Film and Book Tally 2025

Boy, was this year garbage or what? With politics going into the toilet, big names dropping like flies, and everything being on figurative and literal fire, I think it's safe to say we're all glad to move on from 2025.

Anyway, onto the tally!

Mississippi Burning

There's a real ugliness in people, a festering sickness in one's soul that emerges time and time again. And it's shown its presence throughout history, its effects lingering for decades after. Worse still, it's something that never fully disappears.

Alan Parker's Mississippi Burning isn't just simmering in hatred -- it's full-on marinated in it. (It's telling that non-American directors are more than willing to expose America's hideousness.) It may have been a few decades after the film's setting but as the coming years would also show, very little had changed.

Frustratingly, for a film about the civil rights movement, Mississippi Burning doesn't put a lot of focus on the Black characters. Preferring to spotlight the agents played by Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe, the film only gives the Black characters any attention when they're about to be subjected to violence, as they're being brutalized, or as they're licking their figurative and literal wounds -- in other words, they only exist to suffer. Were this made today, that would absolutely not happen.

That aspect aside, Mississippi Burning is captured stunningly by cinematographer Peter Biziou. You can practically feel the Mississippi heat through the screen, the smell of the swamps. It's little wonder that Biziou was a regular for Parker (and that his work got him an Oscar).

Mississippi Burning is very much not an easy watch. (Then again, what else would one expect from the man responsible for Midnight Express the previous decade?) To say things have changed since both the setting's time period and the film's release would be a colossal lie. If anything, we're repeating what had happened ad nauseam.

My Rating: ****

Fun with Dick and Jane

The opening credits of Ted Kotcheff's Fun with Dick and Jane shows how the titular couple grew up, met, and settled into the American Dream. A comfy life, for sure...and then Dick (George Segal) gets sacked from his job. Soon, he and Jane (Jane Fonda) struggle to both make ends meet and keep up appearances.

But desperate times call for very desperate measures. Dick comes up with committing robberies to keep food on the table. Jane gets involved as well, and things seem to be going well. But how long can they keep this up?

Made during a time where everyone was feeling financial strain, Fun with Dick and Jane probably seemed absurd to certain audiences upon its release. In hindsight, however, it paints a far more cynical picture. Once one reaches a particular standing in society, others feel schadenfreude at seeing them fall from grace.

Speaking of, Fun with Dick and Jane portrays its setting as a dog-eat-dog world. You have to stoop to levels you'd normally never stoop to. Your self-respect takes a backseat as you try to survive. And after a while, you don't recognize your own reflection.

Fun with Dick and Jane still holds up after nearly a half a century. Aside from a few jokes that aged like milk in the August afternoon sun, you could remake this beat for beat. Just goes to show that the more things change, the more things stay the same.

My Rating: ****

The In-Laws

Comedy is a hard thing to get right. What's funny in one decade could be seen as offensive in the next decade. It's all a matter of making sure you hit your mark without any mistakes along the way.

So you could imagine the undertaking Andrew Bergman went through in writing Arthur Hiller's The In-Laws. A few years after the success of Blazing Saddles (he co-wrote it), he was tasked with writing the script for a picture that was to star Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. (It was initially going to be a sequel to Freebie and the Bean, which had also starred Arkin.) Knowing the potential that could be mined from the two actors, Bergman took on the opportunity.

While a little slow in its build-up, The In-Laws goes out on all pistons running. Falk plays with his Columbo persona, seemingly not all there but very much is. Arkin, meanwhile, plays the straight man to Falk beautifully. It's a shame the two didn't work together more after this.

Now Hiller isn't the kind of director you'd associate with this type of picture, having made Love Story earlier in the decade. But bear in mind that just three years earlier, Hiller made Silver Streak, which starred Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor. He may not have done comedy often during his career but Hiller knew how to get the beats down.

The In-Laws may be one of the more underappreciated comedies of the last half century. It takes someone who really knows what they're doing to get something like this right. Thankfully, it's directed by, written by, and stars such people.

My Rating: ****1/2

Trapeze

Carol Reed is one of the names most synonymous with the film noir genre. With other genres, there always seemed to be something amiss. Most of the time, it has to do with the picture being more about style than substance. Still, some of the tricks Reed learned from his noir pictures show up in these.

Take, for instance, Trapeze. Being one of his few films made in Hollywood, Reed has more of a scale to work on than Odd Man Out and The Third Man the previous decade. But as was commonplace for titles of the time, having more isn't always a good thing. It tries to put in too much with a two-hour runtime.

Starring in Trapeze are Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, and Gina Lollobrigida, all of whom as the film's living eye candy. Of them, Lollobrigida (and co-star Katy Jurado) has the more substantial role, acting as the classic femme fatale in some scenes. (Amusingly, Lancaster and Curtis' earlier interactions are similar -- albeit less cynical -- to what they'd do in Sweet Smell of Success the following year.)

Now Trapeze was shot in CinemaScope, and boy, does it show. The sweeping shots of the circus interiors courtesy of Robert Krasker proves that cinema can lead to something beautiful. The problem is that the general picture relies more on the images than the story that goes with them. Such is life.

Trapeze is by all accounts the standard spectacle picture of the 1950s but it still has its moments. A little bit more time spent on the script would've benefited it greatly. But all in all, it's the kind of film you can't see yourself watching again...unless you're in that kind of mood.

My Rating: ***1/2

Mortuary

With so many names who grew up on B-movies end up making movies themselves, it's little surprise that such titles would inspire their own work. Be it cheeky homages or full-on dedications, what were initially written off as cheap productions have had a more lasting impression than intended. And none more so than horror pictures.

Howard Avedis' Mortuary certainly plays up the various elements found in B-movies. It's admittedly self-aware in its cheapness, which is more than can be said about other titles from the same time. That said, it's clear that said belt-tightening affected the quality of the overall script. (Honestly, a student film is better written than this.)

Being released in the shadow of titles like Suspiria and Halloween (ironically, both of which were blatantly cribbed here), Mortuary feels completely lackluster in comparison. It's not just about depicting decent scares; it's about building suspense for the scares. That's key to horror.

If there's one redeeming aspect of Mortuary, it's that it features Bill Paxton early in his career. Being one of the few actors who elevated a movie's quality from his presence, it's clear that Paxton approached the script differently than his co-stars. Regardless, movies lost something when he died in 2017.

Mortuary is very much lacking in its many moving parts. With a barely cohesive script, it's the kind of picture that a new-on-the-scene actor typically does so they can make rent. Still, Paxton just barely saves it from complete unwatchability. Faint praise, yes, but it's all it earns.

My Rating: ***

At Close Range

Fact is often stranger than fiction. It's why people are so drawn to true crime, and why Hollywood practically drools over the potential money it'll make. And it shows how the most unexpected people will do the most unexpected things.

Take, for instance, one Bruce Johnston, Sr. He and his gang of thieves -- some were his own family members -- terrorized Chester and Lancaster Counties in Pennsylvania for years before his criminal empire crumbled. A few years after Johnston and his crew were sent up the river, James Foley's At Close Range was released. Naturally, names were changed, but that doesn't make it any less unsettling.

What makes At Close Range stand out is that it's not set in some thriving metropolis (as most neo-noirs are) but rather the rural outskirts of it. The sweeping farmlands and small storefronts provide a stark contrast to the neon lights and tall buildings. After all, more secrets can be hidden when you know your neighbors.

But in watching At Close Range, it becomes bittersweet in seeing what became of Foley's career. Between the success of this and Glengarry Glen Ross six years later, it looked like everything would be in his favor. But as is the case with any promising career in Hollywood, it didn't pan out that way. (Sure, he had success with television but his more recent film entries are...eesh.)

At Close Range is an understated work on the strength of family ties. With strong work from Sean Penn and Christopher Walken, it depicts the poisonous grasp sometimes found within a family. Blood may be thicker than water but in this instance, it spills just as easily.

My Rating: ****1/2

Spontaneous Combustion

Tobe Hooper has always been something of an anomaly within Hollywood. After hitting it big with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, he never seemed to reach the same heights afterward. (Even the success of Poltergeist continues to be overshadowed by rumors that Steven Spielberg actually directed it.) Though he shifted to television soon after, that's not to discredit his film work completely.

Now Spontaneous Combustion is hardly top-tier material from Hooper (or from anyone involved in this, really), but it still gets the job done. But boy, even then it's tough to get through at times. (Oh, the plights of late '80s-early '90s horror flicks.)

That's not to say Spontaneous Combustion is completely terrible, far from it. Hooper had a good idea for his picture, make no mistake; the problem is that everything around it stumbles at the starting gate. (Honestly, most of the actors oversell the half-hearted dialogue.)

Of course, there is one shining grace to Spontaneous Combustion: its star, Brad Dourif. Being the kind of actor who knows how to work with what he's given, he elevates the otherwise lackluster title. Though one has to wonder how much of a role Child's Play had on his casting here...

Spontaneous Combustion is by no means a masterpiece both Hooper and Dourif make it mostly tolerable. Though in watching this, it makes one think a retrospective on Hooper is due. Sure, there were some following his death in 2017, but there could stand to be a few more...even if a lot of his output fell flat.

My Rating: ***

BOOK VS MOVIE: Housekeeping

As one goes through life, very rarely is it in their favor. Close connections crumble, hopes and dreams don't come to fruition, and happiness and disappointment often go hand in hand. That all being said, that doesn't generally mean life is boring and predictable.

If anything, life is what you make of it. And the people you encounter are the ones who help shape it (for better or for worse). Be it family and friends or complete strangers, how they interact with you and make you see the world around you leave a lasting impact, good or bad. But this always depends on the person in question.

Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping follows such a scenario. Under the care of their eccentric aunt, two girls grow up differently in a remote town. Robinson weaves a tale of loneliness amid family ties, how your own blood can be a complete stranger. But she also shows how one has a hunger for individuality, that drive for independence. (Everybody wants to be somebody.)

Bill Forsyth's adaptation follows Robinson's novel practically to the letter. (Forsyth said he made the film to get people to read the book.) Similar to his earlier film Local Hero, Forsyth depicts a lingering pathos within its frames. Even something so open can feel so lonely.

So which is worth checking out? Robinson has a poetry in her words while Forsyth sings with his images. Both tell the story in their own way but very similarly as well. It's a simple tale, yes, but they convey it beautifully.

What's worth checking out?: Both.

Blue Sky

The opening credits of Tony Richardson's Blue Sky depict an assortment of magazines, all advertising glamor and sophistication. Photos of Hollywood starlets strewn about amid promises of beauty if use this product. All the things Carly Marshall (Jessica Lange) yearns for but are just out of her reach.

As the wife of Major Hank Marshall (Tommy Lee Jones), she is expected to be a dutiful housewife and mother. But there's something not quite right with Carly, a fact Hank and their daughters are all too acutely aware of. But as the Mitchells settle in on a new army base, things get more complicated.

There are elements in Blue Sky that are reminiscent of Richardson's films during the British New Wave all those years ago. Co-writer Rama Stagner based Carly and Hank's marriage on her own parents' relationship, and strained connections are no stranger to Richardson. The problem is that it doesn't feel as fraught as, say, Look Back in Anger or The Entertainer.

Indeed, Blue Sky feels incomplete as a story, with many parts that don't always interlock. Granted, Richardson wasn't in the best of health during production (he died of AIDS complications sometime after; the film then sat on the shelf for nearly three years), but even then, he still made the most of it. It's a decent swan song for the director.

Blue Sky mainly relies on Lange (who ended up winning an Oscar) and Jones' work to carry it through but they succeed in doing that. Overall, however, it has good ideas but they are clumsily put together in certain scenes. Still, it's enough for it to be watchable.

My Rating: ****

Hopscotch

Ronald Neame's Hopscotch opens with CIA field agent Miles Kendig (Walter Matthau) photographing a microfilm transfer being foiled. Upon his return to the States, Kendig gets demoted for not arresting Mikhail Yaskov (Herbert Lom), the European head of the KGB. Frustrated, he heads to Salzburg.

Reuniting with his former lover Isobel (Glenda Jackson), Kendig decides to write his memoirs -- well, more accurately, expose the dirty dealings of G.P. Myerson (Ned Beatty), his boss at the CIA. As such, Kendig is now on the run from people who very much do not want that information getting out. But will Kendig succeed?

Taking Brian Garfield's original novel (he also co-wrote the script) and making it more comedic in tone (both Neame and Matthau insisted on that), Hopscotch eschews the flashier elements of the spy genre in favor of sheer cunning and scheming. After all, that's what it takes to be a spy: being one step ahead of everyone else. (Take note, James Bond.)

Admittedly this is not the kind of role one would normally associate with Matthau. But it's his working-class charm that makes his role as effective as it is. You certainly don't expect someone like Matthau to take on the CIA, do you?

Hopscotch is the kind of picture seldom seen nowadays, the kind with sharp writing. (Nowadays everything's dumbed down for an audience not paying attention in the first place.) It also vindicates that spies aren't always looking like they stepped off a movie set; they usually look like your next-door neighbor.

My Rating: ****1/2

What's Love Got to Do with It

Brian Gibson's What's Love Got to Do with It opens with a young Anna Mae Bullock getting kicked out of choir practice for jazzing up the gospel. Years later, an older Anna Mae (Angela Bassett) gets a proper chance to perform for Ike Turner (Laurence Fishburne) -- an opportunity that has its many ups and downs.

Admittedly, What's Love Got to Do with It isn't much different from other music biopics (or any biopics, really), in that the actual facts get fudged for dramatic license's sake. (Indeed, both Tina and Ike voiced their displeasure over that.) That said, even with that in mind, Kate Lanier's script is unflinching at times.

There's no doubt that the Turners' marriage was an ugly one at the worst of times but What's Love Got to Do with It makes it absolutely brutal. (Lanier actually omitted most of the brutality Tina mentioned in her autobiography.) The scenes of domestic abuse between them are very hard to watch, especially if you've been in that situation. Certainly not for the faint of heart.

And there's no denying that What's Love Got to Do with It is Bassett's show. Learning to walk and talk like Tina (the singing was lip-synced), she's as electric as the woman she's portraying. It's little wonder how Bassett got an Oscar nomination for her work.

What's Love Got to Do with It -- as stated earlier -- follows the standard biopic format but it's Bassett and Fishburne who keep it afloat. Tina (who passed away in 2023) later said that she didn't like how the film depicted her as a victim. It's true in some scenes but that's far from the actual case. Tina Turner wasn't a victim -- she was a survivor.

My Rating: ****

The Assassination Bureau

Basil Dearden's The Assassination Bureau opens with a montage of public muders. Sonia Winter (Diana Rigg) quickly figures out they're all connected, and she's determined to dismantle the very organization responsible for the killings. How? By ordering the death of its chairman Ivan Dragomiloff (Oliver Reed).

Dragomiloff is intrigued by Miss Winter's commission so he issues a challenge to his organization of assassins: kill him or he'll kill them. What ensues is a mad dash across Europe as Dragomiloff and Miss Winter try to beat out the other killers. But what else awaits them?

Based on an unfinished Jack London novel (it was finished decades later by another writer), The Assassination Bureau was made amid the public interest for espionage and intrigue courtesy of James Bond. (Amusingly, three actors in this would go on to have major roles in the franchise.) But as is the cases with imitators, they seldom match up with the original.

It's clear that Dearden is trying to emulate the Bond movies with The Asassination Bureau. The problem is that when one adapts an unfinished work that was completed by someone else, it'll still feel incomplete. And that's one of several flaws on display here.

The Assassination Bureau tries too hard in both being its own thing and tackling various elements at once. And as such, it feels longer than it actually is to get through. Yes, Reed and Rigg do have solid chemistry (even if they very much didn't behind the scenes) but even then that just barely keeps the film afloat. All in all, it's not a complete write-off but it isn't something worth recommending either.

My Rating: ***1/2

Party Girl

Daisy von Scherler Mayer's Party Girl opens with Mary (Parker Posey) being arrested for organizing an underground rave. To pay back the bail, she gets a job at the library where her godmother works. But Mary soon finds it hard to balance her nightlife with her day job.

As with many independent productions of the time, Party Girl depicts the struggle of becoming a responsible adult. Everyone when they're younger expects adulthood to be a breeze. Then the reality of employment and paying smacks you upside the head, and it's not as appealing.

Also on display in Party Girl is, well, the party scene of '90s New York City. With a vibrant soundtrack backing it, the film captures that drive for escape from the mundanity of reality. But like everything, it can only sustain you for so long.

Speaking of, Party Girl portrays the anxiety that comes with getting older. You don't have someone besides yourself figuring out what you want to do with your life. Sure, friends and family can encourage (or discourage) you about your goals but your life is yours -- you have to have to figure out what to do with your finite time.

Party Girl is a little slow to start off but once it does, it kicks off. Made between the yuppie era and the new millennium, it has a free spirit both in its lead and its storytelling. Frankly, it's the kind of film that shows life doesn't have to be boring and uptight; you just need to find a good balance of work and pleasure.

My Rating: ****

Road House

You know how some movies just scream the decade they were made in? Sometimes it's benign (fashion, how much things cost), other times not so much (social attitudes) but hey, movies are time capsules, after all. The times, they are a-changin'.

And no observation can be better applied to Rowdy Herrington's Road House. Boasting nearly every element found in mid-budget late '80s movies, it has gratuitousness seeping out of every frame. And weirdly, it sort of works. (Hey, one man's trash is another man's treasure.)

The story itself is thin -- a bouncer (Patrick Swayze) tries to save a small town from a corrupt crime lord's (Ben Gazzara) control -- but even then Road House has a certain charm to it (having a post-Dirty Dancing Swayze as the lead helps). It may not be awards material but boy, the actors (especially Gazzara) are giving it their all.

And for what would be an otherwise forgettable picture, Road House didn't need to go the extra mile with the technical aspects. You've got Dean Cundey shooting it like he's gunning for an Oscar (not long after being nominated for Who Framed Roger Rabbit) and Michael Kamen ripping off his score for Die Hard. Sometimes those are what make a movie from not stinking completely.

Road House is the epitome of bloated '80s picture but man, does it know how to fill in the minutes. It's exactly the kind of movie one watches to distract themself from everyday life (which as of late is a necessity). All in all, it's worth a look.

My Rating: ****

Passion Fish

John Sayles' Passion Fish opens with May-Alice Culhane (Mary McDonnell) waking up in a hospital room. In her frenzied confusion, she switches on the TV, which happens to be playing her soap opera. The contrast between May-Alice's fictional life and her real one is stark.

After going through a roster of nurses, May-Alice ends up with Chantelle (Alfre Woodard), who has her own baggage. Chantelle sees that May-Alice needs (and, more importantly, wants) to not be pitied but her attempts to take control are mixed. But will the women work things out?

Sayles based Passion Fish on both Persona and his own experiences as both an orderly and a patient. Indeed, his film focuses on recovery not just physical. Sayles shines a light on the emotional rehabilitation of both May-Alice and Chantelle.

Much like Ingmar Bergman's film, Passion Fish shows how the two women are much more than their first impressions. May-Alice is implied to have been discontented before her accident. Chantelle, meanwhile, has a past she's trying to move on from and make amends for. But will either woman find happiness in their new life?

Passion Fish shows two women finding solace in their shared loneliness, a plot seen time and time again in made-for-TV movies on daytime television. But Sayles -- with his keen empathy for the common man -- makes sure not to tread into melodrama territory with both his script and direction. And like his later film Lone Star, it portrays a real sense of humanity during hard times.

My Rating: *****

The Last Seduction

Right from the get-go with her introduction in John Dahl's The Last Seduction, Bridget Gregory (Linda Fiorentino) proves she doesn't take shit from anyone. Interspersed with this, her husband Clay (Bill Pullman) panics as he conducts a drug deal. It's clear who wears the pants in this marriage.

Soon after, Bridget steals the $700,000 Clay got from the deal and skips town. She's aiming for Chicago but she stops just outside of Buffalo. Aside from a false name, Bridget makes no real effort to blend in within the small town. But what else is she planning?

Much like Double Indemnity fifty years prior, The Last Seduction has a female lead playing the men who stupidly cross her path like a cheap piano. But make no mistake -- Bridget Gregory is far more ruthless than Phyllis Dietrichson. Bridget will get what she wants, consequences be damned.

And what a role for Fiorentino to sink her teeth into. Very rarely does an actress get to play a character so icy, so calculating, so vile -- frankly, screenwriters are too cowardly to not even attempt it. But both Fiorentino and Steve Barancik took that gamble, and it paid off beautifully.

The Last Seduction paints an absolutely wicked picture. Save for an unfortunate (and very dated) detail in the third act, it's the kind of neo-noir that shows up once in a blue moon. And like Gone Girl twenty years later, it just goes to show that girls aren't always made of sugar, spice, and everything nice.

My Rating: ****1/2

Street Smart

Jerry Schatzberg's Street Smart opens with Jonathan Fisher (Christopher Reeve) failing to pitch several ideas to his editor. Then he comes up with writing a profile on the average New York City pimp. One problem: he doesn't have a pimp to write about so he makes one up. Then more problems arise when an actual pimp resembles Jonathan's "profile"...

Similar to Schatzberg's earlier film The Panic in Needle Park, Street Smart has New York City play as much of a role as those with lines. While not as decayed and grimy as it appeared in the earlier film, the city still proves to be just as lovely as it appeared back in the early '70s. But make no mistake -- it's just as sleazy.

And like Schatzberg's other earlier film Scarecrow, Street Smart has a litany of personalities in it. Using his photographer's eye, Schatzberg captures these figures with an acute sharpness. Every person has their own story to tell in how much screentime they receive, and Schatzberg utilizes that. Film is just photography in motion, after all.

That said, Street Smart falls just shy of Schatzberg's earlier films. Screenwriter David Freeman had a good idea -- basing it on his own experiences at New York magazine -- but the execution of it is limp. Still, it works about 80% of the time.

Street Smart admittedly falls victim to the standard conventions of late 1980s cinema but it's still pretty solid overall. Reeve works well with what he has, as do Morgan Freeman (who was nominated for an Oscar) and Kathy Baker. All in all, it's worth a look.

My Rating: ****

Child's Play

With horror movies constantly getting remakes, sequels, and spin-offs, it becomes crucial for one to seek out the originals. Amid the various re-tellings, it's easy for the original story to get lost in imitation. After all, give credit where credit's due.

It's especially prevalent in slasher pictures. Throughout all the stabbings, dismemberings, and disembowelings, the motive of the killer(s) can get muddled. Granted, some just like to kill for the sake of killing. And that's exactly the case with Chucky.

Tom Holland's Child's Play is what kicked off the nearly forty-year franchise, and it's little wonder as to why it's later after all these years. As Don Mancini's pride and joy throughout this time, it's clear that he knew he had a good idea (even if he didn't like some of Holland's ideas for it); he was going to take it and run with it.

Admittedly, Child's Play is darker than future entries in the franchise, but even then, it has its own macabre charm. Cinematographer Bill Butler (no stranger to horror himself) captures the unease in middle-class life, making it stand out from both its sequels and other slasher films of the decade. It's not that common, that's for sure.

Child's Play is one of those rare horror titles that proves creativity goes a long way. With a sharp wit, it's something often lacking in other films of the genre. After all, you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter".

My Rating: ****