Hallo-Watch: Christine (1983)

Watched:  10/09/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  Third?  Fourth?

Director:  John Carpenter

This spooky season, I'm mostly trying to check off movies I should have already watched - also movies I haven't seen since I was a kid, so I don't remember the films well at all.  This isn't that - but Jamie had not seen Christine (1983), and I kind of consider it worth a viewing.  So it's her version of that, I suppose.

I read the Stephen King novel when I was in 6th grade.  But I didn't see the movie until some time later - maybe when I was fifteen.  I've seen it a couple of times since, including in a hotel room during a  conference over a decade ago.  It's a bizarre movie - how compelling should a movie about a haunted car be?  And yet.

Christine is a John Carpenter movie, and - I think - should be included in consideration of his run of solid work there in the 1980's.  I know Carpenter seems grumpy about all of the movies he did as a work-for-hire director, but the pairing of his sensibilities with King really does work.  I'd love to see someone re-do Christine without having to strip it down for a movie audience and make it as weird as the book, but as a movie - separate from the book but using the core of it - I think this movie works as a kind of horror, just not the horror of "oh no!  A car will get me!" that you might guess on first blush.

To me, the horror of the movie is not so much about a killer, possessed car - which, fair enough (that is a problem!).  Instead, it's about helplessly watching a friend go down due to a change in their life, be it addiction, a toxic partner, or some other obsession.  This is two lifelong pals who went two different directions, and one of them goes off the deep end, and the other has to deal with the fallout as that person hurts other people.  

Hallo-Watch: Phantasm (1979)

Watched:  10/08/2024

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Don Coscarelli

I didn't know anything about Phantasm (1979) coming in, despite the fact it's a horror staple and much beloved.  And that's a bit odd.  Generally you get the idea.  There's a chainsaw massacre in Texas.  A Freddy.  A Jason.  All I knew about this one was "there's a gangly older gentleman and a flying sphere with knives on it".  How those two things were employed, I could not guess.

Perhaps taking a page from the semi-psychedelic horror of the preceding decade and the impact of European horror making its way to the US - think Suspiria - it opened the doors for horror to show that part of horror could be the confusion of the audience - that the audience is also in a place of confusion, just as much as the protagonist, as the movie runs its course.

The approach gives the movie an odd, dreamy feeling - where the edges never quite match-up and attempts to force the narrative into a sensible pattern are a bit useless.  It's sort of about a teen/ tweenage boy who has lost his parents and whose older brother is now saddled with his care, just as the brother is set to go out into the world.  While the brother and his friends seek female companionship and go about the business of young adults, the younger brother, terrified of being alone, follows at a distance.  

It seems the mortuary in town (Dunsmuir House, famous from this, A View to a Kill, Burnt Offerings and other films...) is where a tall man and a bunch of cloaked dwarves live, and are maybe murdering people?  Or weirder?

They involve their friend, Reggie - an ice cream man with a terrible look - and try to unravel the mystery, especially as their parents were sent to the same mortuary, and as they discover what the mortuary is doing with the dead bodies... * they decide to take it all down, as one does.  Because this is a horror movie where the heroes are well armed, including the under-16 kid.

I was surprised how much of the dialog and reactions of the characters in the movie felt... natural.  Like, this isn't canned dialog or reactions to just push the movie along.  People do things that make sense in a movie that is defying sense and logic, and it really helps.  Like - if you're going to break into a place with potentially murderous beings - do bring a gun if you can get it.  Don't just go creeping around hoping for the best.  And, the kid is oddly sensible - they don't make him an idiot just because he's under 20 years old.

That said - I did spend the first hour of the film waiting for the plot to kick in before realizing what kind of movie I was watching,  when my brain said "oh... this is one of those movies".  And while I enjoyed it up to that point, once I realized "yeah, this thing is just not caring if there's any internal logic" it was even better.

I'm too old for this to be my favorite thing, but if I'd seen it as a kid or teen, I think I would have really dug it for going all-out to be a weird movie and not bother with any answers.  Scenes that don't go anywhere, characters who make no sense... it's all good in dream-land.  I don't know if I ever felt anything was scary beyond being frightened I had no idea what was happening, but it still had a nice creep-factor from the very start.

I was a bit surprised they wholesale stole the gom jabbar, and that the end of Nightmare on Elm Street is essentially the same as this movie.  But, whatevs.  

*turning them into slave dwarves?

Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985)

Watched:  10/07/2024

Format:  Midnight Pulp on Amazon

Viewing:  First?

Director:  Stuart Gordon

In my post on From Beyond, I said I'd previously seen Re-Animator (1985), but in watching this - I had not actually seen this movie.  I'm wondering if I inadvertently watched the sequel.  Or not enough of the movie to actually remember it.  We'll find out when I take in the sequel.

This movie is chaotic, gory, fun, and speaks volumes about someone's ability to convince actors to walk around naked.  It's funny, bizarre, and I dug it.

A brilliant young scientist loses his mentor in Switzerland, coming to ye olde Miskatonic Medical School where he moves in with nice-guy med student, Dan, who is sleeping with the dean's daughter (Barbara Crampton, natch).  Herbert, the brilliant fellow, has invented a formula for bringing dead bodies back to life - demonstrating with Dan's pet cat (who, Herbert likely killed himself).  Meanwhile, Dr. Hill (Bob Gale) has made his career by stealing Herbert's mentor's work, and Herbert publicly calls him on it.  

Soon, chaos ensues as they try out Herbert's formula down in the morgue, and then on someone they didn't intend to be a useful body.  

I dunno.  It's like trying to describe a riot in detail.  There's a lot going on.

Everyone gets their assignments.  Jeffrey Combs is great as Herbert, Bob Gale unhinged as Dr. Hill, Robert Sampson all in as Dean Halsey.  Crampton is lively as Megan Halsey.  

This movie is just crazy nonsense for 90 minutes, and I dug it.  I think as a kid this would have spooked the crap out of me.  As a jaded adult, I'm just sorta chuckling to myself about "wow, they're doing this" as Dr. Hill's decapitated body lugs around his head.  

I'm not sure there's a deeper meaning in the film than "whoops... do not reanimate the dead!" which - lesson learned, amigos!  But it doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the general tone and can-do-horror spirit of the thing.

The FX aren't as cool as From Beyond, but for something done on a budget, they really knock it out of the park.  Maybe minus the cat puppet, which is just good stuff.

Hallowatch: Ghostwatch (1992)

Watched:  10/04/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing;  Second

Director:  Lesley Manning

I'd already seen this movie back in April of this year, and you can read my thoughts from 5.5 months ago here.

I basically wanted to make Jamie, Dug and K watch it, and I have no idea what anyone thought at the end.  It's also not the "The Dog Who Saved Halloween" suckage we usually put on if we're going to do a watch party.  

Personally, knowing what's coming, I enjoyed seeing all the pieces come together.  If you're going to do this kind of thing - where you try to make something look "real" - filmmakers really need to review Ghostwatch (1992).  Which really does benefit from not trying to be a period piece, but reflect the idea that "it's happening now".

On a second viewing, I liked seeing how they set some things up, leaving a trail of breadcrumbs that does work - but on a first viewing seems like random stuff you're hearing as you go along - which totally makes sense.  Visually - it absolutely works.  It's all practical, so there's no reason to ever get taken out of what you're watching (see: Late Night With The Devil for a counter example) and maybe that's a lesson to horror movie makers?  I know one of the scariest, to me, movies is The Haunting, and there's approximately zero FX of any kind in it.

Anyhoo... a fun Halloween viewing.  Now on Amazon for, like, $2.00.

  

Hallo-Horror Watch: From Beyond (1986)

Watched:  10/05/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First (all the way through)

Director:  Stuart Gordon

Thanks to seeing half of this movie in the mid-1980's, in later years when it came up in classes, I'd already know what the Pineal Gland is.  And, probably, set all sorts of toggles in my head thanks to Barbara Crampton.

There's no era that doesn't have it's own flavors of horror, and 1980's horror is best remembered for Freddy, Jason, etc...  But out there, Stuart Gordon was making stuff like Re-Animator and busily creating wild, weird stuff that was based more on concepts like HP Lovecraft for a modern audience than stalking teenagers.  I wasn't much of a horror kid so much as I was interested in, like, The Wolfman.  And I know I watched this movie for a bit sometime in the 1980's - right up to the hospital sequence, I think - because I don't remember that or the ending.  So I'm calling this my first full viewing.

This is based on Lovecraft's work of the same name, so it's generally about being unsettling, deeply weird and... madness.  Gotta have some madness.

From Beyond (1986) is about a young scientist (Jeffrey Coombs) who is working with a strange but brilliant scientist, Dr. Edward Pretorious (Ted Sorel) - and they manage to basically match the vibrations of our plane with that of one we really shouldn't have ever seen, full of archaic creatures and strange monsters.  Something goes wrong, and the young scientist is accused of murdering Pretorius, but his story of alien creatures killing Pretorius better matches the evidence (a bloodless, decapitated body) than "he got him with an axe".  Psychiatrist Dr. McMichaels (Crampton) is brought in, and wants to see what the guy was up to, so she works with him under police guard (Ken Foree!) to re-do the experiment.

What Gordon thought the effects of the "field" generated by the device were is up to speculation.  For some reason it seems to make the young scientist kind of crazy and his pineal gland grows into a weird, prehensile thing I'm sure is supposed to be phallic.  Crampton's character becomes...  sexy.  And poor Ken Foree just gets bit by a jellyfish.

I shall spoil no further.

The movie is weirdly fun for what it is.  I assume it kind of freaked me out as a kid with its mix of body horror, madness, dash of sex, some S&M for no reason, and no clear heroes in the thing.  But knowing Lovecraft a bit now, this is a reasonable adaptation of his vibe.  The special FX, make-up, etc... are all very good, minus a shot or two.  So if you dig old school practical and optical FX, this is a good one.  And the ideas of the film are appropriately chilling, with an ending that feels right.

Anyway - it was kind of great to see this as an adult and with more of film, literary and life experience under my belt.   

Vincent Price HalloWatch: Tales of Terror (1962)

Watched:  10/04/2024

Format:  DVD

Viewing:  First!

Director:  Roger Corman

This movie was SO GOOD.

I don't know what I was expecting, but I'd just never gotten around to Tales of Terror (1962) - an anthology of three Edgar Allen Poe short story adaptations - and I regret I'd never watched it until now.  But when looking at Vincent Price movies, I often look to see who else is in them, because Price clearly loved goofing with specific pals, and this one has Peter Lorre, Basil Rathbone, and the dlightful  Joyce Jameson, who I know from A Comedy of Terrors.

As an anthology, it lets Price play three different characters - showcasing the man's versatility (he could play it all!) while also letting him overplay a bit to suit the needs of each role.  The first segment is "Morella" in which he plays a widower whose daughter returns to him - sent away as a baby after her mother died due to complications from child birth.  In "The Black Cat", we get The Cask of Amontillado with Lorre walling up Price.  In the third - a grisly tale of mesmerism with Basil Rathbone trying to manipulate the will of a dying man and use his horrible power to force Debra Paget into marriage.

Rather than get into three separate stories, what I'd say is - to me, this is when horror is at its best.  The very ideas in the story are chilling.  This is not a surprise as it's Poe, right?  He's sort of the guy for this.  But by keeping it brief, as Poe did, they can stay focused, not worry about filling a movie with movie things.  Love interests, arcs for everyone, etc...  So the actors can really lock in and push toward the themes and ideas, and we know this works - or did - from shows like The Twilight Zone.   

So the ideas - the absolute horror of a mother who *is* furious her baby killed her, the terror of being walled up alive, of being trapped against your will between life and death...  it's good stuff.  

Look, you'll see me bitching about jump scares a lot.  And... they're fine.  They work.  So does walking up behind an old lady at church and blowing an air horn (do not do this).  Of course that stuff works, and sometimes it's fun and I enjoy it.  But it's also not what sticks with me.  Maybe the *vibe* of the movie sticks with me, but give me someone realizing they're all living in a horrendously fucked up situation already, and it's about to come to a head in a weird and horrible way, and I'm in!  And if you can do that without, you know, also making something go "bang!" all of a sudden to I go "tee hee hee", all the better.  

This movie, like some other stuff from Corman's AIP branch, looks pretty good!  The sets are better than necessary, the costumes pretty slick, the color that weird "we won't pay for technicolor" garish, and we have Debra Paget (who is still with us!), so we know to put our money where it counts.

Anyway - people will think you need darkness and limbs twisting and wet hair on females to get terror, but to me - you just need the right concept and the right actors willing to go nuts on screen.  And Corman got that.   I literally applauded after each sequence.  Just perfect chunks of horror to take you into the Halloween season.

Halloween Dark Universe Watch: The Mummy (2017) - the one with Tom Cruise

Watched:  10/02/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  First

Director:  Alex Kurtzman

She had style!

She had flair!

She was there!

That's how she became... the Mummy!

This is an amazingly wrong-headed and bad movie.  I really don't want to write it up, because it's going to take forever.  It's problems are legion, and it's astounding to think Universal went so hard at the "Dark Universe" concept and then this was their maiden flight.  A maiden flight which took off, did a loop-de-loop before crashing back into the airport, and which immediately killed the entire concept.  Thank God.

If you need a refresher:  in the wake of the success of Marvel's Avengers movies making a billion dollars each, Universal looked to see what IP they had laying around to exploit.  And, since the silent era, Universal has had classic horror in their stable.  Dracula, Frankenstein, Bride of, Wolfman, The Mummy, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Invisible Man... all Universal. What Universal decided to do was create a world in which these creatures co-exist and... fight crime?  I don't know.  And this movie didn't say, despite the fact all they do is stand around and explain things to the detriment of plot, character, and enjoyment of the very thing you're watching. 

There was plenty of precedent.  By the 1940's, the sequels had been bubbling up, and we did see Wolfman meet Frankenstein, and all of the monsters show up in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (which was, obvs, a horror-comedy, but featured the characters as audiences knew them in the straight movies).

Around 2015-16,Universal signed with major stars and were going to do this.  Tom Cruise!  Johnny Depp! Angelina Jolie! Russell Crowe!  Utterly missing the fact the stars of the originals were barely the actors - it was the concept.  They did so, so much press about this, and everyone kind of said "...why would you do this press?  Just make the movies."  But, nope, so high on their own supply, they ran into the streets to tell people about it, and then it blew up in their faces immediately, like Wile E. Coyote with dynamite.

The Mummy (2017) is the Tom Cruise-starring action-monster-not-horror vehicle that took the name and a few concepts from the original The Mummy movie and the subsequent Universal sequels, and turns it into a very expensive actioner devoid of plot, characters, charisma or joy.  Or fear.  It's a painful slog through scenes shot without enough light to ever see anything (Dark Universe!  HA!), wherein you can feel Cruise's people touching up a script that's already overstuffed, but with dollar-store baloney.

Hallowatch: The 'Burbs (1989)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube (it's streaming free.  Go figure)

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Joe Dante

Selection:  Jamie

I saw this one in the theater back in the day, and then on VHS and cable after.  But it's been some time since I watched this movie.  And while I liked the movie, boy - does it land now in a different way after living on the same suburban street since 2006.  

My memory was correct that this movie was poorly received upon its release, and it's funny - I think it would do fairly well now with reviewers no longer cloistered in urban centers and insisting on certain lifestyles which would, frankly, make them miss the joke of the movie except as a faint echo of their streets as kids.  Criticism and reviews play an important role, but I think this is just one where the vibe of how the curators of public opinion missed the mark, and it's not a mistake the movie is well-remembered 35 years later.

The film isn't quite a horror film, it is a comedy - and the whole thing feels very Joe Dante.  There's a hyper-realism to the the suburban setting that keeps the movie with one foot firmly planted in realism (the world Carrie Fisher is trying to anchor) while nuttiness abounds.  And Tom Hanks is our POV into what it is to move back and forth between those worlds.

Kris Kristofferson Has Merged With The Infinite

The great Kris Kristofferson - actor, musician, bad-ass - has passed at 88.  

Hallowatch: The Midnight Hour (1985)

Watched:  09/29/2024

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jack Bender

SimonUK has already delved into Halloween movies, and having had already seen everything over the years, he found an ABC TV movie from 1985.  That, in the spirit of 1980's, apparently originally aired the day after Halloween at the height of Reaganism (I did not like how TV was run in the 1980's).  

If I ever know The Midnight Hour (1985) existed - and it is likely that in 1985, I absolutely did not as I was watching mostly Mr. Ed and GI Joe - I have since forgotten it.  And I am pretty sure I would have remembered this.  

The basic idea is one that pops up from time-to-time, it's Halloween and someone unleashes dark magic along the way, meaning - in this movie - zombies, werewolves, vampires, etc...  appear in a Massachusetts town.  And, they sort of take over and turn folks into monsters along the way.  Minus one guy who looks a lot like John Hughes, but isn't him.

The movie has a weird clutch of actors you know or say "really?" about.  Kevin McCarthy and Dick Van Patten each show up for a few scenes as parents.  Levar Burton plays the 1980's staple of the guy who thinks "tonight, me and my lady will finally do it".  The lady is played by Shari Belafonte (daughter of Harry) is pretty good as his ladyfriend whose family is tied to witchcraft in the town going back 200 years.  Jonelle Allen, TV staple, plays her ancestor.  Peter Deluise is in it in a thankless role.  Kurtwood Smith gets two scenes as the town cop.  Cindy Morgan (RIP) plays the teacher who is... sleeping with Peter Deluise and shows off publicly?  The 1980's were wild.  This is a TV movie!

And Wolfman Jack, who never saw a gig he couldn't cash in on, is the DJ on the ever present local radio.  And, btw, the soundtrack on this is surprisingly solid, including Shari Belafonte trying to create a Halloween single called "Get Dead".  But otherwise, oldies hits popular in the 1980's.

The movie is *fun* rather than scary and has a storyline where I'm pretty sure our John Hughes stand-in/ hero bangs a ghost who looks like Betty Cooper.  Again, the 1980's were a different time.

What's curious is how much money it looks like this thing cost.  TV movies used to be fairly expensive affairs, and this is no exception.  It also is basically no better or worse than 80% of the movies people remember fondly from the 1980's, but for some reason, this thing has terrible reviews.  Probably because of the dance sequence and lack of visible boobs.  

It's fine.  I liked the light tone and the wistful approach taken to the romance storyline.  And that, basically, the townsfolk lose right up to the end, without even really knowing what's going on.  Also, it's free on YouTube and does nail the Halloween vibe.  A little spooky, a little horror-ish, a little silly, a little sexy... it's all in there.  Maybe not amazing, but it works.

Vax Watch: The Fall Guy - extended cut (2024)

Watched:  09/28/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  Second

Director:  David Leitch

Huh.

So, as Hannah Waddingham was in a thing, I watched The Fall Guy (2024) in the theater back this spring.  The movie was right in the middle of the curve for me.  It was funny-ish, had decent stunts - but was basically what I figured it might be.  It had a flimsy story to hang it all on.  I like Gosling, Blunt, Waddingham, Duke and Hsu.  I can give or take Aaron Taylor-Johnson (sorry, dude), but he's good in this!

On Friday at noon, I got my COVID-booster, and felt maybe a little funky on Friday night, and then fine most of Saturday - and then in the late afternoon the effects hit me like a ton of bricks.  Unable to take in new information as we headed into evening, I decided the only thing for it was to see some stunts and have some chuckles.  I put on the Extended Cut of The Fall Guy, now streaming on Peacock.  And - what do you know?  The movie was literally much better.  

It became pretty clear to me that the vibe director Leitch was going for had been cut down to smithereens in someone's drive to make this movie much shorter.  Suddenly, the plot of the movie felt like it gelled.  The characters aren't speaking in bullet points and a lot of the humor and meta-ness of the movie is restored.  Character-based gags make more sense, and because what was supposed to be there is there, things just work better.  We're not racing through the movie so we can get in another showing that day. Ie:  The pacing is, in my opinion, fixed.

In short - the theatrical cut was a hatchet job. and I cannot begin to guess how and why that happened the way it did.  

I don't know how often I'll put this movie back on, but it's a case-study in how editing impacts the intentions of a film.  Leitch clearly meant for people to really enjoy the goofy dialog, repeating gags, and character moments, and a lot of what gets restored is that stuff.  We still get the very cool "one shots" like the opening sequence with Gosling going from his trailer to the top of the elevator and falling (sorry for spoilers, but that's the first five minutes).  But what's going on with the plot really feels more solid this time - and I think we get some additional murders that weren't there in the theatrical.

Anyhow, if the movie wasn't for you the first time, sorry.  I don't think this will fix it.  I do think if you were kinda lukewarm on this, it turns it up a notch.  If you liked it (I did), huh.  You may like it more.

I like Waddingham in the giant glasses. Very cute.

Raimi Watch: Darkman (1990)

Watched:  09/27/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Sam Raimi

Darkman (1990) was released just days after I moved from Austin to North Houston.  I was 15.  I'd never heard of Sam Raimi or seen Evil Dead.  It was the end of the 1980's, when we had movie ratings, but nobody really cared about using them for keeping kids out - it was more of a promise of what a movie could contain.  R meant a chance for gore, violence and boobs.  Maybe a few F-bombs.  

Mostly, I was interested in what was sold as a superhero movie, of an all-new character who had an edge to him.  And then a very weird, very cool movie unspooled in front of me.  

Darkman was thus, I think, my introduction to Sam Raimi, Liam Neeson and Frances McDormand.*  My memory is that I thought the camera work and editing were insane, Neeson had fully thrown himself into the role - which seemed like a lot, and McDormand made for a great love interest as a brainier-than-average "the girl" role in one of these movies.   

Dame Maggie Smith Merges With The Infinite

Dame Maggie Smith, who was famous for so many reasons, all good!, has passed.  She was 89.

Smith managed the terrific feat of becoming more and more famous and iconic as she hit her later years, starring in international hits like Harry Potter and Downton Abbey.  But she also appeared in popular films like The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel in the past 15 years, was in the mid-90's famed Richard III as the Duchess of York, in Hook as Granny Wendy and led the 1969 film The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie as the titular character.  

I saw her first in Clash of the Titans, because I was an 80's kid who liked monsters.  And I recall her in things later, like Gosford Park and A Room With a View, which is probably where my mind goes when I think of her.

She'll be missed, but, dang.  That's a legacy. 

Streaming Superhero Media This Week: Penguin, Agatha, ElectraWoman and DynaGirl

Last week, DC and Marvel sort of went head-to-head releasing two very different shows, but with some interesting similarities.  Meanwhile, Jamie was scrolling my Amazon account, and Amazon (correctly) alerted me that the 1976 Krofft Superstars show, ElectraWoman and DynaGirl is fully available - and in excellent condition.

DC's take was to put out a very adult-oriented mob-show about what seems to be the rise of Oswald Cobb(lepott), better known as The Penguin in Bat-circles.  It's the spin-off from the successful The Batman movie, in which famed handsome-man Colin Farrell put on 40 pounds of latex and a fatsuit to play a character very, very well, that some critics (Paul) have called out for being a role any character actor in LA could have nailed.  And maybe he's not wrong.  

It's a show that's a wild take that has nothing to do with the source material, uses the name of the character  with only minimal care for the comics, and is doing it's own thing while using the DC label.  I do not expect Dr. Fate to show up and help out.

90's Watch: Bowfinger (1999)

Watched:  09/21/2024

Format:  Max?  I don't know.

Viewing:  Third

Director:  Frank Oz

Selection:  Jamie

Two things to begin with:  (1) This movie doesn't get discussed enough.  It's really funny.  (2) I have zero idea why they didn't call this movie "Chubby Rain".  It's the funnier, better title.

There were a lot of movies about movie-making in the go-go 90's.  Indie filmmakers couldn't get enough of themselves in the 90's indie boom, and most of those movies were not good.  But at the end of the 1990's, Steve Martin and Frank Oz put together a genuinely funny movie about making movies and the people who scrape by at the bottom of the Hollywood machine of the day.  And while it's silly and I doubt has anything to do with reality, it's good stuff.

Bowfinger (1999) has a great cast, with Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy playing two roles, Terence Stamp, Heather Graham, Christine Baranski, Jamie Kennedy and a shockingly sober 1999 Robert Downey Jr.  I hope filming was as fun as it looks like it was, because it seems like everyone is just dicking around having a good time.  

Hamilton/ Ape Watch: King Kong Lives (1986)

Watched:  09/20/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing;  4th?

Director:  John Guillermin/ Charles McCracken

After watching Dante's Peak, I was wanting to see another Linda Hamilton film and talked Dug and K into watching King Kong Lives (1986), a move I am certain they regret.  

As a sort of low-level monster-kid of the 1980's, I was thrilled to get a chance to see a *new* King Kong movie, and so went to see the flick in the theater.  I loved the *idea* of King Kong, but had only seen pieces of the 1976 movie and none of the original.  But read a Kong book to two and had the basic idea down.  

And, this movie was part of my realization that not all movies are good.  Like, you go to the movies as a kid, and if you can follow the plot, it feels like a winner.*  But around this time, I was starting to understand not every movie is "good" or was made because it was a work of art.  And, right about the time I saw Kong and Lady Kong making goo-goo eyes at each other, I began realizing this movie was not destined to be the classic its predecessors had been.

JLC Watch: A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

Watched:  09/19/2024

Format:  AFS Cinema

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Charles Crichton

Simon and I decided to catch this one again at the cinema.  

I've always liked A Fish Called Wanda (1988), and while some items in the film aged poorly, it's still a very, very good comedy with some screwball bits that just kill.  I don't know how objective I am about the film as I saw it so young and, at the time, felt like I was watching something aimed, for once, at adults rather than an all-ages comedy, like I was used to.  I mean, this isn't far removed, chronologically, from the early Police Academy franchise, which is what an R-Rated comedy looked like in the US that I had previously been watching.

Yet, the film is intensely silly.  Everyone is firing on all cylinders, enough so that you can't single out anyone in the film, just your favorite bits or scenes.  The entire sequence in which Wanda sneaks into Archie's house to seduce him is *gold* and should be studied by academics. But it's not aimed at 13 year-olds.  The comedy comes from a different place that knows goofy, witty, sexy and fun without resorting to feeling like "insert funny sad trombone sound here" is appropriate.

Si and I saw the movie in a shockingly full theater for an 8:30 PM Thursday showing of a movie you can stream from your phone right now.  It was a mix of clear die-hards for the movie and people who'd never seen it, I'm guessing, from the gasps and laughing at surprise bits in the film.  And, all ages.  20-something hipsters and Grandmas who likely have seen it 25 times.

Was JLC a big reason why I came out to the theater for the movie?  You know that's the case.  But I had never seen the movie on the big screen, and or with a crowd, and it was a delight to do so.

Here's the Podcast from years ago when Jamie, Si and I talked about the film.

Noir/ Joan Watch: Female on the Beach (1955)

Watched:  09/18/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Joseph Pevney

Y'all know I'm all in for Joan Crawford, and I think Jamie's a fan, too.  So, we put this one on from Criterion.  

There have to be papers written about Joan in this era and who her movies were aimed at.  She'd been kicking around since the Silent Era, was a huge star for a spell in the 1930's, then lost her box office mojo and was declared "box office poison", then had a massive come back in the mid-1940's with Mildred Pierce (recommended).  She came back around aged 39 - something to cheer for.  And she really is great in that movie.  And then she enjoyed real work for some time - including into 1955, when this movie came out.

I am sure there was an audience that knew and loved her from their youth and identified with her as they aged.  Further, she kept managing to play the very-much-desired woman here at age 49, when Hollywood still thought once you hit 28, you might as well be a grandma in movies.  But women attend movies, and I suspect - based on the female-forward stories (but still very much of the politics of the 1950's) - that her audience were women, and these thrillers served that loyal fanbase.

Coppola Watch: The Outsiders (1983) - the full novel cut

Watched:  09/16/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Selection:  Jamie

I've been meaning to see this movie *since* 1983.  But over time, I'd heard mixed things and I came to know what the story was, anyway, via cultural osmosis.  My one memory from when it hit cable in the mid-1980's was being told "you wouldn't like it" - and I genuinely don't know why I was told that at the time, probably aged 9 or 10.

When I was 11, the kid across the street came over while me and some others were sitting around in my front yard and asked us to "rumble".  I now assume they'd just seen this movie and were inspired.  We did not rumble.  We did ask them what movie they pulled "rumble" from.*  I think I now have the answer.

The movie is now mostly famous as the movie that launched careers.  All of the leads went on to become staples and household names for the generation that came up on the movie - it's sort of ground zero for a few brat packers.  Patrick Swayze, Tom Cruise, Emilio Estevez, Ralph Macchio, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Diane Lane - and starring C. Thomas Howell as Ponyboy.  For those of us so-inclined, it also has an appearance by Michelle Meyrink.**  Sophia Coppola shows up for literally 30 seconds.

Lauren Bacall at 100

 

Yesterday marked the 100th birthday of Lauren Bacall (born Betty Joan Perske), one of the greats of 20th Century cinema.  

Bacall came to fame as soon as she hit Hollywood, following a meteoric rise as a magazine model.  She famously wound up in LA somewhat by accident, noticed by the wife of Howard Hawks.  Hawks meant to send an inquiry about her, and his secretary misunderstood and had her sent out to LA.  

She was placed into a major studio picture immediately by Hawks (who was managing her career) and her introduction to Humphrey Bogart made her one half of of one of the most storied romances in cinema history.  

I'll be honest, I've never seen her less than great in anything.  Bacall was a natural beauty, sure, but she was also a natural talent from day one.  To Have and Have Not, her first picture, makes her seem like a seasoned pro, and she was, I believe, 19 at the time of filming (with the apparent world-weary maturity of a 40 year old).

We think she's great here at The Signal Watch, and are so very glad that Mr. Hawks' staff made their error and got Bacall into the movies.  Now get out there and watch Key Largo.

1930's Watch: Dead End (1937)

Watched:  09/15/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  William Wyler

After seeing Sylvia Sydney - and quite liking her - in Merrily We Go To Hell, we decided to check out one of her many other films.  Amazon lists things like "Oscar Nominations x4" now as you're scrolling, and as Dead End (1937) had 4 Oscar noms, we gave it a spin.

The credits on this thing are bonkers.  Directed by William Wyler, it was a movie based on a play - and the screenplay was by Lillian Hellman.  Then the cast list came up.  Sylvia Sidney, Joel McCrae, Humphrey Bogart, Claire Trevor, Ward Bond.... not a bad line-up.  

The credits done, the movie then moved over a multi-story, gigantic set depicting the titular "dead end" of the film as a New York street runs into the river and where a gigantic high-class apartment building had gone in amongst tenement buildings - gentrification of a rough part of town (and based on a real building, in a real dead end in New York, 53rd Street and the East River.  I believe FDR Drive now runs through the location of the play and film.)

The set has a river, restaurants, etc... all built, the intersection feeling as real and immersive as anything I think I've seen from the era.  While it's not Intolerance, it's a massive set that's as accurate as possible.  

Kurosawa Rewatch: Yojimbo (1961)

Watched: 09/12/2024

Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Akira Kurosawa

Well, back in May, I watched this movie for the first time.  

It's been a long time since I've watched the same movie twice in the same year.  Or, at least, I don't do it often anymore.  There's too much out there, I guess.  

Anyway - I really liked this one the first time, and that was true again on a second viewing.  

John Cassaday Merges With The Infinite

For years, I've had a Superman comic on my wall in a frame.  It was a curious moment in comics history - and/ or Superman history.  A much ballyhooed signing of a popular television and movie writer to the title Superman had gone south and the writer had basically walked off the book.  A new writer - a local writer! - came in and took over Superman and... saved the day (thanks, Chris Roberson!).  

Roberson's work was great - that's another post - but Cassaday on this cover, as he'd been covering the title for a minute, was perfect.  It was Superman, lit from below, iconic, symmetrical, lantern jawed and strong without seeming impossible - a perfect design in my book.  And to this day, looking at that cover is one of the images I have in mind when I think of the wonder that Superman can be.

John Cassaday has passed at the age of 52.

Cassaday's work is some of my favorites from my adulthood, full stop.  His character work was astounding, his lines clean, his ability to convey emotion and meaning with a gesture insane.  His interiors were gorgeous, but I assume he just made so much more money doing covers, he just had to give it up.  I don't remember the last time I saw Cassaday doing a full comic book.  

Like many who survived the 1990's comics market, I came to him through Planetary - a joint with Warren Ellis that was one of those comics you just waited months for because it took that long to come out.  I won't go into what Planetary was about, but now I wish I had the collections.  Maybe DC will reprint it all.  It was a gorgeous, insane book spanning a secret world under our own and a brilliant concept.

He drew the Captain America I suspect they looked at *hard* when Marvel Studios was pondering how they'd portray Cap (yes, I know about Hitch's work... I stand by my statement).  Chris Evans seems much more the Cap of this post 9/11 run that changed Cap forever than he seemed Ultimate Cap's pain-in-the-ass American fighting man.

And, of course, his Astonishing X-Men is legendary.  His Lone Ranger work should have been far bigger than it was.

It's always a tragedy when someone passes.  And when someone who's work you like goes.  And worse when they're just 52.  

But we're comics-folk, and in fifty years, some comic nerd is going to be waving images of Colossus in his hand, talking about Astonishing X-Men and the great John Cassaday.  Someone is going to have his Superman as their lock-screen.  Someone is going to learn that Planetary was a comic in 2002 before it was a movie series starting in 2040, and they'll stare in wonder at what the human hand and eye could do.

Your work will be missed, sir.  And if the outpouring of grief online is any indication, you will be missed by the talent you worked with, the pros you knew and the fans, who universally attest to your kindness.  Not a bad legacy.

Signal Watch Presents: Vehicles in the Media The League Once Dug

Vehicles.  In movies, television, comics and more.  

Sure, we can like characters - and do!  But they also need to get from place to place.  Captain James Tiberius Kirk would be a Starfleet Captain without the Enterprise, but it wouldn't be OG Star Trek without a groovy flying saucer, some sleek nacelles and a saucer out front scanning... always scanning.

What even *is* the Batmobile?  Why is the X-Wing so @#$%ing cool?  And are you an Airwolf stan, or are you a Blue Thunder sort of lad/ lass?  Is the Munster Koach practical?  Is Zorro's horse a vehicle or a character?

We'll talk our favorites, and we'll hopefully get into some of yours.   We'll talk a bit about the design, how the ship worked in the media in discussion, how it appealed to us, and more!  

I am sure each post will be different - and likely multi-part as we try to cover things like the Theseus' Ship that is The Enterprise.

Also - we're open to ideas.  What do you want to discuss?  How do you want to discuss it?  Let us know.

30's Watch: Merrily We Go To Hell (1932)

Watched:  09/09/2024

Format:  Library Disc

Viewing:  First

Director:  Dorothy Arzner

One nice thing about wandering a shelf of movies is that you may experience "serendipitous discovery" - the thing where you weren't looking for an item, but suddenly you are pretty sure this is what you really needed.  And what I needed was to find out what a movie from 1932 called Merrily We Go To Hell was all about.  

I recognized the male star's name - Frederic March - March was a major star staring at the end of the silent era and continuing for decades.  And the female lead's name rang a bell - Sylvia Sidney - but I couldn't say from where. 

The film was directed by Dorothy Arzner, perhaps the lone female director working in Hollywood during this period.  It was an *incredibly* strange time in the industry as the film business had employed women writers, directors, editors and more for the first twenty years of the industry, but as the Silent Era wrapped, the key roles in film showed women the door, and it's difficult to know what was lost as a result of this change.

Merrily We Go To Hell is a film about two stock 1930's movie characters - a newspaperman with aspirations of writing plays, and a rich society gal - meeting and falling in love.  At first blush, it seems it will be a comedy about heavy drinking in society circles - and it is about drinking.  But it changes tones, becoming very obviously about the evils of spirits and fancy actresses.  And, perhaps more importantly, it's about the "modern" marriage, where women allow their husbands to cheat and carry on, because they're doing so themselves.*

James Earl Jones Merges With the Infinite

Actor, icon and voice, James Earl Jones has passed.  He was 93.

There will be plenty written about Jones over the next few days.  As there should be.  

James' history is that of the 20th Century.  He made his debut on the stage and found his way to the big screen.  He went from obscurity to becoming the voice of one of the most complicated villains on the Big Screen in popular entertainment, to a Snake Cult wizard, to a King we all think of as Dad, to a spirit guide for Kevin Costner.

I still get choked up at everything the man does in Field of Dreams.  It's a perfect performance in a perfect movie.  He gave the perfect speech about baseball, and for that alone, we should be grateful.

Jones' IMDB page is interesting - he looks like a journeyman actor given his number of credits.  But he was a legend to many of us.  And for all those guest roles, he was still doing stage work.  

Jones was one of the first actors whose names I knew, alongside the rest of the Star Wars cast.  I never saw him where he was anything less than great in part after part, and I've missed him since he retired. 

Here's to someone who's been there since I first knew what a movie was, and gave us some of the greatest characters we had in film in my lifetime.  

It Blew Watch: Dante's Peak (1998)

Watched:  09/08/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Roger Donaldson

Selection:  Jamie

Here's the thing about writers freaking out about AI.  Studios have been trying to crush the artistry of scripts into predictable, soulless little packages since there was a great train robbery and someone said "yes, but what if it was a great carriage robbery?".  After all, studios are a business, not a local playhouse laboring under the idea that letting the local veterinarian have the solo in Pippin is "art".  And studios want as much guarantee of profit on an investment as possible.  

To this end, producers have routinely beaten writers until those writers produce a script that hits all the same points as the movie that made a ga-jillion dollars, maybe even a decade prior, essentially not understanding how Find/ Replace works in Word, if that's all they want to do.  AI can't take the abuse studios want to dole out, so maybe writers ARE safe- even as AI could produce a pitch that sounds convincingly real.  And would absolutely write this script without blinking a digital eyeball.

But in the 1990's, AI was limited to fantasy in Terminator movies.  And so it was in the 1990's that we received an endless roster of disaster, monster and other movies that were all basically The Abyss's lovechild with 70's disaster movies.  This is how we get scrappy, quirky travelling teams of misfits looking up to our normal, handsomer leader.  We get corporate meddlers who won't listen to pure-hearted scientists/ roughnecks, and then a finale with 45 minutes of consequences of not listening to Ed Harris/ Roy Scheider/ etc... at the start.  

Drama Kid Watch: Theater Camp (2023)

Watched:  09/07/2024

Format:  Hulu?

Viewing:  First

Director(s):  Molly Gordon, Nick Lieberman

From 8th grade through high school graduation, I was a drama kid.  And for seven weeks between my Junior and Senior year, I attended drama camp at  UT Austin.  There's a story there about how - at that camp - I realized I was, in fact, a bad actor and realized this was a high school hobby and not a career-path.  That insight was something for which I am eternally grateful, but acting, set building, lighting, etc... is what I did in high school after realizing I didn't want to play sports anymore (which I was 1000% sure even in middle school that I was not very good at).

So, while I have *that* experience, I was not part of the culture of drama kids who started much younger.  Or, certainly, New York theater kids who go out into the woods for the summer to hone their craft.  

I only know Molly Gordon, who co-writes, co-stars, co-directs from a small role on Winning Time and her outstanding performance on The Bear. Co-Star Ben Platt spent his past couple years making people mad by making a movie out of his award winning performance from Broadway in Dear Evan Hansen.  And Co-Director is nepobaby Nick Lieberman (you can look him up).  

Based on a short film involving the same people, Theater Camp (2023) is about a mix of counselors and campers at an all-summer theater camp (surprise!).   The owner of the camp (a too-briefly seen Amy Sedaris) falls into a coma and her son, American Vandal's Jimmy Tatro, is thrust to the fore to run the business side.  And the camp is failing.  Badly.

Meanwhile, the show must go on, including an original work by Amos and Rebecca-Diane (Platt and Gordon) about their fallen leader.  

It's movie by theater kids about theater kids, and they even insert some slobs versus snobs camp rivalry that goes nowhere, so you're not there for a gripping story, necessarily.  But the jokes are there, the kids and counselors are both pretty hysterical, and we get lots and lots and lots of drama-kid specific stuff that may click with non-Theater-kids, but is aimed squarely at the theater kids out there, gently poking fun at the culture from a million angles but rarely mean.

The plot about the camp's financial status is.. wonky.  It feels like an SNL sketch tucked into the movie as it seems wildly unlikely a camp wouldn't understand its finances heading into the summer, even if the movie tries to make it all make sense.  But it does give us Patti Harrison as the corporate raider, and she's pretty darn funny.  But - in general, it's not that hard to figure "X campers = Y dollars" and "Y dollars - Z operating cost = y/n ability to run the camp".  So just a little something as to how it's been run every year on a deficit would be... helpful.

The idea of a camp for the weird theater kids is sweet and funny, and I like the notion that there are cliques, like the Fosse kids.  It seems... buyable while also absurd.  But theatre can be absurd.  Watching grown adults ask kids to tap into emotions they can't possibly have experiences is so much a part of my theatrical experience, I was dying inside watching some scenes.  (I was in a play as a 17 year old in the 90's being asked to play a man traumatized by WWII, and... ya'll...).  Not to mention the assumptions made by the theater kids as they deal with each other, and host a dinner to raise money for the camp.  Or the director jealous of the talent of one of the young performers and finding ways to criticize her.

It's a sweet movie, and I liked it a lot.  It's not going to win any awards, but in the era of mid to low-budget comedies not succeeding, it's the kind that should have had more attention and would have made back its small budget.  Once upon a time, this would be a mild summer sleeper hit, like School of Rock.  But it was barely advertised and mostly dumped on streamers.

The biggest problem this movie has isn't the movie's fault.  Once you see Ayo Edebiri show up, the natural response is "hey, let's follow HER."  And she's just playing a small part that is hysterical, anyway, and then funnier with her in it.  (I imagine Molly Gordon was super pumped to get her The Bear castmate in the movie, and a co-star from Winning Time).  

I do not know if some of the older stars were people I was supposed to know.  I didn't know them.  I watch movies and live in Austin - I don't know Broadway.  

Anyway, check it out sometime.  Jamie requested something fun for her Saturday viewing, and this popped up - and it fit the bill.  

Citizen Kane Watch: Citizen Kane (1941)

Watched:  09/04/2024

Format:  Criterion Disc

Viewing:  Third?  Fourth?

Director:  Orson Welles

It's an absolute crime that Orson Welles got so screwed by the studio, the cowardly Academy and Hearst.  At age 26, he makes the most groundbreaking mainstream cinema we've seen since The Great Train Robbery, that changes things forever, rewrites the rulebook, brings some of the finest new actors America will see to Hollywood, all while giving the middle finger to the Jeff Bezos/ Elon Musk of his day - and everyone was too nervous to give the guy his flowers.

Oh, to be young and fearless and brilliant but not realize the very movie you're making will cause you so much grief.

We put on the movie because Jamie reminded me, here as we approach our 29th dating anniversary, that she'd never seen it.  And I don't think I'd watched it since we lived in Phoenix, so 2006 at the most recent.  So it was time.  I do own the 4K set from Criterion, but the 4K disc had issues, and we swapped out for BluRay for the second half.  To be honest - the movie's 4K glow-up looked weird and I likely won't watch that disc again as it looked *too* clean, like they removed the film grain.

There's nothing else like Citizen Kane (1941).  Even The Magnificent Ambersons got taken away and cut up into a studio melodrama - and it's still great, just not Kane.  It's a two-hour montage of technique, breathtaking visuals, stunning performances, cultural criticism, and hurling a spear at the heart of the American myth.  And in 2024, a reminder that nothing is ever new.  We are not living in unprecedented times.

In 1940, movies in the US were already undergoing some interesting changes.  We'd had movies like Fantasia in 1940, Walt taking his stab at *art*, but even the good ones were working with the language of stage.  Citizen Kane starts with a curiously framed scene and goes into a full newsreel announcing the death of Charles Foster Kane, laying the groundwork for what's coming.  Linear time be damned, the film is going to start at the end and work in flashback, trying to understand our central character.  Yes, a thousand films would borrow from this novelistic conceit.  

The look is as shocking as German Expressionism, taking cues more from European works that American film.  Not that there wasn't lovely stuff in the US at the time, but the camera thrown at odd angles, the curious lighting, the massive, cavernous sets- it all says "Fritz Lang with a budget" more than it says RKO movie.  And people have borrowed from this movie endlessly, but they never quite commit to the look and feel in the same way that Welles did.  Noir would look at this movie and say "thanks!  Don't mind if I do!" The characters in the film borrow from archetypes and made new ones.  Joseph Cottens' moralistically gray best-friend/ observer of the Great Man's downfall.  The business partner with the big heart who remembers what could have been, if only...  Hell, my girl Jean Hagen borrowed Dorothy Comingore's accent and persona for Singin In The Rain.  

For folks in 2024, seeing what was possible, cinematically, at the time might be a shock.  Or seeing the Mercury Theater players rolled out to the public for the first time, showing movie-goers how it's done.  But, more than that, it's both history lesson and demonstration that time is a flat circle.  You're going to want to cry seeing the thinly-veiled real history repeating itself with a Great Man propelling it - and these days, we see so many pro "Great Man" movies about people doing shit like designing a marginally better car.

There's no real reason to discuss Citizen Kane here at The Signal Watch.  It's *the* movie.  It's the Citizen Kane of movies. You either stop here or we'd all be in for a TLDR post that covers well-documented territory.

What I would recommend is setting aside two hours and watching it.  It's way shorter than an Avengers movie.   

If Hollywood hadn't gotten so weird on Welles, we wouldn't have probably had Lady From Shanghai, and that would have been a bummer.  But who knows what we would have had?  In the meantime, we can watch film chase this one til the end of time.

 

Paralympics 2024

Ezra Frech won Gold in High Jump (and, I think, the 100m)

Like most folks, I suspect, every time the Summer or Winter Olympics came on, I'd see the ads for the Paralympics, and have good intentions and zero follow through.  The only time I remember watching anything was in a bar, but I can't even remember what year that might have been.  

But, coming off the high of the 2024 Olympics, and with no Track and Field to watch,* I figured "hey - more Olympics".  And, "hey, more Olympics" is how the Paralympics is pitched on TV.  And that's not entirely wrong or a bad way to frame it.

Add to that the viral stardom of Olympic track star Tara Davis-Woodhall and her husband, Paralympian runner Hunter Woodhall, and I think people got the poke they needed to remember to tune in. Team USA social media kicked into gear, and Paralympians and Olympians made a lot of noise online about the games (and continue to do so.)  Also, NBC really has made it easy this year to watch if you got Peacock.

So, we watched a good chunk of the Opening Ceremonies, and I watched some Wheelchair Rugby (aka: Murderball).  And then a little other coverage the first night, but we'd been to a play, so it wasn't much.  But I've been trying to watch more.  Especially track and field, because that's how I roll.  But I've watched archery, Blind Soccer, Table Tennis (doubles!), swimming and more.  

The Opening Ceremonies were subdued compared to the bombastic opening of the Olympics, but were lovely, if more traditional in form.  Lots of music, dancing, mascots, marching, pageantry.  Fewer mysterious Joan of Arcs coming down the Seine in a blaze of glory and less Gojira.  More "here is a meaningful dance about being a Paralympian".  

The overall coverage of the summer games for Paralympics 2024 is maybe a format NBC could consider for the Olympics.  It's almost all highlights - so it's all thriller, little filler - and that's better for me as a viewer than NBC's primetime coverage.  For example, I am bored to tears by Olympic diving.  And yet, every Olympics, I have to watch people flip off a board without somehow first saying "Mom!  Mom!  Look!  Look what I can do!"  But the Paralympic coverage on USA is just whipping around.  "Hey!  Check out this crazy table tennis match!  Now, there's blind long-distance jumping!  Now, 200m foot race!  Oh, look, a 4x50 swim relay!"  I mean, it ain't dull.

Angry Animal Watch: The Meg (2018)

Watched:  08/31/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Turtletaub

A while back, SimonUK and I covered this movie in an episode that gave me false belief for what our numbers were going to be at The Signal Watch PodCast.  Just 16 episodes in, and it really took off, with folks enjoying the lively debate over a movie that featured a large shark and Statham.

I think, on a second viewing, I'm much more sympathetic to Simon's point-of-view.  You can absolutely see what this movie could/ should have been, and instead, it's a bit of a toothless exercise in never giving you quite what you want out of a movie about a large shark causing problems for people.

My suspicion, then and now, is that the film had a heavy infusion of Chinese money - which is how we got Li Bingbing as the costar alongside Statham - a setting off the coast of China, and a movie that met Chinese censorship rules with no problem.  

What this movie needed to do was be a bloody mess.  It was not.  

The closest I can compare is if you had a Friday the 13th movie and Jason just kept wandering through Camp Crystal Lake, and the counselors kept yelling "there he is" and running away, occasionally falling into potholes to their death.  And when Jason came upon a mess hall full of campers he just walked through the middle, doing no harm.

Statham clearly wishes he was in a different film and he and Bingbing have almost zero chemistry for a movie that wants them to have hints of romance - but it just doesn't make sense in the middle of a crisis where people are dying around you to fall for someone, even a someone with great hair and make-up like Bingbing, or a head like a battering ram like Statham.  

The movie continually *hints* that we'll get the carnage some of us were hoping for.  They knock off a pair of whales.  There's menacing shots of a shark in the sea.  But when it comes to bumping off the horrendous Ruby Rose, no dice.  

Because water is largely a void, they also have a very hard time showing how big the shark is, which is largely the point of the film.  And so it can seem the shark is whatever size the shark is in that moment.

There are neat vehicles and ideas in the movie, but the certainty that Statham and Bingbing will be fine shades everything else.  

Weirdly, my favorite bits in this movie include elementary-school aged children, one of them a main character, one of them a boy who is probably more like me at that age than I care to admit, floating stupidly in the water with a popsicle.  

I'm not even sure this is in a top 10 shark movies category.  It's fine.  But it doesn't hold up super well on a second viewing, even years apart.  But it is good "let's sit and talk over this movie" movie.