"With his biggest case behind him, ex-cop Frank Harper gets back to work...He's been investigating a mysterious death, one tied to a manufacturing company in Cooper's Mill. The owner, the victim's daughter, is convinced her father was murdered -- and that his death is somehow tied to large amounts of money that went missing from the company. While Frank investigates, his mind is drawn to the missing Joe Hathaway, a psychopath bent on killing Frank. Everyone else is convinced Hathaway is dead or out of the country, but Frank Harper isn't so sure..."

What you might NOT know is that I’ve compiled them all into one edition and it’s out now! I’m removing the individual books soon, but everything is in here, including a new introduction. Enjoy!

• Paperback Link: https://amzn.to/3qY5uSC

• Kindle Link: https://amzn.to/3ExhtJK

It’s off to my reading team soon and should be out from Gypsy Publications by CHRISTMAS 2023. Finger’s crossed, I may also have another book out at the same time. More on that soon…

Excerpt: “Chad Stahelski’s John Wick entered the market in late October 2014 with unexceptional prospects. It was a midbudget action film, helmed by star Keanu Reeves’s former stunt double in The Matrix. Few would have blinked if it had taken its modest box office haul and retreated to a comfortable afterlife in the Sunday afternoon programming rotation on basic cable, the fate enjoyed by countless films before it.

But John Wick was more than just another counter-programmer—it was a fresh and exciting take on a genre weighed down by superhero movies; it became a word-of-mouth box office hit, and above all it was good. It was really good. A sequel followed in 2017, as did a third part in 2019. All were directed by Chad Stahelski, who has remained at the helm of the franchise since its inception.

With John Wick: Chapter 4, scheduled for release this March, John Wick is now one of the most important series in Lionsgate’s slate. Boxoffice Pro’s Daniel Loria spoke with Stahelski as the filmmaker was putting the finishing touches on the film about the franchise’s journey and its director’s role in ensuring its status as a modern action classic.“

Read the whole article HERE.

Yes, my 33rd book, “Crush,” is done and going out to beta readers soon. Yeah!

Interested in reading it ahead of publishing and giving me your feedback? I’m looking for BETA READERS who are ready for a wild ride.

If you’re interested, drop me an email at greg@gregenslen.com or sign up for my BETA READERS group. Those are the folks that help me out with early feedback on upcoming books.

The review period for this version of “Crush” ends on March 31, so if you’re interested, email me quick!

Second up for me would be Top Gun: Maverick, if only because it “saved Hollywood.” No, seriously, it’s a throw-back, popcorn-crunching “Summer Movie” like we rarely get any more. I doubt it will win, but it’s got my vote. Maybe I’ll jump up and down on a couch if it wins.

Rounding out the top three for me would be Avatar, for the technical prowess alone. Though, really, it could have been nominated in the Best Animated category as well—after a while, it did feel like you were completely immersed in this make-believe land. And that’s what we want from our movies, right?

Here is how I would rank these ten films:

1. Everything Everywhere All at Once

2. Top Gun: Maverick

3. Avatar: The Way of Water

4. All Quiet on the Western Front

5. Tar

6. Elvis

7. The Fablemans

8. Women Talking

9. Triangle of Sadness

10. Banshees of Inisherin

Tar was a slog to sit through but ultimately thought-provoking. It reminded me somehow of that Japanese car-driving movie from a couple of years back. It was pure torture to sit through but left quite an impression, although the name of the movie escapes me.

Elvis was your standard and awesome Baz Luhrmann color-fest, filled to the brim with so much stuff to see that you kinda get lost along the way and forget that this movie is about one of the most famous celebrities in history. The Fablemans was pure, self-indulgent schmaltz, cute but ultimately pointless. Women Talking was good but too long and too static. Triangle of Sadness was another brash take on Black Lotus but far more gross and willing to hit the viewer over the head with every point it was trying to make. Banshees was the most depressing movie I’ve ever seen, and everyone involved in making and funding this film should rethink their involvement in the “entertainment” industry.

All in, I’d have to say my favorite movie of the year was still The Batman, and thought Nope deserves a spot on this list. The Menu also had good bones but was ultimately disappointing—I kept waiting for them to do something interesting with the premise but it turns out exactly as you would expect.

Don’t forget, if you want a great Oscars Movie Checklist, head on over to the Gold Knight for their awesome downloadable cheat sheet that tells you what you need to watch (and where you can see it) to get ready for the Academy Awards ceremony, held this year on March 12 on ABC.

Wow, the guys over at JoBlo Movies hit the nail on the head with this article. Here are a couple of quotes and then a link to the main article. Check it out!

“While it’s logical to understand that fans can’t expect every movie in the MCU to be fantastic, there have certainly been adaptations that insisted on slipping underneath the bar of expectation. The most recent MCU movie, Ant-Man: Quantumania, has faced criticism about not living up to fans expectations and has received disappointing reviews, calling into question whether or not the film belongs amongst the most disappointing MCU movies to date.“

and

“Fans might adore Chris Hemsworth as Thor, but this might have been the most disappointing movie in the entire MCU. While Thor: Ragnarok had brought some light-heartedness to the character that was sorely needing, the God of Thunder had one of the roughest journeys through Infinity War and Endgame and had undergone some serious character development in that time. So what did Thor 4 do? Or yeah, it ignored all of that entirely. Rather than seeing Thor amount to his plans of finding his place in the universe, he instead just told jokes for two hours straight while hunting down a God Butcher“

Read the whole story here.

Yes, my 33rd book, “Crush,” is done and going out to beta readers soon. Yeah! More information to follow!

“Top Gun: Maverick” is a throw-back, popcorn-crunching “Summer Movie” like we rarely get any more. I doubt it will win Best Picture, but it’s got my vote for the most entertaining movie of the year. It’s chock full of action scenes, fun characters, and great moments that will have you jumping out of your chair — or jumping up and down on your couch.

Tom Cruise is excellent here, embodying the whole “movie star” concept just by walking onto the screen and giving us a smile. Here, his aging fighter pilot persona comes up against the one enemy he can’t fight—retirement. Whether it’s his flyboy attitude or the idea that most fighter jets will soon be replaced with remotely-piloted drones, Maverick’s days are numbered.

But before he’s pushed out of the military, they’ve got one more job for him: train a bunch of young kids to carry out a deadly, nearly-impossible bombing mission in some foreign land — and the filmmakers go to great pains to never mention the name of the country being bombed or even hint at the general region where the country might be located. Can Maverick whip these flyboys AND flygirls into shape? Oh, and did I forget to mention one of them is the son of Goose, Maverick’s old flying partner who died in the first film?

The action scenes are stunning in their realism — mostly because they are real. Tom Cruise apparently insisted that as much of the flying be as real as possible, so that’s really the actors up in fighter jets, flying along with military pilots. It’s all exhilarating and exhausting and awesome. 8 out of 10, one of the best films of the year.

I watched this a few days ago and I’m still working on my official review, but there’s a really interesting aspect of the film that has plenty of folks thinking it’s actually a ghost story, or that at least some portions of the narrative only taking place in the main character’s mind.

From Slate, Don Kois runs us through the theory:

“The final act of Tár is, I think, so heightened and weird that it basically doesn’t make sense if you try to read it literally. But perhaps because the movie’s cultural questions are so fun to wrestle with, or because Field’s attention to sociological realism in the rest of the film is so acute, many viewers are determined to do so.

But when I finally watched Tár, it was the movie’s spookiness, and the uncertainty that spookiness casts over the film, that stuck with me. I think Todd Field is doing something entirely different from what almost every writer so far has thought he was doing. Field “moves smoothly from dry backstage comedy to something like gothic horror,” A.O. Scott wrote in a typically insightful review that still takes much of Tár’s “comeuppance” and the movie’s “ragged, wandering, superfluous denouement” at face value. Let’s explore the gothic horror of Tár.”

Read the whole story HERE - it’s a great read with lots of good images and GIFs.

Once again, I’m here to tell you not to watch a movie. It’s starting to feel like the theme for movies in 2022. It’s strange, but like with “The Banshees of Inisherin” and “Tar” and “Triangle of Sadness,” here comes another movie that seems actively interested in:

1. Making you hate the characters and any real-life figures they might be based on,

2. Making you actively uncomfortable watching the film, and lastly,

3. Making you wonder what the filmmakers are trying to say with all of their efforts and expense and the collective work of all of those involved, and

4. Wondering if the film is actually some kind of elaborate and expensive elongated joke on the industry and each individual viewer.

So, I ask: why watch? No one would actually make a movie about Marilyn Monroe and then portray her and everyone around her in this way, right? You’re giving your time and attention to something that only makes the world a darker, meaner place. And what’s the “theme” here? What are we supposed to “learn” from watching this?

“Blonde” is ostensibly a movie about Marilyn Monroe. You find this out because they use her name and likeness and also call her “Norma Jean” and include aspects of a real person’s life in the movie. Going in, and knowing all the controversy, I’d assumed they would be coy and not make it so obvious that this is supposed to be an account of a person’s life. Like I thought they might call her “NJ” throughout and not use real names.

But there is also another layer of farcical fiction on top of the “real.” Events are heightened to the point of absurdity—and, in some cases, just invented or changed to make them even more horrible and devastating.

If you’ve always wanted to watch a beautiful woman being tortured and maligned for two and a half hours, this film was made for you. “Monroe” is put through the ringer, tortured by her insane mother, passed around by callous men like a dime-store hooker, and generally treated like trash by everyone she meets. All the men are mean and only want her for one thing, and all the women are spiteful and hate her because she’s pretty. What, was this movie written by a ten-year-old boy?

And, when pressed, those involved in the film actively distance themselves from it by saying it’s a work of fiction. According to IMDB, the director, Andrew Dominik, filmed what he called an "avalanche of images and events" instead of making a coherent and thoughtful film. No narrative, just a bunch of scenes of Monroe being humiliated. The “director” also stated the movie will “offend everyone” and that he’s “not concerned with being tasteful.” Just what you want to hear from a filmmaker, right? If he’s not interested in putting together a cohesive, truthful story, why should the viewer be interested in experiencing it?

Joyce Carol Oates, who wrote the 2000 book upon which the film is based, famously said that she had “no particular obligation” to the facts, despite referencing real people in her novel, according to The Guardian. But doesn’t she? Shouldn’t she portray this real person with as much honesty and truth as possible? If the subject’s life is interesting enough as it is, there would be no need for embellishment or fiction.

Along the same lines, would she find it sad if someone wrote a novel about a writer named Joyce Carol Oates where all kinds of crazy and historically-inaccurate things happened? Would the real-life Oates feel as cavalier? Oh my God why is that character Joyce Carol Oates having dinner with five monkeys? Why is she swimming in a lake of Jell-O? What is she doing…oh, my God, that’s just gross. Why is she doing that? Of course, the writer of the book would have no “particular obligation” to facts, even though the writer is writing about a real person named Joyce Carol Oates. Go crazy!!

While watching this, I got the distinct impression that those involved don’t really like Marilyn Monroe. It comes across in the way she’s portrayed, but also in the leering and mocking treatment she receives from everyone else in the film. It’s like when someone makes a movie about something they hate, or a director is forced to make a film he doesn’t want to be making. Allegedly, Joel Schumacher didn’t want to be involved in making “Batman & Robin” and it really comes through in the final product. According to IMDB, “Schumacher, who blamed the studio for forcing him to do a sequel instead of an origin story, later accepted his faults and shared the blame for making such an embarrassing and nonsensical film.”

Ana de Armas does a fine job and looks the part, although her Cuban accent pokes its head up fairly often during the speedier parts of her breathy performance. My only issue with her is that I liked my other memories of her better, especially her role in Blade Runner 2049, and now this portrayal will be forever mingled in my mind with her other work. It’s difficult to watch someone be tortured for 2.5 hours and not feel for them—but also, you have to remember that de Armas actively chose to appear in this blatant character assassination of a beloved American icon. With her presence, the actress is actively endorsing this particular take on Monroe’s life.

Check out the Real vs. Reel breakdown of the movie, which goes into detail on what parts of the movie were based on real life and which ones (turns out most of it) were invented or “enhanced” in a way to make them horrible and unpleasant.

There were a few laugh-out-loud moments of over-the-top silliness in this movie, and I have to assume they were unintentional. The director, who should be gently encouraged to find another profession, makes some “interesting choices,” as they say in the industry. While I won’t include spoilers, here are a few things to watch for:

• During the excruciating, three-minute-long scene where Monroe is “getting friendly” with the President, the series of images on the little black and white TV are hilarious. They include a rocket lifting up and preparing for launch—GET IT?—and later the Washington Monument falls over and crashes. So funny and witty and subtle!

• Also, this is the same scene where the most famous woman in the world at the time is treated like a disposable piece of meat, carried into the room by JFK’s Secret Service folks and then abused by the president and left beaten and injured. No one says anything or tries to help. Oh boy the whole thing is such a hoot!

• All the baby scenes are just weird and creepy and gross. Don’t even get me started on the way the abortion scenes are treated.

• Apparently the entire population of New York City was in attendance at the filming of the famous “subway grate” scene. Seriously, was every leering, cruel man east of the Mississippi there that day?

• One visually interesting shot is the waterfall part of the weird and awkward three-way. No, I’m not talking about spaghetti over chili with cheese. It’s actually neat the way the director overlays the waterfall with the side of the bed.

• The recurring use of flying ash from an early scene of a wildfire in Los Angeles is interesting.

• Why is the director doing those weird “ZOOMS” whenever the phone rings? Is she “scared” to answer the phone so he treats the ringing phone like a monster in a scary movie?

• Also, look out for some WEIRD CGI of the men in the crowd at one of the movie premieres—it looks like the director used CGI to make the men’s mouths larger and more elongated to make their jeers and screams even creepier.

• Near the end she’s freaking out and feeling persecuted. She gets up out of bed to go look out the window and there’s a man standing silent in her room. Reminded me of the ghost images from “Tar.”

In the end, you know what is coming and it seems like the filmmakers are saying that it’s the only recourse for the woman. On some level, you’re rooting for it to finally happen so that the pain and torture will be over—and how crazy is that? On some level the viewer is rooting for the character to take their own life. It’s sick. Though, frankly, I’m surprised the director didn’t also include scenes of male police and male witnesses and male coroners leering at the dead body or taking photos of it or otherwise desecrating the memory of the fallen woman. Maybe those scenes are being saved for the sequel. “Blonde 2: Even Blonder. Two more hours of degrading a Hollywood legend.” Can’t wait.

The film feels like it’s railing against the life-long exploitation of Marilyn Monroe…by exploiting her for two and a half hours. That feels hypocritical to me. It feels like the filmmakers and those responsible for the film are saying something along the lines of “men are horrible —just look what they did to this beautiful person.”

But then the director goes and does exactly that to the character for the entire length of the film. Just take my advice and skip this one. 2 out of 10 for the nonsensical storytelling and the flying ash and waterfall scenes ONLY.

Or just skip it and go for a walk. OR watch “Some Like it Hot” and experience the real actress for yourself. And don’t worry—there is no Marvel-style “after credits” scene where Monroe is beaten with whips and a large sturgeon. Though, you know, it wouldn’t have surprised me.

Not sure how I’m feeling about this approaching event. I loved the 1989 Batman—in fact, I saw it opening day at Mann’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood. That was a fun day, and Keaton was great, and I still enjoy Elfman’s score. And The Flash was my favorite comic book character growing up. So, if you told me that the Flash would appear in that version of DC’s universe, meet Michael Keaton’s Batman, and they’d have adventures together, I would have freaked out. But what if I had told myself that I would be…ambivalent about it? There are several reasons: I’m not a fan of the new Flash or the actor that plays him, I’m frustrated with DC and their “spin the wheel and see what happens” methodology of filmmaking, and the Snyderverse was a massive letdown.

That being said, I have to say, the more I read about this iteration of the Flash, which sounds like it’s setting up a way to “branch off” the Synderverse and create a new DC landscape, I’m intrigued. I guess the best I can say is…we’ll see?

From JoBlo: “Promotional material for DC’s The Flash is fast approaching. Ahead of Super Bowl LVII, where a trailer for the upcoming DC superhero film will come racing in, DC Studios debuted a new poster for The Flash. In the new poster, Ezra Miller’s Flash surveys the Batcave, a locale buried deep beneath the Wayne Family grounds. As light pours in from a wall opening, the Flash stands atop a platform with the Batplane hanging above his head. The Scarlet Speedster’s suit is aglow with stylish piping, shining brighter than the sunlight on his sleek form.” Read the whole story here.

War is hell. As with most war movies, including “1917” and “Saving Private Ryan,” this film is about the insanity—and inanity—of armed conflict, which chews up and spits out both the innocent and the warfighter with equal, casual cruelty. The randomness of it all, the “rah rah” chest thumping of the politicians that will never venture anywhere near the front lines, the heartbreaking waste of human life are portrayed beautifully in this film, based on the 1929 book by Erich Remarque.

The best parts of the war are those simple moments between the falling shells and ricocheting bullets: reading heartfelt letters from home. One man meets a female refugee and she give him her scarf and the men of the company pass it around to smell it—it sounds gross but it’s cruel in its hopefulness and innocence. All these men want to do—and all of the soldiers are men, fodder for the war—is return home and make a home and family. It’s a dream that they all share but few will see come true.

Of course, the hopeful scenes are far outnumbered by the somber ones: massive graves full of the dead, mangled bodies in the mud, gas attacks. Dead bodies hang from the trees, and our soldiers find a room of 60 young soldiers, gassed to death. They run into machine gun fire and collect a seemingly endless number of dog tags to be sent to some distant bureaucrat for counting and to notify the next of kin. It makes me think about what’s happening in Ukraine right now and I wonder if we’ll ever learn.

Some of the juxtapositions are perfect, especially the cutting between soldiers fighting hand-to-hand in the mud while the politicians and career soldiers enjoy fine meals and wine in quiet manors far from the front lines. Doctors work to save the injured, and a friend of our main character tries to surrender to soldiers with flamethrowers to no avail.

Much of the cinematography was simply sublime, reminding me of “1917” but lacking that film’s rushing sense of dread created by “single shot” aspect of the film, which through trickery and technology made it appear as if the entire film consisted of one continuous shot. In the end, war is hell, and the victors in their cruel, retaliatory punishment, continue the cycle and ensure another war soon in the future.

Earlier movies based on this story were made in 1930 and 1979, with the later version starring Richard Thomas, pre-”Bilbo” Ian Holm, and Ernest Borgnine. The summary for that film tells you everything you need to know about the story: “A young soldier faces profound disillusionment in the soul-destroying horror or World War I.“ I might have added something about the warrenlike trenches, half filled with rain and blood and bodies, but maybe they didn’t want to scare off their entire audience.

That being said, I’ve seen all of this before. War is cruel, and anyone who doesn’t believe that hasn’t ever spoken to a veteran or walked through a military graveyard. But this film really brings it home. Should be mandatory viewing for anyone enamored with war. I think the film would have been more affective if it were 30 minutes shorter, but other than that, I had few complaints. 8 out of 10.

Official synopsis: “A group of women in an isolated religious colony struggle to reconcile their faith with a series of sexual assaults committed by the colony's men.“

“Women Talking” is a strange film. I can’t see why it was nominated for Best Picture unless it’s some kind of “token” all-woman movie to thrown into the mix. And while it’s a fine film, it left me wanting more — in fact, after the film, I sat in the parking lot at the theater and ordered the book behind the film.

And it’s about women talking — literally, that’s the entire movie. Some mind find that tedious, but I found it interesting. These highly religious women, part of a colony, must decide on a group response to a series of horrific sexual assaults in the community. Should they stay and suffer through more assaults, fight back, or leave the colony, striking out on their own? It makes for an interesting discussion.

Rooney Mara is a wonder here as Ona, one of the younger women debating with seven others on how to respond. And because the women are illiterate, they invite a man, their colony schoolteacher, August (Ben Whishaw), into their company, but only to record the proceedings for future generations.

It’s difficult to be harsh with a movie that’s exploring such tragic subject matter, so I’ll just say that I wanted more information on their colony and it’s place in the outside world. In fact, it takes a while before the audience learns whether the film is set in modern times or two hundred years ago.

An interesting film, certainly, but not Best Picture material. Although, hey, giving it a nomination got me to see it, so there’s that, right? There’s something to be said about raising a film’s profile. 6 out of 10.

“Blonde” is ostensibly a movie about Marilyn Monroe. You find this out because they use her name and likeness and also call her “Norma Jean” and include aspects of a real person’s life in the movie. But it’s a slog of the worst type, one where the “filmmaker” tortures the main character for two hours.

You’re supposed to feel sorry for Norma Jean, obviously, but the viewer shouldn’t be looking forward to the end of this film — we all know how her life ends — just so the film will all be over. 2 out of 10 for the nonsensical storytelling, bad editing and outright character assassination. Ana de Armas is the only good thing in this movie and I felt sorry for her.

Read my in-depth review HERE, but be warned - it doesn’t get any better!

Nominated for Best Picture, there are so many things in this movie that I wanted to like but just could not. Self-sabotage isn’t a pretty thing to watch, but often, just when this film is about to make a point, the director chooses to HAMMER YOU OVER THE HEAD with his point instead of making it in a subtle fashion.

“Triangle” is not shy when trying to make a point. Hate rich people? Oh, you’re going to love this movies. Hate “influencers” and capitalists and people who take vacations on yachts? Do I have a movie for you!

The plot revolves around Carl, a male model, and his girlfriend, Yaya, an “influencer.” I would say it’s about their relationship and making it work, which is a point belabored at length in the first thirty minutes of the film, but I’m not so sure. At times, it just feels like they’re the pretty, easy to look at couple that lets the filmmaker set up the hijinks to come later. “Watch these pretty people—I’m going to put them through hell because they’re rich and white.”

Great, go for it. They go on a vacation on a yacht and things go badly. That’s all I’ll say about the plot, which is very thin and only serves as the barest skeleton for the real meat of this film - social commentary. Step right up, folks, and listen to these zingers!!! “Rich people bad.” “Communism good.” “Capitalism bad.” Fashion lines treat their customers with disdain.

There are things to like here but the film is not one of the top 10 films of the year. I liked the skewering of “influencers” and their endless narcissistic need for attention. At one point, a man takes a woman’s jewelry off—you’ll get it when you see it. And the flip at the end with Carl is a fun point to make, but it feels like it takes too long and it’s too on the nose. Somehow this movie has too little to say and takes too long saying it.

Also I would be remiss in not mentioning the death of the lead actress, Charlbi Dean, who tragically passed away before the film was released. She was excellent in her role and we have been robbed of an actress with a long career ahead of her. She will be missed.

It meanders and preaches and can’t seem to get to the point. And then, when it does, it subverts it in an interesting way that had me sit up and pay attention. Wait, what? Are they trying to say something in the end about power and how it corrupts everyone, even when a poor person happens to find themselves in an advantageous situation? I understand “rich people bad,” but it also feels like they’re saying “poor people bad,” too? Is that possible? You’ll know what I’m talking about when you see it. And, again, they have one of the endings that is left up to interpretation. It’s supposed to feel mysterious but just feels like a cheat. 4 out of 10, a real disappointment for me.