1980's Watch: Starman (1984)

Watched:  07/24/2024

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  First

Director:  John Carpenter

I'd not previously seen Starman (1984).  When I was a kid, I think my folks decided it would have hanky-panky in it when it started and we didn't make it past literally the first scene.  There was a briefly lived TV show based on the movie starring Robert Hays of Airplane! fame, and I caught that a few times.

When I was renting movies on my own, I just tagged it as "romance E.T." and took a pass.  

Anyway, here in 2024, Simon suggested we pay tribute to John Carpenter, who wrote and directed the film, so - with Jamie included, we took in a screening.

I don't take it as a knock that Starman is pretty much exactly what I expected out of the premise as I understood it from 40 years of occasionally stumbling across discussion of the movie, but if you watched 1980's media, it's pretty much what you'd expecting, and that's "romance E.T."  

So if that's true, we have to ponder the execution - and that's where I think the movie does okay.  

Karen Allen plays a Wisconsinite who has been recently widowed when her husband died suddenly in an accident.  Aliens from a distant planet have intercepted Voyager 2, and taken the messages of welcome at their word, sending a craft to Earth.

The ship crashes near Karen Allen's home, and an alien enters, taking on the form of her deceased husband.  The alien forces Allen into taking him to Arizona, where he is set to rendezvous with his people in a few days.  

Along the way, she sees he's benevolent and an okay alien.  But they're pursued by a military detail supported by Charles Martin Smith.  

As I say, all of this is pretty boilerplate stuff.  So what's asked of the film is that the actors - who mostly are just two people acting together in cars, motels, diners, etc...  sell the relationship which starts at uncanny terror and evolves into romance in a short time.  The vibe is a sort of romantic poem wherein an outsider sees us for what we are, and falls for an Earth woman and an Earth woman has reason to fall for an awkward alien wearing her dead husband's face.

And, for the most part, I think the movie works because of those performances.  Jeff Bridges earned an academy award nod for the part, to which he brings a charm and warmth instead of a hammy performance that would have turned this into slapstick or schlock.  Karen Allen gets the most screentime and dialog of any picture in which I've seen her, and she's really, really good.  There's so many things to play, both as an avatar for the audience dealing with an actual alien, and as a character who is still dealing with grief and trauma who now has this experience, and I can't think of how you improve on what she did.  

The movie kind of works on those performances, vibes and the occasional bit of wonder in acts performed by the alien.  

Anyway, yeah.  Like I say, in 2024 and having seen many movies, I don't know that the plot held many surprises, but as a movie it still works.  And would be a swell date movie some time.  

By the way spoiler here - but the alien doesn't just magically become Jeff Bridges as a full adult.  There's a pretty remarkable FX sequence that was made by a combo of work by Dick Smith, Rick Baker and Stan Winston - all on one brief sequence.  But it also is the only time I've seen a movie - where there's a clone or copy of someone - start as a baby, which, to me, is the logical thing to happen.  I'll accept it doesn't usually, but was impressed that's what they did.

Franchise Watch: Ghostbusters - The Frozen Empire (2024)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  Netflix

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jason Reitman

The expansion of a good movie or two into sprawling franchises makes for a curious environment as we have been seeing again and again and again - especially as we resurrect decades old concepts.  In the mid 2010's, because everyone else had franchises popping, it seems Columbia looked at their catalog of perennial favorites that could possibly withstand transformation into a franchise and came up with the 2016 Ghostbusters, which - at best - enjoys lukewarm and damning praise of "well, it's kind of funny" from it's defenders. 

No matter where you landed on that movie, it failed to meet Sony/ Columbia's financial expectations, and - with no path forward for those characters and Jason Reitman in the wings, Sony immediately greenlit an un-reboot, and put out Ghostbusters: Afterlife - dropping it squarely in the middle of the pandemic shutdown.  

The movie meant only the most ardent fans would go see it, pulling in only $204 million.  I have no idea what the studio's expectations were but we weren't quite done thinking a franchise film should make $800 million or more at the time.  Here in 2024, I think getting more than $5 and some pocket lint is considered a win.  

To maybe set the tone, and give people a chance to opt out of the rest of this post, I'll put my cards on the table: I deeply did not like Ghostbusters: Afterlife.  I am not even sure I'd describe it as a competently made movie.  Not that there are exactly *technical gaffes* like boom mics falling into frame, but from a "what is Ghostbusters, and are we delivering something that fosters the multi-decade enthusiasm for at least that one movie?" 

I think... it kind of sucked.  

Undaunted, and with the promise of action figure sales, Columbia made a follow up.

Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire (2024) is, perhaps, as bad or worse for many of the same reasons, but also finding all new ways to make me not want to watch any more of these movies.  

So now is your chance to run away, fair reader.  Because here we go.

Baseball Watch: Eight Men Out (1988)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  Second or Third

Director:  John Sayles

I haven't seen a ton of John Sayles, but if you want to see me get excited, let's talk Matewan or Lonestar sometime.  Sayles has become sidelined in the movie conversation.  If folks like Coppola, Lynch and Cronenberg are having a hard time out there, you can only guess how it's going for a guy who has always had a hard time convincing exhibitors that people will like his movies when he was at the top of his game.  Sayles' general lack of huge Hollywood success is partially why I think we can safely ignore awards/ box-office and just enjoy a movie.

I remember watching Eight Men Out (1988) the first time back in college, well before I was watching baseball, and eventually kind of fell in love with the sport (I'm currently watching the Cubs try to lose to the Brewers here in the 9th - whoops.  Yup.  They lost.).  But movies were a huge part of how I developed an interest in baseball to begin with.  

Kid Movie Watch: Despicable Me 4 (2024)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  Regal Cinema

Viewing:  First

Director:  Oh, who knows...?

It has been a long time since I sat and watched entertainment built directly for kids.  I don't mean Disney's all-ages cartoons where they want the story and everything to work for the parents, too.  I mean - this is for kids, and if adults like it, fine.  

I kept thinking I'd seen the original Despicable Me, but when the movie started, I realized - I think I watched a few minutes of it on cable 10 years ago and that's my familiarity with the actual movies.  So, yeah, here on movie 6 or 7 or something of this franchise is when I decided to check in.

Why?  you are currently asking.  Why would you do this?

Well, I have a niece, nephew and sister-in-law whom I get along with pretty darn well.  And all summer we were planning to go see a movie, but camps, fate and other factors kept inserting themselves.  So I missed Garfield, which I was planning to go see, because Hannah Waddingham has a supporting part, and I think it's a good idea to throw money at Ms. Waddingham.  Anyway, with Garfield now streaming, this is what the kids wanted to see in the theater, so when Amy had a day off and was looking to entertain the kids and my brother was working, she asked "Despicable Me 4?", and I was, like:  sure.  Whatevs.  

It's not that I was *lost*, exactly, for large stretches.  But without the now well-established lore of Despicable Me at my fingertips, it is fair to say I was *guessing* at what was happening and why and to whom and if that was good or bad for long stretches of the movie.  It had some genuinely funny moments.  Whatever.

What struck me was the experience of watching a movie with two kids - one of whom was all but vibrating in his chair, he was having such a good time, and my niece, who locks in with laser focus when she's enjoying something and just gets real still.  Like, you-want-to-put-a-mirror-under-her-nose still.  Also, I think I owe the niece a bag of Sour Patch Kids.

So, success there, Dreamworks.  

Look, my cartoons are Quick Draw McGraw, Looney Tunes and Disney.  I have my comedy animation, and my graphic-tees are a pretty good representation of what I like.  And while this stuff is not in that school, it is the stuff the kids will know and love, and that's a cool thing.  

Disney spends it's time and money trying to crack and re-crack the ineffable factors of art, story and comedy.  This movie seems far more formulated to pack a gag per second into the runtime, and make sure things fall down, things explode, etc... and the story is just a vehicle for that to happen.  It's not wrong, it's just very different.

All of that is to say, no, this was not my favorite movie, and there were parts that just made me feel tired (I may not be the target audience for Minions as a concept).  But I also know I am 49, not 9.  So, go nuts, kids.

Western Watch: The Far Country (1954)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Director:  Anthony Mann

I have a few beliefs I will drop on people that seem to get a puzzled look, but one of those is that Jimmy Stewart was one of the 20th Century's best actors.  After playing "nice guys" (and a casual murdered in After The Thin Man) as a young actor, post WWII, he sought out more challenging roles, and showed he could also play a real SOB.  Never a villain that I've seen, but reluctant heroes.   The Far Country (1954) is one of those films in which he is an ambivalent dick until, oh, the last few minutes of the movie.  

Directed by Anthony Mann, the movie takes place during the Yukon Goldrush, which I know about almost exclusively via how it shows up in comic books (hello, Uncle Scrooge) and movies.  And, frankly, this movie left me wondering if Don Rosa's take on Glittering Goldie was influenced by Ruth Roman from this movie.*  And, yes, I'd put this in queue in part because it co-stars Roman.    

The movie is full of familiar faces from Westerns - Walter Brennan, Jay C. Flippen, Jack Elam, Royal Dano, etc...  and some others like Harry Morgan and Kathleen Freeman who I relate more to the modern era (Ie: They were still in new things while I was coming up).  It also has someone I'd never seen before, French actor Corinne Calvet, who plays an unrequited love interest to Stewart, more or less trying to follow him around The Yukon.  

I'd seen John McIntire in other things, but he's kind of great as the devious lawman, Gannon, playing Sheriff, judge and executioner in Skagway - the waypoint for people entering the Yukon territory before they cross into Canada and reach Dawson.  He's more or less taking advantage of the relative lawlessness of the area to seize whatever he can, throwing anyone who complains into jail - or into a noose.

Meanwhile, Roman plays Ronda Castle, who runs a saloon in Skagway, where she also pays out for gold, while finding ways to skim from and screw over the miners in order to make a healthy profit.  

After a brief legal skirmish that puts Stewart in a bad spot, Roman hires him out to lead her ride up to Dawson.  Along the way we learn that Stewart is dedicated to covering his own ass above all else, and - this matches pretty well with Roman's worldview.  But along the way and in Dawson, they begin to see people trying to build a town out of the seasonal camp.

Gannon, the shady lawman shows up, and we get a pretty rote Western where some bad dudes push around a bunch of seemingly helpless people.  He may be a bad guy, but you kind of like him, anyway.  He's such a heel, but honest about being a heel.

A few things make this an A picture over a bit of Saturday afternoon B programming.  

In 1954, Stewart was a box office draw, and Ruth Roman was doing well enough that she gets second billing, despite limited screentime.  It may be folks you know from Westerns, but this is a collection of some of the greatest-hits-type supporting actors.  No one is dialing it in, even if they're playing to type.  And Stewart and Roman's mutual arcs toward realizing you really can't live out your libertarian fantasy on the back of a saddle if you want a civilization - or any human connection - is well written if not particularly moving/ telegraphed.

I quite liked Corinna Calvert, and am surprised I don't know her from other things.  

The movie is shot in part in Canada, on location.  And, holy cats, is it beautiful.  That's a part of the world that's on my bucket list, and now maybe even more so.  It's actually shot in Alberta at Athabasca Glacier,  Jasper National Park and other locales.  So while you do get some scenes clearly shot on sets, others are out there in the wild, and it adds considerably to the movie.  

The look is enhanced by careful lenswork of William H. Daniels, who knows how to get that sweeping vista you're looking for.  

But, yeah, if you only really know Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, this is a good one to see his range (not that you don't see a bit of everything in It's a Wonderful Life).  And a chance to see a Western that's pretty darn far west and muddier than it is dusty.  

*I'll have Stuart ask next time he haunts Mr. Rosa's signing table.  

Doc Watch: The Ashley Madison Affair (2023)

Watched:  07/22/2024

Format:  Hulu

Viewing:  First

Director:  ABC News?

Uh.  Yeah.  If I was ABC News (this doc lives on Hulu), I'd be looking into whether suing Netflix were a possibility.  This series interviews a stunning number of the same subjects, and even pulls the same quotes as the Netflix doc, but is from several months to a year before.

But this is "news" or "documentary", so a legal case can't probably be made.  

Anyway - of the two docs, this one is the less juicy way to deliver exactly the same information.  It does seem they interviewed real users of the site, male and female, and then had actors re-create the transcript so as not to expose the users - and while it's a bit clunky and has an "I'm ACTING!" vibe from time to time at least you're not stuck with morons.  

There's also interviews with real users like a journalist who started doing a story on Ashley Madison and then found himself about to fulfill the site's promise.  And a bit about a near-miss of a case that would have exposed Ashley Madison's fake profiles well before the data hack - which I can't sort why Netflix didn't get into that.

There's also a name named for who was a suspect, until that trail reaches a literal dead end.  And a suggestion that maybe the guy's online pals may have been behind this.  

Of the two, I don't really have an opinion which one I'd recommend.  This feels like - had they worried more about a complete picture - getting more former employees on camera, etc...  it would feel more complete.   But this one also feels marginally more interested in trying to look like the product of a news organization and I suspect that has a lot to do with how it's managed.  But at the same time, feels maybe more... naive?

I dunno.  Neither of these are great.  

1980's Watch: Brewster's Millions (1985)

Watched:  07/21/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Walter Hill

I know!  I didn't know this was directed by Water Hill until a few hours ago.  Crazy world.

Also - somehow this was the second movie I saw today with Yakov Smirnoff in a minor role.  In Soviet Russia, movie watches you!

Brewster's Millions (1985) was one of those movies I loved when I was a kid.  Saw in the theater, yadda yadda.  I found the mad scramble to spend money hilarious and charming.  I love the idea of the baseball game, and while Pryor himself isn't particularly hilarious in this movie, the overall movie works.

It's also a movie with a very odd pedigree.  This is actually the 6th movie version of a 1905 novel, and what's maybe most surprising is that it hasn't been re-made every other decade since.  This is the last produced version.

The prior five versions - three of which must be silent

• 1914 version
• 1921 version
• 1926 version
• 1935 version
• 1945 version

And there's a proposal up on IMDB that includes actual children of Richard Pryor for some sort of follow up.  And a second one for something called Brewster's Billlions.  

The set-up the 1985 version a good one.  In this version - in order to inherit $300 million, Monty Brewster has to spend $30 million in 30 days, and at the end of that timeline, own nothing but the shirt on his back.

Of course, he also can't tell anyone what he's doing, so it just looks like he's going crazy.  Within an hour, he's created a media frenzy, hiring security guards at outrageous rates and finding every way he can to spend the money down.  The one that sticks in my head is always the iceberg-shipping guy - because it's so stupid and yet, plausibly, accidentally turns a profit.

This is maybe my personal Space Jam Fallacy movie as I don't think Jamie cracked a smile even once during what I consider to be a pretty funny movie.  If you don't like Rick Moranis showing up for one scene as the guy who will repeat whatever you say (for a fee), man...  that's comedy.

The cats includes John Candy as his best pal/ his catcher from his baseball team - and pretty much every movie with John Candy is made better for his participation.  Lonette McKee plays the paralegal/ accountant tracking the spending (but doesn't know why), and, by gum, she might just be very pretty when she takes off her glasses and takes down her hair.

But the movie is just littered with 80's-era character actors and stars.  Jerry Orbach!  Hume Cronyn!  Pat Hingle!  Peter Jason!  Joe Grifasi!

And plenty of other "that guy!" actors.  

Does the movie stick the landing and show how stressful money is?  For me: yes.  I mean, given the limitations, I think I would just be hiring people for dumb stuff to do.  I would definitely hire, like, Diana Ross to come play a block party or something.  Buy out a movie theater for a month, let people just come in, and pay for everyone's snacks.  Try and think of one-time expenses that could help folks.  And I would definitely go spend a day watching The Cubs blow a lead in the 8th.

Anyway, given Jamie's mirthless viewing, I may need to consider that before declaring this movie holds up *great*.  It might not.  

Summer Classic Angry Animal Watch: Jaws (1975)

Watched:  07/20/2024

Format:  Peacock

Viewing:  ha ha ha 

Director:  Some kid named "Spielberg"

This was our regular summer viewing of Jaws (1975), and, once again, I enjoyed it.  It's a favorite of Jamie's, so when she declares It Is Time, I am happy to join her in a screening.

The first stray thought I had during the movie this time: as we live in a world where a CG shark can be shown from any angle, and as much and as often as you can afford, it isn't just that Spielberg only shows the shark in this movie a minimal amount that keeps the tension.  I agree with that idea.  But ALSO: what makes it work is that you only see the shark from the human point of view.  

The plane of the water is opaque in this movie, and until a fin or a barrel indicates where our monster is - we're blind to our finny friend's location, size, etc...  

With CGI, the temptation is there to say "let's show what the shark is doing *now*" or "show the shark swimming around".  But this movie couldn't do that.  There's minimal footage of the real sharks used underwater - and even then, the major use of those shots is when Hooper is scuba diving and has broken the plane of the water.  It's his POV.

I don't know what Spielberg would do in the 21st Century with magical movie boxes that can give him whatever he wants, but after watching my fair share of angry animal movies, I think maybe keeping the camera where human eyes would be (and, yes, those shark POV shots) is a pretty good way to go.

Anyway - maybe less is more?  And you can still use CGI for your shark, but just don't break that plane in your new shark movie.  Put people on the water and keep using CGI to erase other boats and distracting elements.  

The second stray thought was "wow, the politicians willing to risk lives and demand normalcy sure hits different now".  

1984 Watch: The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)

Watched:  07/21/2024

Format:  Alamo 

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  W.D. Richter

We've already seen and discussed The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984) a few times before.  

I saw it was showing at the Alamo as part of their 1984 ReWind series, and since I hadn't seen it in a theater since 1984, I figured it was probably fair to see it again on the big screen.  

Maybe the highlight of the film on this go-round was that, upon exiting, Jamie - who I thought was lukewarm on the movie - said "it just gets better every time you see it!" which is my firm-held belief.  It really is one of those movies that drops a million little things along the way, and every time one shows up - whether it's a watermelon in a press or Yakov Smirnoff as a Presidential Advisor or bubble-wrap eye protection - it's a reminder that someone pretty f'ing clever put this movie together.  

Anyway, here's to another viewing of a favorite from my youth.  40 years!  Where does the time go?  

The crowd, by the way, was a mix of aging nerds and somewhat younger nerds with kids in tow.  I can only imagine the car-rides home.

Christmas in July Watch: Rescuing Christmas (2023)

when the marketing team needs a poster, and they needed it yesterday

Watched:  07/19/2024

Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  Emily Moss Wilson

"Oh, Rachael Leigh Cook!  I haven't seen her in a minute!" I said to myself when I saw that - for unknown reasons - my YouTube TV started just playing this movie at me from the beginning when I went to go to the menu.

You may recall that last Christmas I was discussing that the Hallmark Christmas movie formula has mutated a great deal, and, really, aside from the idea that "Christmas is good" and a lack of violence and sex, I'm not really sure what constitutes a Hallmark Christmas movie anymore.  What I didn't think I'd be saying is "hey, this one maybe could have been a regular 'ol movie at the theater", but here we are.

Yes, the budget doesn't make you think this is anything more than a Hallmark film, but the ideas in it could have gotten a bit more budget, and I assume you'd cast more known actors in a few parts.  But the overall concept is... good?

This one kind of takes a leap off of the tried-and-true Hallmark sub-formula of making a Christmas wish and sees what their life would be like if, say, they chased that corporate job or married that other guy.*  Instead, this one shows a woman (Cook) who had a bad Christmas the year prior, and is feeling overwhelmed at Christmas again.

Meanwhile, some elves in the North Pole are going to try to boost Christmas cheer with a "Grant a Wish" program, where they give some lucky person 3 wishes.  

After blowing her first two wishes - in a moment of frustration with the holidays - Cook wishes there was no such thing as Christmas.  Which causes alarms at the North Pole (and Santa - played by a jolly, funny T. Mychael Rambo - takes as his cue to take a vacation.

The most recognizable other player is Sam Page, who you may know from Mad Men or a handful of other Hallmark movies.  

It's not that the world is worse without Christmas - they don't go full Pottersville on anyone.  And, in fact, the main character doesn't even really hate Christmas - it's more about "oh, @#$%!  The wish was real!  What did I do?"   

Cook tries to fix her problem and remind people of Christmas, and, so, pitching the holiday as an "art installation about a forgotten, ancient holiday", Cook gets her family and Sam involved.  Thus, the gag of the majority of the movie is "how do you explain what Christmas is to people who have no context?" ex:  we're cutting down a perfectly healthy tree and putting it in the living room for 3 weeks before we throw it out.  We're also hanging arts and crafts on the tree.  And how insane Christmas sounds if you've never seen it before.

Meanwhile, the elves come to try help her along without her really knowing what's what.

It's a simple premise.  And it's remarkable how it manages to not fall into some easy pitfalls, or make things harder than they have to be.    

Look, the bar is so low for Christmas movies, it's buried.  And I include studio films in this statement.  To teach the inevitable lesson of "learning the true meaning of Christmas", our leads usually begin as misanthropes.  This movie never goes there, really.  No one is miserable and has to learn the meaning of Christmas - which is usually, on Hallmark, the promise of a single, dry kiss more than anything.

Instead, this movie takes the more relatable notion that: sometimes Christmas can be a lot of work, and people get stressed in the middle of it.  But that doesn't mean you wish harm on others.

It's.... fine.  Of the forgettable and goofy movies, this one actually had... jokes.  And funny bits.  And leads who didn't sound out of breath with every line.

*I suspect this comes from the notion of "I wish I'd never been born" from It's a Wonderful Life, but keeps the star from running from the cops

Screwball Watch: Bringing Up Baby (1938)

Watched:  07/19/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  3rd of 4th

Director:  Howard Hawks

This is a movie that I liked the first time, but I feel like - the more time you see it, the more it works.  

I won't linger too long on this one other than to say, Howard Hawks was such a wildly talented director - it's unreal to scroll his filmography and think that eight years later he's doing The Big Sleep and ten years later, Red River.  And fifteen years later, he's doing Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.  Pair that with a young Hepburn and Grant, a leopard and absolute pros who get how this works in stage comedies, and it's a bit of a delight.

It also features the greatest shoe-based joke in cinema.

Anyway, if you want to watch two pretty people be very funny, this is it.

I do think, with screwball, there's a YMMV aspect, but I don't think it's too hard to trace Susan from this movie to some of the wackier characters in, say, What's Up, Doc? or NBC's better comedies.*  But Hepburn is so sweet in this even as she's wreaking havoc, and seems *genuinely*, instantly in love, it's kind of adorable.  And who better to bounce off than Cary Grant?

*I'm a huge fan of Mo Collins' Joan Callamezzo character, for example.  Or Jane Krakowski on 30 Rock.  Just anyone who is work on a parallel plane.  

Remake Watch: Road House (2024)

Watched:  07/19/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Doug Liman

What an odd movie.  And it's not bad as far as these things go.   

Yes, Road House (2024) is a remake of the OG Road House, but in only the loosest sense.  It certainly carried enough of the original concept that calling it something else was just going to draw knowing comparisons.

For my dollar, this is the more self-aware, but more fun version of this same concept.  With this latest version, you spend less time wondering "why hasn't anyone ever just shot the villain?" and "were are the cops?", and, certainly "are they kidding?  I can't tell"   But as the plot is essentially that a Miami Vice villains wants the land a shitty Gulf Coast bar sits on, you may wonder why the solution for the villains isn't a can of gasoline and a match at 4:00 AM instead of all the effort and violence.

This is a movie about Jessica Williams coming to hire you and somehow not being the romantic interest - which I suspect is for plot reasons in the third act.  It's mostly about Elwood P Dalton* (Jake Gyllenhaal in ropey muscular form), as a former MMA fighter who is basically a vagabond.  Jessica Williams' character, Frankie, owns a bar in the Keys, and she's been having some trouble.  

Yadda-yadda, see my notes above.

There's also some local color in the form of a precocious bookstore dwelling kid, an alligator, and... not much else.  Glass Key, the fictional location of the film**, is oddly sparsely populated.  We're told there's civilization there, schools, parks... but you'll never see anything but about four locations, and those feel oddly deserted, too.  In fact, The Road House bar, on its busiest nights, looks 2/3rds empty.  Which may be a COVID thing.  But it never feels like the bar is bumpin'.

The movie does have a sense of humor, which certainly helps things along.  The henchmen are a bit wacky, and dispatched in occasionally humorous ways.  The mid-film addition of Irish-born MMA champ Conor McGregor adds a certain escalation to the narrative while also adding a madman to the proceedings, and he happens to be pretty funny from time to time.  He makes a good baddie you want to keep on screen.

The love interest is once again a doctor, played by Daniela Melchior - and she fulfills the spot admirably if thanklessly.  But there's also a bartender who has her moments, played by BK Cannon.

The fight choreography is something else, and its possible/ likely it was assisted not just by dynamic cinematography, but some CGI.  I dunno.  I don't see very fast, so this kind of chaotic stuff just blows past me sometimes as my brain tries to process the information.  But it did seem impressive!  Gyllenhaal is buyable as a guy who can take down a few dudes at once.  

Anyhow - it's silly to spend too much time on this.  It's a good way to spend a Friday night, and thus achieved it's goal, but it's unlikely you'll spend a lot of time pondering the meaning of life through the lens of a Road House remake.  I was just surprised by how self-aware it is (they actually have scenes talking about where they are in the comparable plot of a Western movie) and appreciate its lean approach.  They know you're not here to see Dalton ponder philosophy, and stare into sunsets.  You want to see face punching, and it delivers.

Maybe it lacks some of the "wtf were they thinking here?" charm of the original, and every movie is better with Sam Elliot, but its not a bad actioner.

*the name here itself is a joke that goes nowhere.  "Elwood P Dowd" is the name of Jimmy Stewart's character in the play and film Harvey, which is about a polite drunk who happens to pal around with a 6' white rabbit that most other people can't see.  If that sounds like the greatest film that ever was, it IS.

**The Glass Key is a terrific Dashiell Hammett book and film, and you should check it out.  I suspect this was an Easter Egg, but I have no idea why.  

Doc Watch: Ashley Madison - Sex, Lies and Scandal (2024)

Watched: 07/18/2024

Format:  Netflix

Viewing:  First

Director:  Toby Paton, Zoe Hutton, Gagan Rehill

I didn't notice til I went to do this write-up that Ashley Madison: Sex, Lies and Scandal (2024) is the second docuseries on the topic of the very real hook-up site for married people seeking discreet extramarital affairs, AND the 2015 security breach/ data dump that filled headlines for a few days.  

This docseries is on Netflix (more on that in a minute), but there's one on Hulu that I suppose I'll watch, the same way I watched all the Fyre Fest documentary stuff.

This docuseries breaks into three parts 

• setting up Ashely Madison, who might be interested and why they'd be into, and how the company achieved success
• operating as a success, the initial media reaction, and then... realizing they've been hacked
• impact of the hack on the company, users, revelations and fallout

(Everything below is going to be "spoilers" I guess, for something you can Google if you don't remember it happening)

Fellini Watch: La Dolce Vita (1960)

Watched:  07/17/2024

Format:  Disc from Library

Viewing:  First

Director:  Federico Fellini

Continuing on my "let's watch some famed directors we've missed" kick, I've returned to Fellini.

With La Dolce Vita (1960), we're about as far as one gets from the world of La Strada's post-war desolation - diving headfirst into the mid-century Italian party scene, mixing the wealthy, the famous, the would-be famous and the hangers-on.  It's a film with a certain malaise I now realize has been borrowed by innumerable other movies, usually by kid who finds himself introduced into high society and finds out, gee, things are complicated here, too.  

But our POV character here is not naive, and he's been at this a while.  Instead, we find our protagonist (Marcello Mastroianni - I'll refrain from calling him a hero) at a tipping point.  And the movie follows him as he considers all the ways he can slip and fall from what seems a charmed position.  He's a successful ladies man, bedding upper-class women (Anouk Aimee), but with a fiancee at home, whom he's growing to despise.  He could be a journalist for some time, but he has a desire to write literature.  He seems to be seeking some truth or revelation through the women he falls for, but once he has them, he rejects them.

Western Watch: Colt. 45 (1950)

Watched:  07/13/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Edwin L. Marin

I'm not a proud man, and so I will cop to watching this movie to catch Ruth Roman in another flick - especially something like a fairly short western action film.  Plus, I get a kick out of both Randolph Scott and Austin's own Zachary Scott (no relation to Randolph), who plays the villain in this movie.  

The basic set-up is that Randolph Scott is a war veteran and salesman for the new Colt .45, which he used in the Mexican-American War to great effect.  He's now selling them to law enforcement on the frontier, which has not previously seen a repeating, multi-shot handgun - ie: a revolver.  The tactical advantage of 6 shots over 1 is pretty obvious, I hope.    

While showing off his wares, the idiot sheriff (who doesn't get the value) picks a handfight with his prisoner, Zach Scott, who handily wins the fight, grabs the .45s and kills the Sheriff before running off, leaving Randolph - who the townsfolk decide is an accomplice.  Zach Scott goes on a rampage, founding the .45's gang, and raiding wagons carrying gold from a mining town.

Ruth Roman plays the wife to an early-career Lloyd Bridges, and the two are essentially hostages to Zach Scott's gang - except, Lloyd has realized farming doesn't pay as well as stealing gold, so he teams up with Zach Scott while tell his wife that they're biding their time and playing it safe.

80's Watch: Electric Dreams (1984)

Watched:  07/12/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Steve Barron

I have a memory of watching this movie during a family road trip.  I watched it in a shitty motel room with my dad after my mom and brother fell asleep.  Primarily, my memory was "it wasn't very good, and it didn't feel like a comedy, and it seemed like it was supposed to be a comedy but also wanted to be taken seriously, but was dumb."*

That was probably 1986 or so, and here in 2024, my thought is:  it wasn't very good, and it seemed like it was supposed to be a comedy but also wanted to be taken seriously, but was dumb.  But, in 2024, I also think the movie is oddly prescient - predicting some things that would have seemed ridiculous just 3-4 years ago, but now seem like they've entered the conversation.

Electric Dreams (1984) is a Futureshock movie, taking place what, I'd guess, is supposed to be a few years after its release, 1984.  That's just about the time computers started making their way into suburban homes.  The parents buying these infernal machines were hoping their nascent Gen-X'ers would be able to understand computers, but didn't know what the hell they were spending their beer money on.  In this era, computers were full of mystery and magic as far as the news and movies were concerned.  We're coming off WarGames - that posited a teen almost destroying the world by hacking into the US missile systems.  Tron was a neat analog of computer stuff, but people thought it meant computers were full of elves.  Superman III, thought computers would control the weather.  

Silent Watch: Diary of a Lost Girl (1929)

Watched:  07/12/2024

Format:  Kino Lorber BluRay

Viewing:  First

Director:  Georg Wilhelm Pabst

I'd been meaning to see this movie since about 1999, so no time like the present.  

This was the follow up to Pandora's Box for the actor/ director duo of Louise Brooks and GW Pabst.

There are certainly parallels to the two movies as a seeming innocent is manhandled by fate, society, bad-actors and is beset by innumerable misfortunes.  There's a sort of Tess of the D'Urbervilles-like series of horrendous people doing bad things to our hero, and her enduring as best she can as currents carry her along.

I don't know what people assume about film before their own era - that discussion seems out of scope for this post.  But the silent era was far from squeaky clean in the US, and in Germany, they were certainly pushing boundaries visually, figuring out how to expand the language of cinema and telling stories that were dealing in mature themes.  

Super Watch: "Superman: The Movie" (1978) in San Antonio w/ NathanC

Tollin, NathanC and yours truly

Watched:  07/02/2024

Format:  Theatrical/ Santikos/ TPR Cinema Tuesdays

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Richard Donner

For years, our own NathanC (the famed Nathan Cone of Texas Public Radio/ TPR's Cinema Tuesdays) has been trying to secure a print or digital copy of Superman: The Movie to include in the annual summer classics film series he hosts via TPR.   

Travel and other challenges have beset our ability to pull this off, but this year the stars aligned and Nathan was able to get WB to send a copy.  On July 2nd, 2024, I was able to attend the screening and help out.  Nathan asked that I help intro the film, and then stay for a Q&A.  You can visit the Q&A as both audio and transcript here on the TRP website.

Unsurprising to me is that Nathan is a great host; professional but warm and fun.  Clearly the crowd that came out is enthusiastic - they were there a good hour before curtain and buzzing.  The Santikos theater in Northwest San Antonio was nicely appointed and had primo seats with nice side tables for popcorn and - for me - to quickly jot some notes.

I was incredibly nervous about the Q&A as (a) I have a tendency to over-answer any given question, and (b) I was concerned I would not be able to answer a question thrown my way.  

Prior to showing up, Nathan mentioned that a former DC Comics staffer, Anthony Tollin, was going to be in attendance.  Anthony was at DC during a fascinating period of transition, when the original old guard was silver-haired but still around and the next generation was coming in and bringing new ideas to comics.  Folks like Kirby were mailing in work, but working for DC, you might see Siegel and Shuster come into the office.  He knew Julie Schwartz!  He colored Gil Kane!

To someone like me, this is like finding out that you're going to be talking to Gene Kranz or an equivalent.  Especially when I found out Mr. Tollin had been assigned to Christopher Reeve to shepherd him around DC Comics when Reeve came in to do some research.  

I couldn't help it, so I jumped the gun and immediately included Mr. Tollin in the Q&A, and, after, I asked him to sign some comics which he'd worked on.  As a side-note, Mr. Tollin also works on The Shadow novella reprint collections and has written a lot of those Smithsonian mini-books you may have seen associated with CD releases of radio programs.

As a point of Mr. Tollin being kinda extra cool, if you look at the first picture, he's wearing the rings worn by The Phantom in the comic strips.

The questions were insightful and on a level interested in narrative more than the technical achievements of the film - and maybe that worked well for me.  I have *thoughts* on Superman, and I think I was able to answer folks' queries - and loved one woman's questions about the nature of our secret heroism.  I wanted to high-five her so bad.

Anyway, thanks to Nathan and Texas Public Radio for such a great night.  And to Mr. Tollin for showing patience with a fanboy.  Oh, and I got to see San Antonio-based pal, Courtney M!  Always a delight.

Depending on a few factors, I really want to slip down to San Antonio for the screening of Pandora's Box starring Louise Brooks.  

Texas Watch: Dallas (1950)

Watched:  07/09/2024

Format:  Amazon 

Viewing:  First

Director:  Stuart Heisler

Full disclosure, I was just looking to see what else Ruth Roman was in, and this came up.  And, as a long-time Texan, I was curious how a movie about Dallas, the most Dallasy city in Texas, was going to work.  Plus, Gary Cooper.  And Steve Cochran in facial hair!

Dallas (1950) takes place shortly after the Civil War, so Dallas is a small, growing western town (it was founded in the early 1840's).  Gary Cooper plays a former Confederate colonel who is sought by the law.  A young Bostonian of means has become a US Marshall to impress his fiance, and come west to prove he's no shrinking violet.  He stumbles across Cooper - a fugitive, and after finding out the situation is not so clear as his orders suggested, he and Cooper ride to Dallas together.  Cooper hears three brothers are there, and he'd like to help take them down.  

There's some frankly unnecessary identity switching as the two enter town, and we learn that the Bostonian is engaged to the daughter of a local Don, which, yes, means Ruth Roman is playing a Mexican-American.   Which...  there's a lot of Hollywood history why this was probably true.  Is Roman, of Jewish-Lithuanian heritage, a good candidate for a Latina?  Uhhhhhhhh...  man, that's a loaded question I asked myself.  

On the flip side, I don't remember too many movies from this era that include Hispanic characters quite like this, shown to be very successful ranchers (or even more so, if these criminals weren't so busy being criminals at them and taking their cattle).

In a lot of ways, this is a pretty typical Western, where some shady dudes are going to take advantage of the lawless nature of the new town/ land and exploit that weakness to steal property and land from others, and the promise of civilization coming is welcomed.  It's also likely an early of an example of the mastermind bad-guy with the loose-canon sibling he's trying to wrangle (Cochran!).  

In the course of events, Roman's character falls for Cooper, who looks old enough to be her father (she's 27-28 and he's probably 49 here).  And, man, Hollywood.  They couldn't stop pairing Cooper with women who look way too young.

There's not much to actually report about this one - other than that the terrain and town look nothing like Dallas or North Texas, which IRL is hilariously flat and so visually uninteresting that Dallas architecture has been weird since the 1970s in an effort to combat this problem.  But this movie is shot in typical ranchland outside of LA, so... behold!  The rolling hill country of Ft. Worth!  The deep valleys outside of Dallas!

If you're looking for more Ruth Roman:  good news.  She's in this.  But I'm not sure this movie is terribly ground-breaking.  It is, however, fairly entertaining and a reminder how cool vaqueros looked in their jackets and on Mexican-style saddles.

Horsey Watch: National Velvet (1944)

Watched:  07/08/2024

Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Clarence Brown

Selection:  Jamie

It's unlikely I would have picked National Velvet (1944) for myself.  It's a movie about a 12 year old girl who loves horses.  But, Jamie mentioned it a while back, and she's sick right now, and when you're sick in our house, you get to pick the movie/ show/ etc...  Plus, it *is* a bonafide classic, and I had not seen any of Elizabeth Taylor's work from when she was a kid.*

It's good!  This is a solid, fun, sweet movie.  The cast is terrific, the sets and matte paintings and locations all very pretty.  We get Angela Lansbury as a teen, Liz as a pre-teen, Mickey Rooney in his 20's, Juanita Quigley (one of the Our Gang kids), Donald Crisp as the father and Anne Revere is phenomenal as Liz's mother.

Liz plays a girl, one Velvet Brown, in that horse-crazy phase who stumbles upon two things at the same time - a hard-travelling Mickey Rooney and a lovely new horse one of her neighbors has purchased, but can't tame.  She loves the horse immediately.  

Her family definitely has echoes of the Smiths in Meet Me In St. Louis, which has to be a coincidence given their production schedules and years of release, but one also can guess the studios were providing scenes of domesticity during pre-war years to give their war-time audiences something to remind them of normalcy.   Velvet's elder sister is boy-crazy, her younger sister a bit of a scold, her baby brother, an absolute weirdo.  And mom understands and dad does not.  

Also, it turns out that Mom once swum the English Channel for a cash prize (which was not accomplished til 1926, about when this movie occurs.  However, the film Million Dollar Mermaid is about Annette Kellerman, who tried in 1905).  

Through a series of hi-jinks, the horse, named The Pie or Pie comes into Velvet's possession, and she and Mickey Rooney work to get the horse into England's premier horse race, the Grand National Sweepstakes, which is five miles of obstacles/ jumps.  

Along the way, Mickey Rooney must determine what sort of fellow he is, the family has to come to believe in Velvet's dream and Velvet embraces what it means to take that one big shot in life.

By the time this movie was shot, Mickey Rooney was a very established star and about to ship out for war.  And Taylor was becoming established as a young star - and it's clear to see how very good she was going to be, even here.  Her role could have been saccharine or twee, but somehow she manages to make it sympathetic - helped along by the ensemble.  And, yes, Angela Lansbury is terrific, too.

I dunno.  I liked it.  There's few surprises.  And it's funny to see Rooney play another former jockey in 1979's Black Stallion (I genuinely looked up if that movie is an unofficial sequel and I just missed something.  It's not.).   But the movie is sweet, hits all the right notes for a wartime family melodrama, and takes the feelings of the young characters seriously (except for bug-collecting Donald).  

If you've got kids, I think they'd dig it.  But I'm a 49 year old dude, and I was a fan.

*I know!  You'd think I'd have watched some Lassie movies.