, though possibly just as a normal rebellious teen, Clara starts acting up, cue endless rows, and getting too chummy with Miller (Mason Thames) who comes from the wrong side of the tracks and complicated by the fact that he’s got a girlfriend to dump first before he can get it on with Clara.

Surprisingly, this is a lot more about grief than romance. The Clara-Miller entanglement is very chaste and even more slowburn is widow and widower discovering they have feelings for each other.

But romance definitely takes second place to grief. Clara can’t face attending her father’s funeral and skips it, much to her mother’s fury. Morgan can’t face sleeping in the same bed as her deceitful husband and spends nights on the sofa sipping wine. Jonah begins to believe that his son is the result of the affair and pushes the child away, unable to bear the baby’s smile that he believes is the spitting image of Chris. And everyone has to work out their grief.

The Clara-Miller romance is idiosyncratically, and therefore believably, done. Even more believable is his reaction when he realizes Clara wants sex in revenge against her mother.

The acting is a bit too television, overmuch dependance on gesticulation and face contortion, but otherwise solid enough.

Allison Williams (Megan, 2002) holds it all together as the dependable mother who only breaks out to refurbish the house. Dave Franco (Love Lies Bleeding, 2024) reveals a gentler, aspect to his work. Mackenna Grace (Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, 2024) has the showiest part, but doesn’t revel in it. Mason Thames (How to Train Your Dragon, 2025) is also good value.

In fact, what comes over best is restraint, the widow and young lover holding onto the realities of the characters they play, rather than over-acting.

Directed with some skill by Josh Boone (The Fault in Our Stars, 2014). Written by Susan McMartin (After, 2019) from the Colleen Hoover bestseller.

While this doesn’t pack the dramatic intensity of the previous Hoover adaptation It Ends With Us (2024), it deals with the subject of grief in a sensitive manner.

I might be marking this up a tad in reaction to the pair of duds I saw first, but I think not too much. It delivers a solid enjoyable experience, and isn’t preaching, which, in itself, is rare these days.

Nine Bodies in a Mexican Morgue (2025) or ** (depending)

Ludicrous production values point this in the direction of a laughable project, but a clever twist on both the detection picture and the survival genre and a heck of a lot of fun once it gets into the swing tilt this into the So Bad It’s Good category and a four-star rating for that.

Maybe there’s some of that post-ironic modernist stuff flying around in that we’re not meant to take the setting seriously. How could you when the only attempts to fill out the background of the Mexican jungle are one snake, one lizard and one crow and a pool of barracuda (yep, you heard me, somebody’s got to be able to chew off, for narrative purposes, a human face). Occasionally, reminiscent of the worst of the B-picture horror movies where actors had to strangle themselves with plastic snakes, here the characters take it in turns to slap their faces at supposed insects.

*Other morgues you might be interested in…*

But they’re never covered in sweat and there’s nary a tarantula or rattlesnake in sight. And any time one of them is due to be bumped off, they just have to wander away from camp.

This sets out its stall in disaster movie fashion. In classics like The Poseidon Adventure (1972), The Towering Inferno (1074) and Earthquake (1974) part of the fun was working out who would bite the dust.

Here, we’re told at the outset that out of the ten people aboard a light aircraft that’s crashed into the jungle nine don’t make it. So, over six episodes, we’ve got to guess who’s the survivor as well as why he or she feels obliged to get rid of his fellow passengers and it’s not as simple as in Sands of the Kalahari (1965) where it’s simply to increase one individual’s food stock.

Nor is it a simple matter of checking the billing. We know that Paul Newman and Steve McQueen aren’t going to be victims in The Towering Inferno, likewise Charlton Heston in Earthquake, but here none of the cast is familiar in the slightest, so no fans are going to bitch at their beloved idol being killed off, though Game of Thrones showed little compunction.

*“The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue” should you be interested.*

Naturally, the one creature that’s dominant in the jungle is the red herring. Virtually every character isn’t what they seem. Kevin (Eric McCormack), an ex-doctor, feels like somewhere along the line he’s been struck off; Zack (David Ajala) is certainly no insurance investigator; Dan (Adam Long) isn’t a novelist; millionaire’s daughter Amy (Jan Le) clearly has issues; Lisa (Siobhan MacSweeney) ain’t no ordinary housewife; and everyone’s suspicious of Sonja (Lydia Wilson) because she’s so guarded.

Alliances crumble once the body count rises. And gradually, the survivors realize they are not alone, there’s someone else in this neck of the jungle who will sabotage their efforts to set up a rudimentary transmitter. It’s not Flight of the Phoenix (1965) either or those others in the survival sub-genre where characters use their skills to find an escape. This lot do nothing more energetic than wait. Though they don’t have much energy left over after all their confrontations and squabbling over who’s the killer among them.

What writer Anthony Horowitz (Foyle’s War, 2002-2025) does brilliantly is take the hoary old detective tale and turn it upside down. Sure, we’re accustomed to multiple murders in virtually any episode of a television mystery, but setting the bar as high as nine killings, and telling us that fact from the off, making us wonder who will be next – a bit like Strictly, wondering who will be axed this week – provides this with the narrative fillip it requires.

And you forget about the lousy production values and go with the flow. Here and there sub-plots turn up the puzzle factor.

You may well, like me (he boasted), work out who the killer is and what he’s up to, but likely as not you won’t.

Apart from a marvelous turn from Siobhan MacSweeny, the dry head nun from the Derry Girls (2018) television series, nobody’s called upon to do much acting, except of the duplicitous kind as they keep their real characters under wraps.

Couple of good twists at the end.

Guilty pleasure (four-stars) or utter rubbish (two stars) – you choose.

Catch it on BBC and various streamers or on DVD.

Eden (2025) ****

By all accounts this should be a stinker. Colossal box office flop without little potential redemption in the form of critical accolades. Mis-sold as a horror survival thriller with too upscale a cast for that strategy to work. And yet it gives the likes of After the Hunt and Roofman an object lesson is how to make unlikeable characters appealing.

There’s no great secret. Just don’t hide anything. Make your characters upfront from the outset and let them roll the dice without artifice. Solve any puzzles. Set out your stall fairly and go with it. And you know what, put any random characters anywhere and you’ll trigger a battle for power.

This would be in the vein of Lord of the Flies (1963), Robinson Crusoe (1997 the most recent version) and Cast Away (2000), except the characters here are on a remote island by choice, sold on the notion of getting away from a civilization which is in a bad way, this being 1932 and the world in a spiral of financial depression and rising fascism.

Wannabe philosopher Ritter (Jude Law), determined to change the world, is narked when, three years into his sojourn on Galapagos, his hardly idyllic isolation with partner Dore (Vanessa Kirby) is interrupted by the arrival of fanboy Heinz (Daniel Bruhl), wife Margret (Sydney Sweeney) and ill son Harry (Jonathan Tittel).

Somewhat surprised at the unfriendly welcome, Heinz would be astonished to learn that Ritter suggests they go live in, unknown to them, one of the worst spots on the island, assuming they won’t survive and he can go back to peace and quiet. But the newcomers have come prepared for hardship and build a home and convert a spring into a home-made pool.

A grudging truce is shattered by the arrival of the Baroness (Ana de Armas), her two lovers Rudolph (Felix Kammerer) and Robert (Toby Wallace), and her wildly ambitious plans to build a luxury hotel. Worse, she’s determined to seize power, forcing those further down the society tree to bend the knee, and if her sex appeal doesn’t achieve that purpose, then she’ll take the old-fashioned route. Heinz kisses her outstretched hand but Ritter refuses. She’s a particularly ruthless specimen and when her supply of food runs out just steals from Heinz’s horde then has the audacity to invite him to a meal featuring the stolen food.

Her plan to set Ritter and Heinz against each other, her barbed tongue a singular weapon, only results in them forming an alliance. While it’s obvious it’s not going to end well, three sequences in particular are distinctly brutal.

Along the way, facades are broken. The Baroness has invented her title. Hunger is all it takes for Ritter to shift from his avowed vegetarianism leaving Dore is appalled. Her beloved donkey is killed. Heinz has to face up to the fact that Margret only married him to get away from home. After Heinz and Ritter conspire against the Baroness, Margret and Dore conspire against Ritter.

It’s about 15 minutes too long, the seeming need to wrap up the tale unnecessary, but the rest of it is a joy to watch. There’s one absolute cracker of a sequence. While Margret is giving birth alone and threatened by feral wild dogs, the Baroness pointedly ignores her plight, not surprising since she has more important matters on her mind, namely her lovers looting of Heinz’s stores.

I had not expected much in the way of performances. Daniel Bruhl (Rush, 2013) would at least be solid, but after Black Rabbit (2025) I thought Jude Law would be way over the top and the two actresses, struggling for critical acceptance, way out of their depth. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Jude Law goes back to the quiet brooding intensity that made him a star in the first place. Ana de Armas (Ballerina, 2025) steals the show as the arch manipulator, her mind quick enough to rescue any dire situation. Sydney Sweeney (Anyone But You, 2023) turns her screen persona on its head, famed cleavage kept under cover, as the stalwart, almost puritanical, wife.

While this might seem a bit of a come-down for Oscar-winning director Ron Howard after box office and critical hits like The Da Vinci Code (2006) and A Beautiful Mind (2002) and making do with stars of a lower marquee class than Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks and in their day Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson and Jim Carrey, he’s tackled similar obsession before with In the Heart of the Sea (2015).

And he’s great with the cast, knocks over-acting on the head, so that every performance looks perfectly pitched and in keeping with the characters. The directing, too, is spot-on. Powerful scenes, such as the Baroness’s failed seduction of a millionaire explorer and a poisoning, are played in a low key. Written by Howard and Noah Pink (Tetris, 2023)

A shade too long, as I said, but several cuts above the likes of After the Hunt, Roofman and One Battle after Another.

What used to be called a sleeper.

Catch it on Amazon.

After The Hunt (2025) *

Don’t you hate it when directors want to have their cake and eat it? Effectively, this is a fairly humdrum MeToo thriller but looks like it’s written by a dozen op-ed columnists taking aim at half a dozen targets, populated by little more than cliche characters, wrapped up in a fog of pretension, and spectacularly sabotaged by a deus ex machina ending that no amount of Oscar-baiting can salvage.

Large gobbets of narrative are missed out, theoretically so we make up our minds about the characters but in reality because the director can’t make up his mind where he wants to go. When the director can’t make up his mind how to frame a scene he resorts to showing us hands.

So here’s the myriad scenarios at play. Married alpha female Alma (Julia Roberts), pushing 60, a philosophy professor, adored by her students, with whom she flirts at will, is battling a pushing-40s singleton rival Hank (Andrew Garfield), adored by his students, with whom he flirts at will, for a coveted tenure at Yale. Quite why Alma, at her age, hasn’t achieved tenure before is never explained. To help heat things up, Hank has the hots for the older woman.

Wealthy gay student Maggie (Ayo Edebiri) claims Hank raped her and he’s fired. Pressure is brought to bear on Alma to back Maggie. But there’s a twist. Or theoretically, there’s a twist. Hank is about to expose Maggie as a plagiarist so she’d use any excuse to get rid of him. Theoretically. And this is one of the many ways in which the picture ties itself up in knots because Maggie doesn’t know about Hank’s suspicions.

Maggie also knows Alma’s big secret because hunting in a toilet cabinet for toilet roll she finds taped to the underside of a shelf an envelope containing stuff that might (it later transpires) allow Maggie to happily set Hank up on the assumption Alma would take her side.

This he said/she said plays out to a mess of philosophy. The screenplay takes potshots at each generation in turn, the older one represented by Alma, the next one represented by Hank and the entitled younger contemporary one represented by Maggie who take up vicious arms against anyone who oppose their limited point-of-view, i.e. the cancel culture generation.

But there’s something wrong with Alma. She takes a couple of pills first thing in the morning and is prone to collapsing in pain. But being the philosophic sort, she’s a stoic and doesn’t tell faithful husband Frederik (Michael Stulbarg) and is popping other pills at other times. But she’s committed the grievous sin of not fully endorsing Maggie and the pupil has stirred up her friends to arms.

Given Alma’s been caught stealing a prescription and is hauled before the departmental authorities, it seems she’s for the high jump. But, lo, suddenly she’s handed a miraculous get-out-of-jail-free guard. Surrounded by baying students, she collapses. Naturally, this being the social media generation, this encounter is filmed. Turns out Alma has perforated ulcers. And the outcome is that the students end their opposition to her (in case, presumably, they are blamed for causing said collapse), and the department decides that stealing prescriptions can be swept under the carpet, so she gains tenure, Hank is cast out into the wilderness and Maggie transforms herself into a MeToo poster girl for Yale.

But that’s not even the barmiest part. Alma’s big secret is that, as an underage teenager, she was seduced by an older man. She only exposed him when he dropped her for another woman and he committed suicide. Despite common sense telling her that she was not to blame, she persists in wallowing in guilt, viewing the man who abused her as the victim of her wiles. Which just goes to show you can study Kierkagaard and philosophers till the cows come home but if it suits a barmy director’s narrative purpose you will end up being presented as dumb as all get-out.

So this all plays out against a backdrop of philosophical gibberish and Frederik’s jealousy of the attention lavished, by males and females alike, on his charismatic wife.

When a marketing team goes down the Oscar-bait route – see Dwayne Johnson and The Smashing Machine – and claims stunning acting is the reason for seeing a movie devoid of the more essential audience engagement you know you’re in for a rough ride.

Sure, both Julia Roberts (Ticket to Paradise, 2022) and Andrew Garfield (We Live in Time, 2024) have dumped their usual cuteness but it’s not enough to save the picture. Ayo Edebiri (Omni Loop, 2024) is left with no choice but to over-act. Directed by Luca Guadagnini (Challengers, 2024), written by Nora Garrett in her debut.

I saw four movies in two days and in all honesty Gabby’s Dollhouse best fulfilled audience expectation.

This is not just a complete dud but way past its meager theatrical run is going to annoy the hell out of everyone as marketeers and critics try to position Roberts as an Oscar contender.

The worst kind of lazy filmmaking.

Roofman (2025) **

This sounds like one of those scams you’re always reading about. Too-good-to-be-true handsome hunk Jeffrey Manchester (Channing Tatum) arrives in the life of struggling single mom Leigh (Kirsten Dunst). Only difference is he’s not ripping her off for cash, but demolishing her emotions and the faith in goodness of her two innocent kids, Jade (Kirana Kulic) and Joselyn (Gabriella Cila).

Another movie glorifying some dude you’ve never heard of, just because, at least in the movie version, he’s cute to the point of goofyness and for some reason has been left behind by society. And like Smashing Machine (2025), there’s virtually no narrative to hang onto or even that makes sense, beyond the delusion inflicted on the God-fearing family who can’t see past the armloads of gifts and fall too easily for the notion that’s he’s some kind of undercover government agent.

Maybe you can live for six months on peanut M&Ms, great piece of promotion for M&Ms should that be the case, and maybe the manager, Mitch (Peter Dinklage), of the Toys’R’Us store you’re hiding out in is so dumb he doesn’t realize boxes and boxes of the stuff is leaving the store without registering on his till. Or that his store is also being looted of all its computer game inventory.

And it’s true that Jeffrey has an unusual set of skills, and that if he stopped stealing for a moment and found an ordinary job anywhere someone would soon cotton on the fact that he’s a walking encyclopedia of observation and surely it wouldn’t be long before he could bring added-value to any business simply by pointing out such facts.

You could start off with the fact that he’s found a weak spot in the security of most businesses. Most stores have ample security at the front, but nobody’s given a thought to how accessible they might be from the roof for a guy armed with little more than a hammer.

But, wait, Jeffrey isn’t a bad guy’s bad guy, he’d be rejected by the likes of Martin Scorsese, he’s only turning to crime because he can’t afford to buy a bike for his kid. So bringing those observation skills to the fore, he works out that McDonalds is relatively easy prey and before he’s caught he’s collected tens of thousands of dollars in his own version of Happy Meals.

In prison he turns once more to his specific set of skills and in the only interesting scene in the entire picture escapes through an ingenious method, then holes up in a Toys’R’Us where he constructs a little hidey-hole, switches off the security alarms (another set of skills), and comes out to play every night when the store is closed.

Mitch is a hardass and makes life hard for that nice single mom Leigh so Jeffrey intervenes and amends her work schedule to better suit her domestic life. And when Mitch refuses to pony up with a donation for the toy charity event she’s hosting at the local church, Jeffrey steps in.

You wouldn’t know it but these little churches are packed full of single moms just gagging for it. No sooner has Leigh coaxed our hero out on a date than she’s having first-date sex and then, armed with armfuls of gifts, he’s pretty much invading the home, younger daughter delighted with his attention, older daughter a tougher nut to crack.

Are you still interested? I wasn’t. I sat there like a member of the famed Disgruntled Audience, wondering what made anyone imagine this no-story story was worth a good two hours of my time.

So criminals are actually ordinary guys at heart, wanting a home life like the rest of us, and not all going around abusing their wives or beating up on their kids of sitting home stoned?

That’s about as much insight as we’re going to get as long as we (the audience) go in for the delusion that it’s somehow going to have a happy ending.

I’m reminded of the Richard Pryor character in one of the Superman pictures who, despite some genius, was so dumb he was always going to get caught and couldn’t think of a single way outside of criminality to find a home for his set of special skills.

Sure, Channing Tatum (Blink Twice, 2024) is watchable but soon wears out his welcome in a tale that doesn’t go anywhere fast and Kirsten Dunst’s (Civil War, 2024) character has some surprising aspects. But really?

Derek Cianfrance has a decent track record for interesting drama – Blue Valentine (2010), The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) and The Light Between Oceans (2026) – but this is a serious miscalculation of audience endurance. Kirt Gunn (Lovely By Surprise, 2007) wrote it.

Dud.

Sands of the Kalahari (1965) ****

You know the score: plane crashes in inhospitable territory (in this case a desert), personalities clash as food/water is rationed, tempers run high and/or depression sets in as attempts to attract attention fail, someone goes for help, someone else has an ingenious idea and eventually everyone rallies round in common cause. That template worked fine in The Flight of the Phoenix (1965).

It doesn’t here. This is not quite as inhospitable. There is water. Caves offer shelter from the blazing sun. There is food – lizards trapped, game hunted with telescopic rifle. But the food is lean, not fattened through farming for human consumption. And you have to watch out for marauding baboons not to mention scorpions. And this group is split, two alpha males intent on exerting dominance with little interest in common cause.

*Producer Joseph E. Levine came up with the poster*
*without close examination of the picture’s content.*

Of the six survivors of this crash, Sturdevan (Nigel Davenport) decides his leadership status entitles him to sole claim over the only woman, Grace (Susannah York). But when he accepts the genuine responsibilities of leadership, he sets off across the desert to get help. That leaves Grace to fall into the hands of O’Brien (Stuart Whitman), so alpha he could be auditioning for Tarzan, shirt off all the time.

It soon transpires O’Brien has a rather unusual idea of survival – getting rid of his companions so that he will have no shortage of food until rescue arrives. It takes a while for the others to catch on to his plan. And then rather than common cause and camaraderie, it becomes every man/woman for himself, a battle for individual survival, a return to the primeval.

The most likely challenger to O’Brien’s authority is Bain (Stanley Baker), but he has been badly injured in the crash and no match for the other man’s brawn or his weapon. So it becomes a game of cat and mouse. Except it’s in the desert, it’s the law of the jungle and the rule of autocracy brought home with sudden force to people accustomed to the comforts of civilization and democracy.

The movie’s structure initially takes us down the obvious route of common purpose – Grimmelman (Harry Andrews) knows enough survival lore to devise a method of water transportation that would permit the group to escape the desert, Dr Bondrachai (Theodore Bikel) formulates a method of trapping lizards, and O’Brien, at least at first, appears willing to take on the role of protector, warding off baboons with his gun.

The change into something different is subtle. While the others are desperate to escape, it becomes apparent that O’Brien has found his metier. We discover little about the lives of each individual prior to being stranded. Whatever O’Brien’s standing in society, it would not have been as high as here, where his superior skills stand out. Reveling in his supremacy, he doesn’t particularly want to go home.

Like any psychopath Bain knows how to manipulate so at first it seems his decisions are for the greater good. And only gradually does it emerge that he blames others for his own mistakes and intends to eliminate his rivals for the food supply one by one. Because he is so handsome, it is impossible to believe he could be so devious or so evil.

The three principals all play against type. Stanley Baker (Zulu, 1963) and Stuart Whitman (Murder Inc., 1960) made their names playing heroic types. Here Baker is too ill for most of the picture to do any good and Whitman plays a ruthless killer. But Susannah York (Sebastian, 1968) is the big revelation. Audiences accustomed to her playing glamorous, perhaps occasionally feisty, gals will hardly recognize this portrayal of a coward, not just abjectly surrendering to the alpha male but seeking him out for protection and guilty of betrayal.

Even though this picture is set in the days before gender equality and the independent woman was a rarity, Grace’s acquiescence to the powerful male is disturbing, in part because it takes us back to the days when a woman was impotent in the face of male dominance. Such is York’s acting skill that rather than despise this woman, she earns our sympathy.

While for the most part Harry Andrews (Danger Route, 1967) and Nigel Davenport (Sebastian, 1968) appear in their usual screen personas of strong males, here their characters both are changed by the circumstances. Theodore Bikel (A Dog of Flanders, 1960) has the most interesting supporting role, the only one who takes delight in the adventure.

Director Cy Endfield (Zulu) – who also wrote the screenplay based on the William Mulvehill novel – delivers a spare picture. There is virtually no music, just image. Aerial shots show tiny figures in a landscape. The absence of character background frames the story in the present. As a reflection on the animal instinct, how close to the primordial a human being still operates, no matter how enlightened, this works exceptionally well, and melds allegory with thriller.

Birdman of Alcatraz (1962) ****

It always helps a prison picture if your character has been wrongfully convicted (The Shawshank Redemption, 1994) or is incarcerated through an unfortunately set of circumstances including self-destructive tendencies (Cool Hand Luke, 1967). Whatever the case, the malevolence of the wardens or the emergence of his own engaging personality will ensure that your character is sprinkled with enough sympathy to transform into our hero.

But that’s not the case here and it takes a strong chunk of bravura acting from Burt Lancaster (Elmer Gantry, 1960) to pull this off.

Oddly, this works in the main not because it’s your typical prison picture with endless confrontations with guards and preventing your dignity being sliced and diced by a ton of humiliating actions. Walt Disney couldn’t have done a better job of hooking the audience with its nature true-life approach. I guarantee you will be chuckling to watch a newborn chick trying to shuck off the top half of its egg.

Robert Stroud (Burt Lancaster), a pimp, was certainly no innocent, a two-time killer, who only escapes execution through the efforts of his mother (Thelma Ritter) in persuading U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to commute his sentence. However, there is an evil Catch-22 which infuriated prison governor Harvey Shoemaker (Karl Malden) invokes. While awaiting sentence, and assuming execution is inevitable because he murdered a prison guard in front of hundreds of witnesses, the local judge has decreed that Stroud should be kept in solitary confinement.

Shoemaker, nettled by Stroud’s defiance, interprets that as being able to keep the prisoner in solitary confinement for the rest of his term – which amounts, as it happens, to 40 years. None of this bugs Stroud that much. He’s averse to human companionship, as likely to bully a cellmate and cause ructions elsewhere, and certainly not ever going to give in to the prison system with its endless rules.

The marketeers have taken some liberties with the title. But Alcatraz is certainly a bigger lure to moviegoers than Leavenworth. By the time Stroud reaches Alcatraz he’s devoid of birds. All the breeding activity takes place in Leavenworth.

And while there are aspects of Stroud’s character you will never warm to, he’s got us hooked the minute he embarks on the bird breeding, in part because it’s the antithesis of his character to be so humane, and in part because the dedication involved in painstakingly building cages or other toys (a little wooden chariot a bird is taught to drive) from nothing but wooden boxes with rudimentary tools he has fashioned himself is wondrous to behold. That section of the movie is just enthralling.

Although he’s rescued a chick from a broken nest that lands in the prisoner courtyard during a storm, it takes him a while to cotton on that the bird needs fed, which he does with his version of a toothpick. He coaxes the frightened bird to fly and eventually starts breeding the damn things, persuading a new governor to allow him to buy birdseed and encourages his hobby, so much so that after extensive study Stroud becomes a noted ornithologist with a couple of publications to his name. His case became widely known after a bird researcher Stella Johnson (Betty Field) publicizes his activities and eventually marries him.

But when he’s shifted to Alcatraz, he encounters Shoemaker who forbids the birds. So Stroud starts to write a history of the U.S. penal system. Despite being prone to violence, he is instrumental in ending a prisoner uprising. He is never released, despite various petitions.

So while there’s no happy ending it’s an absorbing picture. Burt Lancaster is at the top of his form, winning another Oscar nomination. Telly Savalas (Crooks and Coronets, 1969), playing another prisoner, was also nominated. Karl Malden (One Eyed Jacks, 1961) is an excellent foil and any time Thelma Ritter (A New Kind of Love, 1963) pops up she steals the show.

While it’s on the long side for a prison picture and lacks the epic quality that the 150-minute running time would suggest, director John Frankenheimer (The Manchurian Candidate, 1962) takes an almost documentary approach to his subject. You might call it an intimate epic. Screenplay by Guy Trosper (The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, 1965) from the book by Thomas E. Gaddis.

Standout show from Lancaster.

The Sins of Rachel Cade (1961) ***

In her first top-billed role Angie Dickinson (Jessica, 1962) delivers a strong performance as an American nurse/missionary in the Belgian Congo at the start of the Second World War. The usual Hollywood trope of “heathens” needing to be educated by imperialists – from The Bitter Tea of General Yen (1933) and The Keys of the Kingdom (1944) through to The Nun’s Story (1959) – was to some extent turned on its head here.

Just as Rachel Cade (Angie Dickinson) arrives at a hospital in a small village, resident Dr Bikel (Douglas Spencer) dies. Not only does the hospital have no patients, the local Belgian commissioner Col Derod (Peter Finch) wants her to leave, believing her presence will act as provocation to the local high priest Kalanumu (Juano Hernandez) and witch doctor Muwango (Woody Strode). After standing up to all three, Rachel embarks on refurbishment of the hospital aided by assistant Kulu (Errol John).

Patients remain non-existent until she cures a small boy of appendicitis, as a result of which Muwango places a curse on her that she will lose her Protestant faith and promises the local god will take his revenge on anyone who supports her. Of course, her skills are not infinite and not only is there another boy who dies in her care but she cannot cure – and does not attempt to cure – the infertile third wife of the local chief.

While she warms to her patients and they to her, she cannot come to terms with their acceptance of incest (if a husband is called away, his brother must make love to his wife), polygamy, vaginal mutilation, the sexuality of their dancing and the fact that sin does not exist in their culture. Meanwhile, she distrusts the visions seen by the most convinced of her converts, Kulu.

When the sexually repressed Rachel rejects Derod’s advances in favour of the dashing but money-oriented Dr Paul Winton (Roger Moore), thus violating her own teachings, she becomes enmeshed by the principles she holds so dearly and which the Africans refute. A twist in the tale pivots the picture on whom she will marry, the sensible Derod, the cavalier Winton, or retain her own independence in defiance of the standards of the time.

A battle of the hierarchies – the female nurse and her supporters versus male supremacy – maintains the tension but underneath is a philosophical struggle between the two faiths. The Christian religion which boasts of forgiveness is in the end unforgiving of those who break its moral code, while the African religion does not force onto its believers such ludicrous rules. On top of that is Rachel’s acceptance of her own passion, the realization that love cannot be restrained by commandment, and that men are more likely to betray her.

The reality of imperialist rule is not underplayed but since this predates the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya in the 1950s that precipitated widespread rebellion and Derod can call on soldiers for protection in the Belgian colony and is in fact a generally tolerant (though at times patronising) overseer, political issues remain in the background.

*Angie Dickinson gets the movie star build-up in this British trade advertisement.*

Director Gordon Douglas (Claudelle Inglish, 1961) keeps the focus on the transition of the naïve American while not ignoring nor appearing to ridicule the rituals and beliefs of the tribe – although a cynic might consider that the sexuality of the dancing, while repellant to Rachel, might be included more with an eye to attracting an audience. Overall, it appears an honest even-sided presentation, with the high priest getting the better of Rachel in arguments over the frailties of Christianity. Angie Dickinson brings conviction to a role that sees her start out a shade saintly until brought back down to earth by human weakness. Peter Finch, by coincidence the leading man to Audrey Hepburn role in The Nun’s Story, fills out his normal stoic screen personality with touches of grief. Roger Moore (Vendetta for the Saint, 1969) had not yet mastered the art of the raised eyebrow and so brought a more rounded performance to his role and is entirely believable as the lover with the mercenary streak.

The pick of the supporting parts is Mary Wickes (Sister Act, 1992) as Derod’s wisecracking housekeeper. Woody Strode (The Professionals, 1966), Scatman Crothers (The Shining, 1980), Juano Hernandez (The Pawnbroker, 1964) and Errol John (The Nun’s Story) provide stiff opposition for the incomers. Edward Anhalt (The Satan Bug, 1965) based his screenplay on the bestseller by Charles Mercer.

CATCH-UP: Featured in the Blog so far are the following Angie Dickinson pictures: Ocean’s 11 (1960), A Fever in the Blood (1961), Jessica (1962), The Chase (1966), Cast a Giant Shadow (1966) and Point Blank (1967).

The Picasso Summer (1969) ***

Must-see for collectors of cinematic curios. A treatise on entitlement, bullfighting, Picasso, the impact of celebrity on everyday lives and the hermaphroditic qualities of snails? Or an innovative piece of moviemaking through its use of a jigsaw split-screen, an audacious reimagining of the painter’s work, documentary and animation. Or despite the involvement of top talent like Albert Finney (Tom Jones, 1963), Yvette Mimieux (Dark of the Sun, 1968), composer Michel Legrand (The Thomas Crown Affair, 1968) and writer Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451, 1966), rightly consigned to the vault and never given a cinema release.

George (Albert Finney), a disenchanted San Francisco architect who designs warehouses, and wife Alice (Yvette Mimieux) take a holiday in France to rekindle his love of Picasso and set out to find and – in in a severe case of early onset entitlement – talk to the legendary painter. So they fly to Paris, take the train to Cannes and cycle around. Romance, it has to be said, in that idyllic countryside is the last thing on his mind, although George does pluck a guitar and sing a love song on a riverbank and they do dally in the sea. And he is far from a stuffed shirt, in one scene stealing a boy’s balloon to prevent the kid hogging a telescope.

*Not even Barbra Streisand singing the title track provided the movie with any momentum.*

There are barely ten lines of meaningful dialog, though Alice’s frustration at her husband’s obsession is soon obvious. The best sequences are the reimagining of Picasso paintings as animation. Picasso broke down the world, so we are told, and represented it as his own so by this token it seems pretty fair to do the same to the artist’s work. In the best scene George turns toreador (not sure the budget ran to stuntmen) facing up to a real bull. But there is plenty Picasso to make up, including a candlelit walk along the “Dream Tunnel” displaying the artist’s War and Peace murals, a lecture on the painter’s ceramics and his self-identification with death in the bull ring.

And there is a twist at the end, as the couple on a beach do not loiter long enough to see a man resembling the famed artist make Picasso-like drawings on the sand. But mostly it’s a story about American entitlement, that a painter should not shut himself off from the world in order to prevent the world stopping him getting on with painting. When George, denied entrance or even acknowledgement of his bell-ringing, stands at the gate to the Picasso villa, it is almost as he is the one imprisoned by his need for celebrity. Half a century on, the need for ordinary lives to be validated by contact with celebrities has become an insane part of life. The fact that the impossible mission ends in defeat (“everything is still the same”) lends a tone of irony.

*Work out in your own mind what resemblence the guy who appears briefly at the end bears to Picasso.*

Finney’s box office status at this point in his career allowed him to retain his thick Lancashire accent – Sean Connery managed that trick for his entire career. As in Two for the Road (1967) he does a trademark Bogart impression and eats with his mouth open. And he is game enough to stand in a bull ring with a raging bull. Yvette Mimieux is scandalously underused, insights into her thoughts conveyed by lonely walks through night-time streets, although she is the only one to fully appreciate art when she comes across a blind painter (Peter Madden). The best part goes to Luis Miguel Dominguin playing himself, a bullfighter and renowned friend of Picasso. In the incongruity stakes little can match Graham Stark (The Plank, 1967) as a French postman.

As you might have guessed this had a somewhat complicated production. Three directors were involved: Robert Sallin, Serge Bourguignon and Wes Herchendsohn. It was the only directorial chore for Sallin, better known as the producer of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982). It brought a temporary halt to the career of Oscar-nominated director Bourguignon (Sundays and Cybele, 1962) whose previous film was Two Weeks in September starring Brigitte Bardot. Herchendsohn was primarily an animation layout artist/supervisor credited with episodes of Star Trek: The Animated Series (1973-1974).

There is some stunning cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond (Deliverance, 1972) and a superb score by Michel Legrand. This was the beginning and end of the movie career of Edwin Boyd who shared screenwriting credit with Bradbury. And it was the beginning and the end of the movie as a viable film for general release, Warner Brothers promptly shelved it.

In the hands of a French or Spanish arthouse moviemaker, with a tale of protagonists going nowhere, this might have gained more critical traction. It’s hardly going to fall into the highly-commended category, but in fact from the present-day perspective says a lot about celebrity obsession and entitlement. Despite the oddities – perhaps because of them – I was never bored.

The Smashing Machine (2025) ***

I’m sorry to have to break this to you but it’s a sob story. Top fighter loses in his bid to become world champion – in fact, he doesn’t come close. Sure, he recovers from addiction but his love life takes a beating because like any other careerist he’s too focused on job and the girlfriend is an unwelcome distraction.

Apart from that it’s a paean. But to the unknowns, the pioneers in a sport now worth billions. Admittedly, the rules keep changing so it’s hard to keep track – and our hero has joined the Japanese version of the UFC so he’s not even a god of the UFC – but basically the sport seems to consist of hauling your opponent to the canvas and then beating the daylights out of him until he taps out.

And we’re also into another risky trope – the movie equivalent of the comedian who wants to play Hamlet. We’ve had various iterations over the last few years (Demi Moore in The Substance, 2024, Pamela Anderson in The Last Showgirl, 2024) and here we’re served up global megastar Dwayne Johnson (Black Adam, 2022) with hair, a thin thatch on top, eyebrows and belatedly a little goatee.

And sure he’s light years away from his normal screen persona – as though that’s doesn’t take acting and is merely an extension of his WWE persona The Rock – and his Mark Kerr is certainly an interesting character, determined not to be riddled with doubts, keeping emotions at a distance and becoming addicted to painkillers. But there’s just not enough narrative for a gripping story. I’d never heard of Mark Kerr and I’ve never heard of the Japanese version of the UFC and director Benny Safdie (Uncut Gems, 2019) makes it hard for me to care.

A whole raft of supporting characters shuffle in and out, introduced only by an unseen commentator, whose voice strangely never rises to any peak of excitement and who comes across like he’s delivering a movie voiceover rather than being integral to the plot. So there’s a whole bunch of fights featuring characters who you’ve never heard of appearing for a minute or so.

The better story concerns Mark’s buddy, Mark Coleman (Ryan Bader), a family man and making a comeback.

But really this can’t make up its mind what approach to take – the blood and thunder a la Raging Bull (1980), the behind-the-scenes work a la Rocky (1975), or exploring a relationship set on edge by vulnerabilities, girlfriend Dawn (Emily Blunt), all cleavage and tight trousers, a walking touch-paper, oozing volatility. Mark Kerr was a former wrestler who transitioned into this sport, but there’s little attempt to explore the background in the way of The Iron Claw (2023).

Sometimes the wrong kind of hype can kill off a picture’s commercial prospects. Judging by the dismal opening weekend, the star’s built-in audience has opted out of a movie that features Johnson in a potentially Oscar-winning performance while the arthouse bunch, which would normally steer clear of any Johnson vehicle, has shown little interest in finding out whether he can act. Perhaps, more critically, the burgeoning UFC audience, preferring the overt to the subtle, has turned its nose up.

And the ironic thing is, yes, this would be an interesting performance, whoever played the character, because Mark Kerr isn’t your normal sportsman. But apart from his obvious emotional reticence revealed in scenes with his girlfriend, too much of his character is revealed in interviews with journalists rather than through the drama.

I don’t know where the dough went on this one. It cost $50 million but mostly takes place on confined sets. We are told that Mark Kerr fights in front of thousands of people but you barely see about fifty and way in the background.

Written by the director.

Interesting rather than involving.