Some of the greatest Westerns of all time aren’t particularly fun, or they’re engaging in ways that are a little different from “entertaining,” making it feel a bit strange to call them “fun.” So, the likes of Unforgiven, The Wild Bunch, Once Upon a Time in the West, and (obviously) The Great Silence will not be found below, even if they are some of the best Westerns ever made, and indeed better than some of the movies ranked here.

What matters here is that the Westerns are fun. These ones might well be good to watch if you’re not hugely fond of the genre, or if you are, then maybe they’ll prove extra entertaining. They can all count themselves among the most entertaining and broadly fun Western movies of all time, thanks to being action-packed, or funny, or particularly fast-paced, or maybe even all of the above.

8

‘Young Guns’ (1988)

Image via 20th Century Fox

As the title implies, the main characters of Young Guns are indeed young, but it’s not really a kid-friendly movie, nor particularly identifiable as a coming-of-age one. It’s about Billy the Kid and other outlaw members of the Regulators, but without much that’s historically accurate, though that’s okay. It’s not really that kind of movie, and the Old West is filled with stories of a more legendary variety, anyway.

It’s engaging and scarcely boring, containing a bunch of great actors and a fair amount of action for something that’s ultimately quite short, as far as feature-length films go. Young Guns is just all-around solid stuff, and it does what it needs to without worrying about going much further. It works, and that’s all that really matters, with the things that might be dated honestly feeling kind of charming, at least in some ways.

7

‘¡Three Amigos!’ (1986)

Image via Orion Pictures

¡Three Amigos! is pretty much a comedic The Magnificent Seven, and The Magnificent Seven was pretty much a Western take on Seven Samurai. You do the math there (a kind of math, at least) and what you have is a comedic Western about people who are hired to defend a village from attackers, but the “warriors” here are actually just actors, and they don’t have the skills that traditional gunfighters have.

If that also sounds like A Bug’s Life, that’s because yes, A Bug’s Life builds on ¡Three Amigos!, which builds on The Magnificent Seven, which builds on Seven Samurai. There may be some other steps involved in that whole chain. Anyway, the main thing is that ¡Three Amigos! is a good deal of fun, and also one of the best Western comedies of all time (the absolute greatest came out a little over a decade earlier, though, and will be mentioned shortly).

6

‘Westworld’ (1973)

Image via Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

It’s easy to put Westworld here because, on one hand, it’s about people seeking fun, and there’s vicarious fun as a viewer in watching people do that. And then there’s a thrill in seeing things go wrong, because the source of “fun” here is a futuristic amusement park where visitors get to be immersed in an Old West kind of playground, but it’s also a sci-fi movie, and the technology malfunctions, because of course it does.

While that makes it sound very similar to Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton wrote both, so at worst, he was plagiarizing himself. But not really, because the Western feel of Westworld helps it stand out, and then it’s also entertaining because of how straight-to-the-point, well-paced, and punchy it is, doing quite a lot within a runtime that doesn’t exceed 90 minutes.

5

‘The Quick and the Dead’ (1995)

Image via TriStar/courtesy Everett Collection

Advertisement

Sam Raimi made a Western. It’s The Quick and the Dead. It’s fun as a Western the same way his horror movies are fun (especially the sequels to The Evil Dead, which lean more into comedy) and his superhero movies are fun (hey, Spider-Man trilogy). There is something of a plot here, but it’s mostly concerned with assembling a bunch of colorful characters and having them take part in a quick-draw tournament.

It’s one of the more underrated Westerns of all time, too, getting overshadowed by those other Sam Raimi films, and also suffering a little popularity-wise, perhaps, from clearly being a cult classic. Still, why shouldn’t it be a more conventional classic, too? There’s a lot to like here, alongside all the offbeat and strange things (which you might also dig anyway), so it’s worth devoting a couple of hours of your time to, if you’ve never seen it before.

4

‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ (1969)

Image via 20th Century Studios

Advertisement

A movie about a pair of outlaws who go on the run after taking things a bit far with all their robberies and stuff, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is effortlessly fun, and always has been. It’s old now, coming up on its 60th anniversary in not too much time, honestly (at the time of writing), but it’s timeless, so who cares? It doesn’t really feel like it was made in 1969.

Also, it’s obvious to say, but Paul Newman and Robert Redford are dynamite together on screen, even in the scenes that don’t involve actual dynamite. They’re so good together that you kind of wonder why, after Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, they only shared the screen in one other movie (The Sting, which is another crowd-pleaser directed by George Roy Hill, albeit certainly not a Western).

3

‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’ (1966)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the best spaghetti Western of all time, and it also happens to be the most entertaining. You’ve got three main characters here, more or less alluded to in the title, and they’re all trying to get to some buried gold first, and that’s the movie. It’s three hours almost, all up, with an obvious MacGuffin, and also not much that could be called unpredictable, but that’s all good.

It’s more than all good. And it’s not bad, nor is it ugly. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is phenomenally paced and also one of the best-looking movies of its time, and maybe of all time, too. What else do you need? What else can be said? It’s The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, for crying out loud.

2

‘Blazing Saddles’ (1974)

Image via Warner Bros.

It is a parody of Westerns, yes, but Blazing Saddles is still a Western, just a very silly one. For what it’s worth, though, it gets the look and feel right, in terms of replicating classic Western films, which can also be said about Young Frankenstein and the old horror movies it parodied, with that movie coming out the same year as Blazing Saddles, and Mel Brooks directed both.

Sorry, that’s a bit of a tangent, but it’s always impressive how Brooks’s two best movies (and two of the funniest films of all time) came out the same year. Anyway, Blazing Saddles has non-stop jokes, and the vast majority of them hit the mark. You can hate Westerns and still find a lot to love here, or love Westerns, and enjoy this as a good-hearted parody. Or if you fall somewhere in between, that’s all good. This is a winning film in any event, really.

1

‘The Good, the Bad, the Weird’ (2008)

Image via CJ Entertainment

No one should be surprised to learn that The Good, the Bad, the Weird has pretty much the same premise as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. There are three main characters, and they’re all after the same thing. They race each other, they compete, and all that expected stuff. It’s not so much the plot that matters here, though, because what is important is what The Good, the Bad, the Weird does tonally and regarding genre.

Like, it’s not necessarily a better movie than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (like, not much is on that film’s level), but it’s arguably even more entertaining, owing to its emphasis on action, comedy, and some other potentially unexpected genres. It’s a film where it feels like every weird and/or creative idea was thrown into the mix somehow, and while the final product isn’t the most consistent thing in the world, by any means, it is ultimately ridiculously entertaining, and that’s the main thing worth considering, for present purposes.

Advertisement

The Good, The Bad, The Weird

Release Date

Advertisement

July 17, 2008

Runtime

139 Minutes

Advertisement

Director

Kim Jee-woon

Writers

Advertisement

Kim Jee-woon, Min-suk Kim

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

By Jonathan Klotz
| Updated 6 minutes ago

I was never a theater kid. I was friends with a lot of theater kids (Hi Mark!) and attended every single play to show my support for them. Which is why, when Glee hit Fox before my 10-year High School reunion, I tuned in and recognized a lot of my friends and classmates in Glee Club. Since going off the air in 2015, after the conclusion of Season 6, Glee faded from the public consciousness, only to be dredged up after the far too early death of Naya Rivera, and the conviction of Mark Salling.

Glee Was Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Today, in 2026, it’s coming back up for a great reason: Harry Shum Jr., underutilized on Glee, is part of Dancing with the Stars Season 35. Well, that, and the “Gleeks” coming out in force to defend the series from Gen Z by accurately pointing out that, for its time, Glee was as much a revelation as it is problematic.

In the never-ending quest to find things problematic or cringe, Gen Z turned their ire to Glee, which, by today’s standards, isn’t the most sensitive series and is guilty of a lot of tone-deaf storylines. It hasn’t aged well at all. What’s lost in the discourse is that Glee aired in 2009, and it was considered, at the time, progressive. Notably because it featured gay high school characters outside of “a very special episode,” which, even in 2009, wasn’t common.

Kurt Hummel (Chris Colfer) and Blaine Anderson (Darren Criss) were openly gay characters from the start, eventually joined by Santana (Naya Rivera) and Brittany S. Pierce (Heather Morris). While the storyline that outed Santana was horrendous since it wasn’t her choice, what came after was praised for Rivera’s portrayal of a high school coming to terms with their identity. To give you an idea where society was at the time, the writers managed to get an unsubtle “scissoring” joke right past the network censors. Progressive for making the joke on a broadcast network, and also problematic for making that joke on a broadcast network.

Glee Fell Into A Progressive Trap

Glee wanted to be inclusive, but fell into the same trap as most well-meaning progressives by missing the mark worse than if they had never tried in the first place. For one, Artie Abrams, the paralyzed, wheelchair-bound member of the club, was played by Kevin Mchale, an able-bodied actor. At the time, progressive for including the character; today, problematic for not getting a wheelchair bound actor to play the part when they are already struggling to find decent roles in Hollywood.

The multi-ethnic Glee Club never found anything for Harry Shum Jr’s Mike to do until the third season, when he’s saddled with a story about his Asian father wanting him to become a doctor and not a dancer. He’s also dating Tina (Jenna Ushkowitz), after the two had bonded at “Asian Camp.” 10 points for including two Asian-American characters, minus several thousand for generic stereotype storylines. Jenna would go on to win two Tony Awards for her work in Broadway, while Harry won multiple awards for his work on Shadowhunters.

Lauren Potter, an actress with Down syndrome, played Becky Jackson, a recurring student on Glee in what was, again, a progressive role, giving someone who had overcome Down syndrome a real role and a real character. Up until the episode “Shooting Star,” where she brings a gun into the school and it accidentally goes off. All of the character development was tossed out the window for the shock reveal that it was Becky with the gun. It’s classic Ryan Murphy, who would go on to cast Lauren in multiple seasons of American Horror Story, including Coven, the best of the series.

For all the ways that Gen Z is completely correct to call Glee problematic, it comes out of a desire to be progressive, and failing. Sometimes horribly. At the time, Glee was an acquired taste, having started out as a dark satire of teen comedies, before becoming one after resonating with teenagers and 20-somethings. We had debates and discussions about if it was really progressive or simply regressive and offensive in a new way. Over the years, Glee hasn’t aged well at all, making it a full-blown millennial tragedy that, despite the talented cast, it’s best left forgotten.

We love a good viral product, and shoppers have gone absolutely wild over the Adidas polka-dot tracksuit. While we’re always game for a fun fashion moment, dropping over $200 on loungewear isn’t really our thing — which is why we’re scouring the Internet for elevated loungewear pants for less. Thankfully, Amazon has plenty of stylish, budget-friendly options that deliver the same chic vibe without the splurge.

From polka-dot track pants to chic animal print and even velvet and colorblock styles, these chic loungewear pants are just as cozy as your favorite sweats, yet polished enough to wear pretty much anywhere. Shop our 13 favorite styles below — starting at $27.

13 Elevated Loungewear Pants For Fall

1. Our Favorite: This polka-dot matching set is as close as you can get to the viral Adidas set without spending over $200. Even better: the jacket’s peplum-style fit is super slimming.

2. Wild Style: Over 800 shoppers have snagged these leopard print trousers this past month, and we don’t blame them. With a relaxed fit, chic red stripe and expensive-looking design, they sharpen everything from simple tees to fall knits.

3. Botanical Brights: Paisley with a punch of floral? These bright wide-leg pants are a playful but poised take on statement dressing — and they’re surprisingly wearable for everyday outfits.

4. Black & White: Polished polka-dots never looked so good as these striped polka-dot pants. With a billowy, wide-leg fit, they even feature chic ankle ties.

5. All Year Long: Gingham girlies, don’t miss these sporty wide-leg pants that are made perfect for all the seasons. Best yet: they’re majorly marked down.

6. Perfect Marriage: Who knew polka-dots and stripes go so well together? The demure details on the luxe loungewear set add a feminine twist to the classic sporty silhouette.

7. Powerhouse Pair: Floral meets animal print in these cheetah-print loungewear pants. They look stunning with just a plain black blouse, giving you that bold, boho energy.

8. Bold Energy: Go punk with a lot of polish in these chic checkered wide-leg pants. Reviewers call out their cozy, flattering fit and dress-up-or-down versatility.

9. Patched Together: There’s a lot of boho beauty in these patchwork loungewear pants. Adorned with deep blues and ditsy florals, they bridge the gap between summer ease and autumn days.

10. Perfect Duo: Who doesn’t love a great color combination? These striped color block pants come in numerous quiet-luxury hues, including khaki and black, navy and red and green and white.

11. Fashionable Fun: Feminine and fun come together in these lace polka-dot loungewear pants. With a poised polka-dot print, the head-turning pants look gorgeous with ribbed tees, a cropped cardigan or cozy knits.

12. Designer Duo: Farm Rio and Adidas have created quite possibly the most gorgeous floral track pants ever. Infused with moody florals, the figure-giving piece is perfect for those early fall days.

13. Sumptuous Texture: Don’t just rely on a print to stand out this fall. These luxe velvet track pants are super sporty and poised — proving endless comfort and high fashion can coexist.

UsNow Fall Sale Alert: These chic fashion finds are up to 60% off – plus free shipping

Welcome to fall with our biggest sale of the season. Our favorite dresses, tops, handbags, and shoes are all on sale + free shipping. Inventory is limited so hurry before they’re gone.

Shop the UsNow Fall Sale –>

Matt Damon is one of Hollywood’s most in-demand actors, and as a result, he is often on set filming his next major blockbuster, which means time spent away from his wife, Luciana Barroso, and their family.

A recent report claims Barroso has been handling most household responsibilities while the actor moves from one production to the next, seemingly affecting their personal time together.

Matt Damon has previously spoken about better balancing family life with his work and has agreed to step away from acting at all as long as a certain movie director doesn’t come calling.

5

According to Globe Magazine, Barroso has been “feeling the burn” as she takes care of the responsibilities at home while Damon isn’t around.

Although he has presented a solution, which is to involve her in his professional ventures, that has reportedly not done much to address the issue.

Speaking to the outlet, a source said, “For a while, it looked like Matt’s solution of getting Lucy more involved in his and Ben Affleck’s company, Artists Equity, as a producer, would fix things.”

The source claimed that solution “hasn’t really gone anywhere,” and Barroso is “still running the household and looking after their kids while Matt is off working.”

Barroso is currently listed as a partner on Artists Equity’s team page and is credited as a producer on the company’s upcoming film Animals, scheduled for release on October 9, 2026.

However, her professional commitments still leave her with more time to spend with her family compared to Damon, so she still ends up bearing the brunt of the household stress.

The Movie Star Once Talked About Taking Time Off Work

5

Damon tried to take time off from acting so he could be with his family more often, sharing that he negotiated with his wife on what needed to be done.

In a 2023 report by Entertainment Weekly, the “Bourne Identity” star stated that he’d discussed taking time away from acting in couples therapy.

“I had — not to get too personal — negotiated extensively with my wife that I was taking time off,” he said.

Damon revealed that the only exception to his agreement with Barroso was if Nolan wanted to work with him on a project.

Christopher Nolan Was Matt Damon’s ‘One Caveat’ To His Taking Time Off From Work

5

Speaking more about his couple’s therapy moment with Barroso, Damon labeled Nolan his only “caveat” to his plans to take a break and spend time with his family.

He said, “I actually negotiated in couples therapy— this is a true story — the one caveat to my taking time off was if Chris Nolan called.”

He continued, “This is without knowing whether or not he was working on anything, because he never tells you. He just calls you out of the blue. And so, it was a moment in my household.”

Nolan did call, and off he went, appearing as Leslie Groves in the director’s 2023 biographical thriller, “Oppenheimer.”

The calls didn’t stop there, as the pair went on to collaborate on Nolan’s next film, “The Odyssey,” which was released July 16, 2026.

Filming ‘The Odyssey’ Kept Matt Damon Away From Home

5

While Damon was fighting a cyclops and getting lost in the Mediterranean Sea as Odysseus, in real life he experienced his own little odyssey away from his family as the demanding nature of the film kept him tied down for long periods.

Nolan’s “The Odyssey” was filmed over six months across six countries, including Morocco, Greece, Italy, Iceland, Scotland, and the United States of America.

According to The Boston Globe, Damon described the film as the hardest movie he had ever worked on. “Movies are a lot of work, whether they work or not, but I’ve never been on a harder one than this,” he said earlier in July.

The “Bourne” actor seemed to relate a little to his character’s desire to reach home after the filming that was reportedly so taxing it took him months to recover finally wrapped up.

“My home is my family and always has been and always will be, and that’s still the case,” the actor asserted.

Matt Damon Feels Some ‘Guilt’ About How Little Time He Gets To Spend With His Wife And Kids

5

Despite the lengthy time he spent on his last film “The Odyssey,” reports now say Damon once again has little time for Barroso and the rest of his family as he’s already moved on to another major production.

According to the Globe source, “after a not-very-long break, he’s flung himself into another massive production,” referring to his upcoming superhero movie, “Thasnagar,” which is set for a 2027 release.

While he continues to keep himself busy and allegedly barely has time to spend at home, he is said to feel some “guilt” because he spends so much time he could use with his family on his movie engagements.

Scarlett Johansson may be best known for her appearance as Black Widow, but her talent doesn’t end within the boundaries of Marvel’s multiverse. Certainly, as Black Widow, she brings life and energy to her action sequences, and has surprisingly good comedic timing when it comes to delivering a withering stare. But 12 years later, Under the Skin still showcases Johansson’s most intimate, chilling performance.

Directed by Jonathan Glazer (The Zone of Interest), one of today’s most masterful creators of the sci-fi thriller, Under the Skin follows an alien disguised as a woman who consumes unsuspecting men. Johansson’s challenge as an actor went beyond the usual: in addition to embodying this alien creature (already a cerebral, abstract challenge), she was actually driving around Scotland, hitting on non-actors to generate footage for the film. Most of the men she encounters in the film had no idea they were being filmed until after the fact. The choice to include non-actors in the film forces the alien into the real world, and because she’s a superstar who could be recognized at any moment, Johansson’s real-life identity is brought into the film too.

Jonathan Glazer Makes Clever Use of Guerrilla Film-making

Johansson looks out of place in the streets of Glasgow not because of any visual cues about the alien-ness of her character, but because of her status as a superstar: the audience recognizes her in a crowd of everyday people. Incredibly, during filming Scarlett Johansson was very rarely identified by members of the public, likely because they just didn’t expect her to be there. In the film, she drives or walks, followed by hidden cameras, and even as she tries to melt into the crowd, she is drawn out of it by the very act of being filmed, often centered in the frame, always tracked by the shot.

In a pivotal scene, Johansson walks down a street in tight, acid-washed jeans and a fur jacket, tracked by a camera in a moving vehicle. The shot is full of regular people who have no idea they’re being filmed, and then she trips and falls. The non-actors around her help her up and make sure she’s okay. This display of simple human decency is the beginning of the alien’s entry into the human world, becoming more empathetic and human herself. By using Guerrilla film-making to illustrate this point, director Jonathan Glazer more effectively illustrates that people are kind and will help someone when they can.

Scarlett Johansson Knows How to Watch and Learn

Image via A24

Advertisement

Under the Skin begins as a creepy sci-fi movie about an alien predator, and becomes a profound study in embodied experience, tracking the alien’s developing understanding of humanity and the place she could occupy within it. The alien’s transformation is conveyed through Johansson’s almost entirely silent performance. Her performance is remarkably subtle, often defined by a deliberate lack of expression, which makes her emotional development clearer and more meaningful by contrast.

From the beginning of the film, Johansson’s performance is more about being an observer than it is about being observed. Even as she uses sex appeal to lure men into her van, Johansson hardly performs sexuality in her body language or voice at all. She doesn’t draw attention to herself on purpose. Instead, her gaze is fixed on the men she’s hunting, energy focused outward. She is the predator watching her prey, scanning the streets for who’s next. Observation is the key to Johansson’s performance and to Under the Skin on the whole.

Scarlett Johansson Brings Human Tenderness to Her Alien Character

Image via A24

Advertisement

The alien watches people to hunt them, but by watching them she also learns about their emotional lives, their decency, and their beauty. In a critical scene, the alien picks up a man with a facial disfigurement. They chat in the van. She asks if he has friends or a girlfriend, or if he’s ever had a girlfriend. He hasn’t. She asks if he gets lonely. He doesn’t respond. She says, “You have very nice hands. You have beautiful hands.” She holds his hands and encourages him to touch her face, which he does, before taking him inside to consume him. Crucially, he’s the first person she lets go without consuming him. The subtleties of Johansson’s performance convey real hesitation after having connected with the man personally and emotionally, a real emotional breakthrough for the character.

For much of the film, Johansson’s performance is intentionally guarded, revealing little. As she accrues experience with people, her expression softens and becomes more naturalistic. After the alien crosses over into the human world, she becomes truly vulnerable for the first time, transitioning from predator to potential prey. As this transition takes place, Johansson’s gaze turns inward, observing herself as a part of humanity for the first time. She befriends a man and stays at his home. She observes her body in a mirror, tracing it lightly with her hands. Her expression is softer, less laser-focused on others as she becomes one of them. The beginnings of her emotional transformation make the ultimate fate of the alien even more tragic.

Image via A24

Advertisement

At the end of Under the Skin, the alien ends up in the woods where she’s molested by a logger. She runs away from him, but he catches up and attempts to sexually assault her. In the struggle, he peels away her skin, revealing a hard, gray, featureless body beneath. The body beneath is like a mask, hard and unchanging, illegible. The body is not sexed, more like a rough bronze statue than a person. In his horror, the logger lights the alien on fire, and the film ends. Her integration into human subjectivity makes her subject to human paradigms of violence and victimhood. It is her openness to human goodness that puts her at risk of suffering from human cruelty.

Under the Skin is a profound meditation on embodied human experience, compassion, connection, and the ways people fail at those same things. The film is a visual feat, with wonderful, bizarre sequences recalled in newer films like The Substance. The guerrilla film-making and director Jonathan Glazer’s vision are both phenomenal, and the film wouldn’t work without those components. But Under the Skin rides on Johansson’s performance, which is suitably minimalist, like the rest of the film, allowing space for real tenderness and curiosity to bleed through. Without Johansson’s incredible talent and intuition as a performer, Under the Skin wouldn’t be nearly as creepy, touching, or devastating as it is.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

April 4, 2014

Runtime

108 minutes

Advertisement

Director

Jonathan Glazer

Advertisement

Writers

Jonathan Glazer, Walter Campbell

Advertisement

• 
• 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Fans are waiting with bated breath for Amazon MGM Studios to announce which actor has been cast as the new James Bond; the latest shortlist includes frontrunners Jack Lowden, Callum Turner, Jacob Elordi, Jack O’Connell, and Jack Barton. Gary Oldman, who stars alongside Lowden in the hit Apple TV series Slow Horses, recently let slip that the studio may have already finalized the actor for the role, but is waiting for the right time to announce his name to the world. Meanwhile, former Bond star Pierce Brosnan had nothing but positive vibes for whoever will play the iconic character next. Brosnan starred as Bond in four movies, and recently returned with the second season of his blockbuster Paramount+ crime drama series MobLand. The show’s return nudged audiences to revisit one of Brosnan’s four Bond movies, which recently surged up the streaming charts.

The movie in question is widely regarded as Brosnan’s finest hour as the suave British spy. His tenure began in 1995 and ended in 2002. His successor, Daniel Craig, played Bond in five films across 15 years, from 2006 to 2021. The gap between two Bond eras has never been as long as the one we’re experiencing now. Although Denis Villeneuve has been selected to direct the next Bond movie, it would be safe to bet that the project probably won’t land in theaters before 2028. This would further extend the gap between two Bond eras to seven years. All that fans of the legendary franchise can do until then is to revisit their favorite past installments.

One of the Most Beloved James Bond Movies Is Having a Streaming Resurgence

And that’s exactly what they’re doing now. According to FlixPatrol, the 1995 classic GoldenEye is among the most watched movies on the domestic Vudu chart. The movie marked Brosnan’s debut as Bond, and helped usher the franchise away from its Cold War roots. Also featuring Sean Bean and Famke Janssen, the film was directed by Martin Campbell, who returned to direct Craig’s first Bond movie, Casino Royale. GoldenEye was a box-office hit, grossing more than $355 million worldwide against a reported budget of $60 million. The movie now holds a “Certified Fresh” 81% score on the aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, where the consensus reads, “The first and best Pierce Brosnan Bond film, GoldenEye brings the series into a more modern context, and the result is a 007 entry that’s high-tech, action-packed, and urbane.” You can watch the movie on Vudu, and stay tuned to Collider for more updates.

Advertisement

Release Date

Advertisement

November 16, 1995

Runtime

130 minutes

Advertisement

Writers

Ian Fleming, Michael France, Jeffrey Caine, Bruce Feirstein

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Parasite (2019), written and directed by Korean filmmaker Bong Joon Ho, took the world by storm upon its release, captivating audiences and critics alike with its gripping story, social commentary, and eye-catching cinematography. It cemented its status as one of the most significant films of the 2010s when it became the first non-English language film, as well as the first South Korean film, to win Best Picture at the 2020 Academy Awards. While Parasite may be his most recognizable and accoladed film, Joon Ho has actually delved into the mystery, thriller, and crime genres before.

Released in 2009 and now available to stream free on YouTube, Mother was Bong Joon Ho’s fourth feature film as a director and seventh as a writer. It follows an unnamed widow, the titular “Mother” (Kim Hye-ja) and her son Do-joon (Won Bin), who has an intellectual disability. When Do-joon is accused of murdering a local girl, Mother conducts her own investigation to find the real killer in order to clear her son’s name, but the situation soon spirals out of control and concludes in a shocking twist. With a tight script and great performances, it’s a film that deserves just as much recognition as any American thriller or Joon Ho’s more famous work.

‘Mother’ is a Masterclass in Screenwriting

Image credit via CJ Entertainment.

Just like Parasite, one of the most impressive aspects of Mother is Joon Ho’s writing. Mother’s search for the killer unfolds like a detective serial, but much like the best Hitchcock films, the audience also learns just as much about the main character as they do about the case, After Do-joon is arrested and charged with the murder of local girl Moon Ah-jung, Mother breaks into the house of Do-joon’s friend, Jin-tae (Jin Goo), as she believes that he committed the crime and framed her son. However, Jin-tae has a strong alibi, so Mother teams up with him to question people in town about Ah-jung, leading to Mother recovering the girl’s cell phone. Every beat in the investigation is evenly paced, makes logical sense, and shows (rather than tells) how dedicated Mother is to her son, raising the stakes and human interest of the story.

Warning: spoilers ahead.As Mother’s investigation progresses, her aforementioned dedication is tested, and the story’s overarching themes come into focus. One of the photos on the phone matches the description of a local junk collector whom Do-joon saw on the night Ah-jung was killed. Mother goes to speak with the junk collector, and he tells her that he remembers seeing Do-joon accidentally kill Ah-jung after throwing a rock at her during an argument. To prevent him from going to the authorities, Mother kills the junk collector by beating him with a wrench and setting his house on fire. Some time later, the police inform Mother that Do-joon is being released because they have caught the “real killer,” another local boy. Rather than turn on her son, Mother says nothing to the authorities. The local boy is sent to jail for a crime he didn’t commit, and Mother uses her acupuncture kit to make herself forget about the crimes that she and her son have committed.

While she may have started her investigation with pure intentions, Mother’s behavior over the course of the story escalates to the point where she ends up committing more crimes than her son to protect him, even though he is actually responsible for the death of an innocent girl. When the credits roll, the viewer is left to decide for themselves if Mother was justified in her actions, if there are limitations to the bond between parent and child, if they themselves would—or should—do the same to protect their own family. These questions don’t have easy answers, and ensure that Mother lingers in the back of your mind long after you’ve seen it.

A Powerful Lead Performance Makes ‘Mother’ a Must-See

Image credit via CJ Entertainment.

The script for Mother may be expertly crafted, but it wouldn’t be as gripping as it is without an incredible performance of the titular character by Korean actress Kim Hye-ja. Famous in her home country for her decades-long television career, she had a longtime fan in Bong Joon Ho, and he actually met with her several times while drafting Mother. With no one else in the running for the role, Hye-ja got a personalized opportunity to showcase the breadth of her talent, and she delivered on every count. Whether her character is setting a house on fire or having dinner with her son, Hye-ja authentically portrays the role of a mother devoted to the point of no return. Joon Ho has expressed several times that without Hye-ja, Mother wouldn’t exist, and it’s clear to see why upon viewing.

The most interesting element of Mother‘s lead performance is Hye-ja’s ability to convey her character’s state of mind with her facial expressions. In the final scene, when Mother realizes that Do-joon knows what she did to the junk collector, she walks away from him through a crowded bus station. In a continuous thirty-second shot, Mother’s facial expression changes countless times, somehow simultaneously showing anger, sadness, confusion, and relief. Her eyes seemingly alternate between tear-filled and dry; she looks as if she’s about to cry, then about to smile, then cry again. Mother’s internal emotional turmoil is made external, explicitly and elegantly so, because of the choices that Hye-ja makes as a performer. The emotional climax of the entire movie hinges on Hye-ja’s acting to convey what’s happening to the audience, and the fact she is able to do so without uttering a single word is a testament to her talent. It’s a performance that rightfully earned Hye-ja multiple awards and nominations and undoubtedly should earn a viewer’s time to sit down and see for themselves.

Advertisement

Release Date

May 28, 2009

Advertisement

Director

Bong Joon Ho

Writers

Advertisement

Bong Joon Ho, Eun-kyo Park

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement