Chato's Land

Chato’s Land (1972)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Michael Winner

Starring: Charles Bronson, Jack Palance, James Whitmore, Simon Oakland, Ralph Waite

From: Scimitar Films

I haven’t watched too many Westerns in recent months. Even if it’s one from Michael Winner (another “separate the art from the artist” director), I was happy to check out a picture starring Charles Bronson. This was one of many Westerns shot in Spain; that scenery still look resplendent in my eyes.

The opening scene is half-Native American (Apache, to be exact) Charles Bronson shooting a racist sheriff in self-defense in a Wild West saloon. Former Confederate Captain Jack Palance rounds up a posse to track down the titular Chato. Plenty of time is spent w/ the posse, full of colorful characters. In contrast, Chato has few lines of dialogue, and most are in Apache.

As it’s Michael Winner, not only is there sleaze-sexual assault occurs-but there’s another controversy. Something rather bad allegedly happened to a quartet of horses, and I’ll leave it at that.

I was fine with the focus on Palance’s posse. When those in the ranks include James Whitmore, Simon Oakland, Ralph Waite, Richard Basehart, Victor French, and Richard Jordan… the quality of the acting can’t be doubted. The drama between those folks isn’t too surprising but was still interesting, especially when their mission turns sour and the friction increases. A nice asset is the vibrant score from Jerry Fielding; in fact, that probably elevated the film for me alongside the lovely desert scenery filmed well by Robert Paynter. Another controversial director (John Landis) was a horse-wrangler on the production; in later years, Paynter would film some Landis films, most prominently An American Werewolf in London.

Chato’s Land is not a must-see in the genre; that said, this Vietnam War allegory may be worthwhile for you, especially if you go in with the right expectations and realize that Bronson isn’t an on-screen presence often in Chato’s Land. To his credit, Bronson was ripped & looked great in the film, especially for someone around the age of 50 during filming.

Victims of Sin

Victims of Sin (Victimas Del Pelcado) (1951)

Runtime: 84 minutes

Directed by: Emilio Fernandez

Starring: Ninon Sevilla, Tito Junco, Rodolfo Acosta, Rita Montaner, Ismael Perez

From: Cinematografica Calderson S.A.

A Letterboxd mutual’s recent glowing review of the film steered my way into seeing this Mexican film on the Criterion Channel. Think of it as a noir done in stunning black-and-white cinematography, but there’s also nice mambo music and exciting dance numbers, all in less than 90 minutes.

Changoo Cabaret is a hip club where great music is heard and there’s lovely ladies all around. Of course, Rodolfo is the guy who provides the ladies; not only is he a pimp, the establishment is a place where you pay to dance with the women. Violeta is the star performer (Ninon Sevilla could sing, dance, and act) but a lady named Rosa threw her infant in the trash because Rodolfo the father refuses to acknowledge this fact. Don’t worry, Violeta rescues the boy and raises him as her own… despite the risk to her job and being able to make a living.

It's a shame that at least in the United States, the task is difficult to track down films like this, or ones featuring Ninon Sevilla. All the same,
I was glad that Victims of Sin was easy for me to view in high quality-the happy song and dance was in contrast to the heavy drama where Violeta is fired from her job, is brutally assaulted by Rodolfo, and worse. Those light moments (and enthralling music new to my ears) brighten the otherwise dark plot. Sevilla was a dynamo as the lead, both with acting and musically. Rodolfo Acosta as the irredeemable SOB Rodolfo was also memorable as the ultimate heel.

I was happy to have viewed such a unique movie. Emilio Fernandez is best known in the role of actor who appeared in such Peckinpah flicks as The Wild Bunch & Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia; judging by Victims of Sin alone, he evidently was a fine director.

The Final Option

The Final Option (i.e. Who Dares Wins) (1982)

Runtime: 125 minutes

Directed by: Ian Sharp

Starring: Lewis Collins, Judy Davis, Richard Widmark, Edward Woodward, Robert Webber

From: MGM

Why not have the villain be a leftist terrorist lady who puts on bizarre stage shows and for a few minutes, wears a fuzzy grayish-blue sweater w/ a brown squirrel on the front, green parachute pants, and knee-high black boots? I’ve known of this movie for awhile and it sounded peculiar enough for a viewing. I was amused.

Lewis Collins is Skellen, a badass member of the SAS (the Special Forces of the British Army) who goes undercover to infiltrate a group of leftists known as the People’s Lobby. Now, they have Communist posters in HQ, are against nuclear weapons and are against Thatcher. More than a few will agree with at least one of those points. However, their decision to hold several American diplomats and government officials hostage for nuclear disarmament… you may feel different but for me, that’s a bridge too far.

As for some others, the highlight was Judy Davis as Frankie Leith, co-leader of the People’s Lobby. She has a strong fashion sense throughout, although the squirrel sweater was the highlight. She also does avant-garde stage shows that’d take paragraphs to explain-they’re better seen, anyhow. She’s dressed like the leader of a New Wave band! Yeah, once the hostage crisis occurs, Richard Widmark (among others) chastises the People’s Lobby for how illogical and foolhardy their plan is, but I understand why the filmmakers didn’t want to make the scheme too appealing to certain people…

In any regards, the movie is low-key often, it’s not free of contrivance and Skellen isn’t great at attempting to report or stop the hostage crises. On the other side of the coin, the Roy Budd score is surprisingly funky, Ingrid Pitt (a henchwoman) fires a 9mm Ingram sub-machine gun, and the final raid-based rather loosely on the real-life raid of the Iranian Embassy in London that ended a hostage crisis in 1980-was great. “Ruthlessly efficient” is the best way to describe the SAS in dispatching the villains and rescuing the hostages.

For all the flaws of The Final Option (the title on the print I saw, rather than Who Dares Wins), the conclusion was quite satisfying and worthy of what at times felt like a lengthy journey.

High Pressure

High Pressure (1932)

Runtime: 74 minutes

Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy

Starring: William Powell, Evelyn Brent, George Sidney, John Wray, Evalyn Knapp

From: Warner Bros.

Some will be overjoyed to hear that that this hitherto difficult to track down motion picture can now easily be seen by those subscribed to the Criterion Channel. This month, they have a section devoted to 10 Pre-Code Mervyn Leroy films. Most are his expected hits-and some were already reviewed by me-but the other rarity part of the collection is 1934’s Hi, Nellie!

The plot of High Pressure is simple: William Powell is a cad named GAR EVANS who is a con artist. We first see Gar in the speakeasy after a bender, as drunk as Cooter Brown. A pal and a business find him & bring him to a spa. As he is refreshed in the spa (some will like that he spends several minutes sans shirt), the businessman tells him that he has a way of creating rubber… out of SEWAGE. That sounds like Number Two to me—but this is supposed to be silly yet fun, breezy entertainment.

Of course, Powell is great as the bold, self-assured con man who could sell ice cubes to Inuit people but there’s many Warner Bros. character actors that fill out the cast and there were things I appreciated, such as some great set design—Gar’s office in particular was awesome, rectangle shape-dominant on both the walls & the windows, & an ornate desk. There’s also the expected snappy patter and rapid-fire dialogue you’d expect, and with a romantic subplot, all in a tidy 74-minute package to boot.

The two lead female roles aren’t exactly dynamic but Evelyn Brent-as Gar’s girl-and Evalyn Knapp-as Gar’s secretary-both do a fine job. I’m glad the Criterion Channel made this film easy for fans of Old Hollywood to check out.

Send Help

Send Help (2026)

93% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 234 reviews) 

Runtime: 113 minutes

Directed by: Sam Raimi

Starring: Mostly it's Rachel McAdams and Dylan O'Brien

From: 20th Century Studios

I didn’t love the ending to the film; it was something I was sour about last night in the hours after viewing Send Help on the big screen. After a good night’s sleep, I still don’t love that they made this narrative decision that was “modern cinema” in a negative sense (that was my problem with it, not my preference to one of the two lead characters in what was mainly a two-hander) and it feels like needless 21st century BS inserted into a motion picture that otherwise felt retro-even the usage of a 20th Century Studios logo that mimicked the old 20th Century Fox logo used in the early 70’s.

However, my negative opinion on that decision has lessened. Much of it I did enjoy; as hinted at in the trailers, Rachel McAdams is an awkward nerd at an office job (who loves reading survivalist literature & watching Survivor) who has a new A-hole boss that is the spoiled inexperience son of the old boss, and he’s a bratty jerk. After a plane crash, only those two remain, stuck on a stunning tropical island in Thailand.

The key to the film: both Rachel McAdams and Dylan O’Brien were great in their roles; I even believed that a conventionally attractive woman like McAdams could be an awkward nerd. The relationship between the two & how it evolved during their time on the island, how both weren’t black-and-white caricatures, the bloody and/or visceral moments… I was enjoying the movie even if you don’t factor in the detail that this is an original idea instead of a reboot, remake, or sequel.

I was happy that a great veteran director was able to make an original R-rated genre movie, w/ an interesting score from Danny Elfman. The CG has been the target of complaints; valid, although there was only a time or two where it was distracting and that’s more a modern industry problem so that doesn’t impact my opinion of Send Help.

I am disappointed that the ending fell flat with me. The movie otherwise was well-constructed w/ nice hints early on of the final act. Despite my misgivings, I still found the movie to be pretty good & am glad it was seen at a Dolby Cinema.

Arlington Road

Arlington Road (1999)

Runtime: 117 minutes

Directed by: Mark Pellington

Starring: Jeff Bridges, Tim Robbins, Joan Cusack, Hope Davis, Robert Gossett

From: Screen Gems 

This is another movie where I can deliver an interesting backstory related to it. In this case, around a quarter-century ago, a college roommate saw that the movie was on either HBO or Cinemax (our university’s dorms offered both on the cable package) so the channel-surfing stopped as Arlington Road was something he had seen before. Unfortunately, we only saw the final 20 to 25 minutes; despite being intrigued by what little I saw, because I am me it took literal decades for a full viewing.

A movie starring Jeff Bridges, Tim Robbins, & Joan Cusack is worthy of checking out, I say. Cusack is someone I should have seen more of by now, anyhow. Bridges is a paranoid college history professor who suspects that his neighbors are terrorists. What an interesting movie to watch in 2026 with all the talk of right-wing militias, distrust of the federal government, the FBI screwing up, bombings, and what have you.

It's an interesting film where Robbins has a suspicious past but is Bridges (who doesn’t trust the government; his wife was an FBI agent who died in a raid gone bad) making a mountain out of a molehill and is Robbins a changed man, or is Bridges right? In hindsight, I don’t mind waiting until I saw some 70’s paranoid conspiracy thrillers to view this late 90’s version of one. The movie isn’t as engaging or thrilling as something like All the President’s Men or The Conversation; that does not mean Arlington Road isn’t pretty good.

There’s electrifying scenes, a quality final act, good performances from the leads-including Hope Davis as the graduate student turned girlfriend-how awkward that is did get mentioned. The film is refreshingly like one from the 70’s-what reminded me of that era the most of course won’t be elaborated upon, because spoilers. The score from Angelo Badalamenti is a further asset. This isn’t without contrivances if you scrutinize the plot too hard. If you can avoid that…

It shouldn’t have taken a quarter-century but I’m relieved this loop has finally been closed.

 

Shrek 2

For the first time in over 20 years, I finally revisited Shrek 2. As mentioned in my review for Shrek a few months ago, the first sequel was witnessed on the big screen; unlike most, I didn’t love 2 as much as 1. Perhaps it was me as a young man then (now, I’m middle-aged, head full of grey hairs) but the specific reasons as to what let me down was lost long before finally revisiting the movie last night.

In 2026, I can’t explain what in the world I was thinking 22 years ago. There’s still laughs, pop culture references, lovely animation, interesting soundtrack choices (I did NOT remember that someone covered a Buzzcocks song) and further light teasing of fairy tales & their mythos as newlyweds Shrek & Fiona along w/ Donkey visit the in-laws, & we meet new memorable characters in the Fairy Godmother & Prince Charming, but of course the true highlight in newcomers is Puss in Boots. The voice acting from Antonio Banderas was top-notch, although the major stars new here (Julie Andrews, John Cleese, Rupert Everett, Jennifer Saunders, etc.) also equated themselves rather well.

Shrek 2 satirized Hollywood & its foibles in Far, Far Away; this was a further asset in my enjoyment of the film. There’s more than one fart joke but otherwise the adult humor can easily fly over the head of youngsters, making this better/more enjoyable for families & adults than too many 21st century animated pictures. This broadened the scope and gave the viewer more of what they liked about the original. Public opinion tells me that the third and fourth entries in this franchise are clearly lesser than the first two—there’s no rush for me to FINALLY see those for the first time.