It’s usually hard to bet against Barbara Stanwyck. Starting her career in the late 1920s, within a few years she was already churning out star making roles as plucky working class girls who could rise to the top: think Ten Cents a Dance (1931) and Baby Face (1933) – both reviewed here on Filmizon, only to further elevate herself during the film noir era with starring roles like Double Indemnity (1944) and The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946) – also both on Filmizon, she even conquered television later in her career as matriarch Victoria Barkley in 112 episodes of Big Valley from the mid to late 1960s. In other words, it’s rather unusual to see her in a clunker... though with the film looked at here today, Shopworn (1932), directed by Nick Grinde, Stanwyck herself described it as, “one of those terrible pictures they sandwiched in when you started”.

The movie Roger Moore made directly before taking over the iconic role of James Bond for over a decade starting in 1973, The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970), co-adapted and directed by Basil Dearden from the novel “The Strange Case of Mr Pelham by Anthony Armstrong, is perhaps as un-Bond-like as possible (despite Moore uttering the quote above), which may be why the star also frequently suggested that this was his best film. Harold Pelham (Moore) is in a high stress position at a marine technology company – in which a merger is being pressured from an outside company, which, when combined with his rather awkward version of a stiff upper lip attitude, has left his marriage with Eve (Hildegarde Neil) rather cool and aloof.

Transporting its Italian comic book roots to the big screen, Danger: Diabolik (1968), directed by Mario Bava (Blood and Black Lace) and produced by powerhouse Dino De Laurentiis (Barbarella), plays like a vivid three dimensional escapade that fuses elements of swinging sixties spy chic, an early take on the anti-hero, a greedy twist on the Robin Hood tales of yore, and splashes of kitschy Batman (that is, the television series), all coming together for plenty of frivolous fun. The titular Diabolik (John Phillip Law) is a sort of master thief, a black spandex wearing, Jaguar E-type driving genius who thrives on stealing money from an unnamed European government – which, at best, is incompetent, at worst, corrupt users of their taxpaying base. Though, unlike Robin Hood, he keeps the oodles of cash for himself and his helpful mini-skirt wearing girlfriend Eva Kant (Marisa Mell).

There is no doubt that Roberto Benigni will forever have his name etched in the annals of film history after his Academy Award winning film Life is Beautiful – which took home Best Foreign Language Film, Best Score (for Nicola Piovani), and brought forth a most special moment when Benigni climbed atop the seats of the theatre to accept his Best Actor award. Yet, it is a bit of a shame that some of his pre-1997 works are lesser known outside of his native Italy. Case in point, the comedy Johnny Stecchino, circa 1991. Co-written (along with Vincenzo Cerami), directed and starring Benigni, he plays the titular character as well as a near identical lookalike of the man (who is actually our protagonist). Here’s a quick translation – Stecchino means toothpick. So, to explain, Dante is a charming yet rather simple bus driver (who is also trying to pull a disability scam with the government), when one day, he luckily. . . or perhaps unluckily, almost gets run into by a beautiful woman named Maria (Nicoletta Braschi – Benigni’s real life wife) – who seems to be immediately intrigued by the man. As she would exclaim – “Santa Cleopatra!”

This very well may be the shortest review I’ve ever written. Juror #2 (2024), Clint Eastwood’s most recent directorial effort (he also co-produces), very much leans on several legal dramas and thrillers from the past, most notably the classic 12 Angry Men, to great effect. Twisting the above mentioned film in clever fashion, in some ways, recovering alcoholic Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is a stand-in for Henry Fonda’s Juror #8, as he too stands up for the man being charged with murder... the only difference is, he soon realizes that he knows a bit more about the case than the rest of the jurors (and even he originally thought). Though this is not a twist filled feature (à la Usual Suspects), much of its entertainment comes from watching it unfurl as it goes along – hence why very little of the plot will be disclosed here. It is also worth noting that, unlike 12 Angry Men, screenwriter Jonathan A. Abrams opens the story wide, allowing us to hear testimony, explore the crime scene, and discover actual truths we never got to see in the 1957 motion picture.