I still feel like the cautious re-opening of movie theaters could benefit from an uptick in classic movies coming back to theaters. At the very least, it would give me more upcoming theatrical releases to consider seeing. Isn’t that the important thing?

Right now, I’m on what you might call a very small wave of enthusiasm for going to the movies again. I know, I’m as surprised as you may or may not be. I didn’t particularly miss the movies during the fifteen months I barely left the house (even by my standards), but when my wife and I decided to start going again, I was taken aback by how much I’ve been enjoying myself. I guess I missed it after all.

The cynical asshole living in a shotgun shack on the dark side of my heart doesn’t think this enthusiasm is going to sustain itself for very long. I’m just too damn intolerant of movies I can barely see, people who have ongoing conversations during the film, expensive garbage food (the movie theater popcorn hit pretty fucking nice, though, that first night back), and an appalling lack of releases I’ll actually go to the theater for in the first place. Sooner or later, these things are going to dampen my enthusiasm.

A bigger and more exciting catalog of older films playing in theaters would be nice. It seems gently insane to me to have a theater with 30 screens, playing maybe 7 or 8 movies. Oh well. The novelty of seeing stuff in theaters will be enough for now. I’d settle for a slate with maybe just a couple more movies that aren’t sequels or based on comic books, but again, oh well. For once, I’m not going to spoil something by settling in on day one for a routine of endless bitching.

Wrath of Man (2021): B-

Right now, at least in the United States, the selection at the local movie theaters is not what I would describe as ideal. At least, as far as variety is concerned, or at least my idea of variety. I don’t know think the theatrical experience is dead though. As you may or may not have noticed, most things are in a state of flux right now. Pandemics do that.

Wrath Of Man was a recent theater experience for me. It was the only thing I could imagine wanting to see, and a multi-thread revenge drama with Jason Statham, Jeffrey Donovan, and Josh Hartnett, directed by Guy Ritchie, didn’t seem like a bad way to spend the evening.

It wasn’t. While probably not a masterpiece, Wrath of Man is more interesting than any trailer might lead you to believe. This isn’t just Jason Statham in a remake of the Mel Gibson movie Payback. The film leaves room for other characters and stories, creating a multitude of narratives and perspectives to keep things moving along at a nice pace. Surprisingly, even as the movie reaches the violent climax you were expecting, the movie holds together pretty well. Let the movie surprise you. It’s more entertaining than you might think.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984): A+

In the wide, wide universe of gangster movies, few have managed the scope, style, and space for brilliant, nuanced performances that Sergio Leone achieved with Once Upon a Time in America.

With a significant amount of attention devoted to friendships established in childhood, and what those friendships endure under the harsh light of reality—particularly when connections to organized crime are established—the film paces itself in a way that will almost strike you as alarming. The film features plenty of violence, but it also showcases human beings who make their choices and live with those choices in a truly chaotic world.

Once Upon a Time in America remains perhaps the best film the Italian master Leone ever made. Despite existing in a crowded genre, its tone, breadth, and performances (particularly Robert De Niro and James Woods) establish it as a movie that stands alone.

The Sessions (2012): B-

It is almost always worth seeking out films that put character actors in the lead. You can find dozens of examples of these types of movies. Most of them are independent films, or at least movies where the budget and stakes are low enough that someone is willing to roll the dice on someone who isn’t a marquee name.

The Sessions, starring John Hawkes (Eastbound and Down, From Dusk till Dawn) as a poet with polio who decides to lose his virginity to a sex surrogate, works well in the vein of what I’m talking about. Based on an article by the real-life Mark O’Brien, The Sessions is a sweet story that doesn’t turn its premise into something overly dramatic, or into something that exists as a movie-length gimmick. It treats the notion of a sex surrogate with respect, making a case for its existence as the movie puts its heart and soul into the relationship which develops through the impressive on-screen chemistry of Hawkes and Helen Hunt, who still impresses me as an actor, more often than not.

Nearly a decade after its release, the film is not particularly well-remembered. I think it deserves to be.

Delirious (1991): C+

While not the best John Candy starrer of all time, Delirious is still a minor gem that benefits from two significant factors. John Candy is obviously one of those factors. The other would be the film’s basic premise, in which a successful soap opera writer (Candy) wakes up in his own soap after falling into a coma in the waking world. It’s a fun idea, and there are long periods of the film, particularly when Candy begins to make sense of the madness going on around him, that work to perfection.

The film has a good deal of fun with some of the more famous soap opera tropes, particularly of the time, and embraces some of the stranger moments by giving them the benefit of being natural byproducts of what life probably would be like in a constant state of melodrama. Where Delirious sometimes falters is when it also tries to tell the story of Candy’s character. It’s a significant piece of the story, but it doesn’t quite click as well as Candy trying to make sense of his elaborate coma fantasy. Candy’s chemistry Mariel Hemingway is a pleasure to watch, but none of their characters get to really build on that.

Still, if you haven’t seen this, and you want to see Candy’s charisma sell a somewhat uneven movie, Delirious still has a lot to offer.

The House on Tombstone Hill (1989): B-

The nice thing about not being famous or terribly respected, at least with regards to my career, is that I can praise something as ridiculous as the low-budget The House on Tombstone Hill. Also known as Dead Dudes in the House (also a good title), calling this film “good” might be pushing it.

But I do have to call it one of the most entertaining low budget horror movies, especially from this period, swirling around the universe of random things you can watch in the middle of the night. Writer/director James Riffel finds humor in the actual dialog and circumstances, as opposed to just the sheer ambition of doing as much as this movie tries to do with the little money it had.

The House on Tombstone Hill has a maniacal mother/daughter team slicing up a group of college-age nitwits who descend upon what they think is an abandoned home. The details are much more interesting than the basics, and the imagination and willingness to do anything to keep the chaos swirling are far more engaging than the odd clunky performance or audacious plot development.

Gabriel Ricard writes, edits, and occasionally acts. His books Love and Quarters and Bondage Night are available through Moran Press, in addition to A Ludicrous Split (Alien Buddha Press) and Clouds of Hungry Dogs (Kleft Jaw Press). He is also a writer, performer, and producer with Belligerent Prom Queen Productions. He lives on a horrible place called Long Island.