by Nathan Sacks

Reviewing a Marvel movie these days seems impossible without discussing the fan industry complex that surrounds, subsumes, and otherwise create endless speculative articles about what character will show up, will he/she be played by what actor, will it be faithful to “continuity,” etc. The original Marvel Comics group—generators of colorful, ink-stained rites of youth for so many— rebranded itself several years ago as Marvel Entertainment, with all the cross-platform synergy that implies. Simultaneously, there has been a rise of comic book and film blogs that report and opine breathlessly about the latest Marvel rumors, no matter how minor or refutable. The critic is in a quandary, wondering where to begin when every single possible plot point about Guardians, whether or not it actually shows up in the movie, is already revealed, synopsized, and judged, right up to the after-credits sequence. This problem is compounded when, say, the critic is a big Marvel fan from childhood, and generally wonders why fans seem so much more invested in the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe if you aren’t hip on the lingo) than the original Stan Lee/Jack Kirby 60s comics that have generated several billion dollars’ worth of revenue.

by Nathan Sacks

Destry Rides Again is one of those early Hollywood genre films that helped establish some of the most timeless and well known of western tropes, but is not itself well known. This may be due to a number of factors, not the least of which is that the film came out in 1939, a mega-rich year for film that included another, more famous trailblazing western (Stagecoach) as well as actor James Stewart’s better-known star turn (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). While those films had auteurs Frank Capra and John Ford at their respective helms, Destry was made by the relatively anonymous George Marshall, who directed a number of westerns but never made a serious stamp on the genre. Despite this, Destry is as influential on the genre in its own way as Stagecoach, and maybe even more.

by Nathan Sacks

Family Plot is both Alfred Hitchcock’s last film and one of the master’s most atypical works. It’s true that Hitchcock, more than most directors, tended to stick to horror/suspense—a genre he had defined and purveyed for five decades—but his works outside those confines are often forgotten. Films outside that aegis included Mr. & Mrs. Smith (screwball comedy), The Paradine Case (courtroom drama), Under Capricorn (gothic romance), and The Trouble With Harry (recently reviewed here, a black comedy). These films tend to get mentioned least in discussions of Hitchcock, and Family Plot, unfortunately, is not an exception. Hitchcock was not a Howard Hawks-style master of many genres, but these exercises outside of his comfort zone are usually worthy entertainments in their own right.

Riverview Theater,
Monday, May 19

Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Producer: Alfred Hitchcock
Writer: Ernest Lehman, Victor Canning (novel)
Cinematography: Leonard J. South
Editing: J. Terry Williams
Music: John Williams
Cast: Karen Black, Bruce Dern, Barvara Harris, William Devane, Ed Lauter, Cathleen Nesbitt, Katherine Helmond

Runtime: 120m.
Genre: Comedy / Thriller
Country: USA
US Theatrical Release: April 9, 1976
US Distributor: Universal Pictures

The Bridge on the River Kwai is a film with strikingly few flaws. It was labeled a classic immediately upon release, and its critical reputation has remained more or less intact since. It was not only the biggest box office success of 1957, but also won nearly every major Oscar that year—Best Picture, Director, Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Score, Editing, and Cinematography. In every way, it has held up well. It is a shining example to the potentials of commercial cinema and a rebuke to those who think true greatness cannot operate with a large budget under the Hollywood studio system. The challenge, then, in discussing this most canonized of films, is to say something new about it.

by Nathan Sacks

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai across the Eighth Dimension is not so much a cult film as it is a perfect storm of every cult movie signifier ever recognized. It has the adolescent male fantasy elements, fantastical genre trappings, deep mythology and characterization, psychedelic special effects, quirky sense of humor, and reams of talented character actors. It is also cheap, confusing to follow at times, and has a ridiculous ’80s soundtrack. Buckaroo Banzai is not as perfect as it sounds, but the concept alone—had it been improved by a higher budget—could have become as successful and beloved as the great genre entertainments of that era, on par with the work of John Carpenter, James Cameron, Paul Verhoeven, and many others. Unlucky for us, that was not to happen. The film flopped, a sure-to-be-superior sequel never materialized, and Buckaroo was sent into litigation limbo, a place more deadly and inhibiting than even the titular eighth dimension.