Lynch Watch: Inland Empire (2006)

Watched:  03/31/2025 

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  First

Director:  David Lynch

Something like 6 weeks ago, I agreed to see Inland Empire (2006) with SimonUK.  

Here's what I knew:

• It stars Laura Dern (a huge plus)
• It was a micro-budget film 
• Rabbits?
• Shot on video

Here's what I found out:

• It's 3 hours
• It's maybe a sequel to Mulholland Drive
• Rabbits!
• A greater number of name talent than I was expecting

I will be straight up with y'all and say:  I think I got between 25 and 33 percent of that movie.

I'm not embarrassed.  I think I'm pretty okay at watching movies.  Unpuzzling David Lynch is both fun and hopeless, because he was never going to tell you if you got it, really.  And looking at the critical reception on Wikipedia is just funny.  Everyone has a different opinion of what they just watched - not whether they liked it, but what happened.  

I am aware Inland Empire is a real place outside of Los Angeles, and aside from that, I don't know anything about it.*  Don't know if this has anything to do with the movie other than maybe some stuff was shot there.  And I assume there's something there about interior worlds/ lives.  But WHO KNOWS?  Not me.

It seems to be a spiritual sequel to Mulholland Drive, a film of doubles and other selves, and nightmare visions only Hollywood and dreams spawned by Tinsel Town can create.   In 2006 showing someone dying at the intersection of Hollywood and Vine and all the folks assembled at the corner do is watch is not not saying something specific (spoilers).

The overall plot has to do with a dream within a dream within a dream stack of realities in which an actress who has had issues with her career and husband gets a plumb role, but the story itself is cursed, and we cut between the reality of the actress, the film, events in the past, a Lodge-like zone with Rabbit spirits...

But, yeah, all I knew was Laura Dern was in this, but she's also a producer.  And you can also look for Jeremy Irons, Ian Ambercrombie, Justin Theroux, Harry Dean Stanton, Grace Zabriskie, Diane Ladd, Julia Ormond, Terry Crews, Mary Steenburgen? and a huge number of Polish actors I do not know.  Why Poland?  Man, I do not know.

There's a Polish curse!  That happens.

But Laura Harring shows up in literally the last minute of the film, and that's my tell that maybe this is a shared story with Mulholland Drive or a more direct sequel continuing to work out Lynch's feelings on Hollywood.

But, yeah, all of this was a lot.  I'm not sure I got it, but I also wasn't having a bad time.  I've been watching Lynch on and off since I was 15, so I'm kind of dialed in for his deal.  But I also know had I not seen this in the theater, it would have paid big dividends to watch this over again *immediately*.  Which at a full 6 hours would be a lot.

Yes, I did watch this in a theater, just a day after my bad theater experience.  And, y'all...  yes, I paid a lot because Alamo**.  But I also sat in a 3 hour movie with a 4/5ths full auditorium, audio that is often non-existent, and you could hear a pin drop through the whole movie.  And this was with people eating dinner at a 6:00 show.

And the bathroom was clean.  

It's the little things, pals.  That said, I think they're now asking for 40% over the price of food and drink.

*how shocked was I to see there is a real City of Industry in LA, and a Klickitat Street in Portland.

**I am still unclear why there's an 18% service charge and a tip option.  My guess is that the servers are getting @#$%ed.

Neo-Noir Watch: Collateral (2004)

Watched:  03/30/2025

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Michael Mann

There's half of an amazing character driven neo-noir in this film, and then half of an okay thriller.

I think it's the schizm of the two that makes for a frustrating viewing experience where one would be a delight and the other a pleasant enough film, but when the film shifts gears back and forth - and I usually don't mind tonal changes - it just feels like there's missed opportunity on that character study and the better film.  Collateral (2004) does get to sail on Michael Mann's slick directing and visuals (look, you can hire whatever DP, but it's Mann), and stellar performances from Jamie Foxx and Tom Cruise and a kick-ass set-up that feels rooted in some classic noir.

The movie also co-stars a wide array of names.  Jason Statham appears for about twenty seconds.  Debi Mazar as well (in our book, there's never enough Mazar).  Jada Pinkett-Smith appears.  Mark Ruffalo plays an LA cop uncovering what's going on in real time.  Javier Bardem.  Bruce McGill.  Peter Berg.  

Our set up is that Jamie Fox plays Max, a cabbie, who picks up a fare, who seems like a charming guy but is actually an assassin, Vincent (Tom Cruise) flown in from points unknown to take out a series of people.  Max just wants to squirrel away money for his dream of starting a limo company.

At the first hit, Fox is waiting in his cab for Vincent when he's suddenly involved in the proceedings.  Under threat by Vincent, he begins driving him from hit-to-hit.  And that could have been enough.  The relationship building between the two could have made for a taught thriller driven by the desires and motives of each - and the movie plays with that as they reveal more about themselves and get real about the weaknesses of the other.  

But movies have to movie, and so the back 1/3rd of the movie devolves into an action flick that really doesn't make much sense from Max's perspective and undercuts what could have been explosive character work.  There's a different last third of this movie somewhere that doesn't involve an extended chase sequence and Max becoming an action hero.

Cruise and Fox are both really great when they want to be (and both have phoned it in upon occasion).  And there are really good moments for both - I disagree with the take that Cruise is wooden here - that's just not true at all.  There's a fascinating character for both players, and once the movie isn't about the two talking it through, it loses steam even as the actual action ratchets up.

I'm not sure I entirely bought the scene with Felix (Bardem) and Max, but I like the idea well enough, and both sell it.  

But what I did like was the notion that Vincent really thinks he's helping Max, even if there's an 80% chance he's going to put a bullet in him by the end of the night.  His nihilistic viewpoint which enables him to do what he does has "freed" him, while Vincent believes he'll make his next move, but he won't.  It's some really good stuff as they bounce off each other.  And you can tell Cruise is leaning all the way into Vincent - and the possibility of opening up a little to Max, but if he does, does that mean Max is done for?  

It's good stuff.

I get why the movie gets the praise - because it's almost there for me.  But it all feels like an overly complex mousetrap at the end to get us to loop back to Vincent's anecdote, and that could have been done in two or three much cleaner steps.

Anyhoo - I actually liked it.  Or large parts of it.  And I am not one to complain about Michael Mann, but it does feel like I went from thinking "this movie is incredible" to "yeah, that was good" by the end.

Disney Watch: Atlantis - The Lost Empire (2001)

Watched:  03/16/2025

Format:  Disney+

Viewing:  First

Directors:  Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise

I vaguely remember this one coming out, but didn't see it.  No recollection of why.

I did get the feeling that this movie was not great, and over time it hasn't really had any kind of reconsideration.  Yeah, there's folks online who loved it as kids, and maintain that love now.  And, bully for them.

There's a lot going on in this movie.  It's also trying to fill a gap I was aware of from my days working at the Disney Store in summers from 1993-1995 - that Disney didn't know how to reach the audience they'd associated with young boys, something we struggled with as we were often asked to make recommendations to folks coming into the store shopping for boy's stuff for kids over, say, seven.  So why not make some movies that could spawn merch and serve those kids as much as the kids who wanted Princess dresses?

Atlantis: The Lost Empire (2001) wasn't completely panned when it came out, but it didn't exactly set the world on fire - right now it's sitting at a 52 on Metacritic.  For comparison, Lilo & Stitch was a 74.  Beauty and the Beast from 1991 was a 95 and got a Best Picture nomination.  

Disney Watch: Lilo & Stitch (2002)

Watched:  03/13/2025

Format:  Disney+

Viewing;  First

Directors:  Dean DeBlois and Chris Sanders

No, I'd never seen Lilo & Stitch (2002).  It came out about three weeks after I moved to Phoenix back in 2002, and I guess we didn't get around to it at the time, or in the ensuing 23 years.

The movie is kind of the last gasp of Disney's 2D efforts as the annual summer release schedule was apparently taxing the creative teams and leading to less and less enthusiasm for each year's release.  And looking at the Disney Animation Studios output of 2D movies in the 00's, you can see this is the second-to-last film of the 2D movies anyone really talks about - the final being The Princess and the Frog.  

Spoiler - I liked this movie a lot!  The animation is fun and really well executed, but the story about being a terror goblin who doesn't even know what a family is and then learns that he wants one?  I found it shockingly effective and moving.  

When you want to know what sticks with people, its never the 3D or some animation sequence, it's how they felt, and I'll remember this one for a while.  That said - *how* they get you to feel any specific way is tied to those technical achievements, direction, art and story writing, and it's surprising to see a movie about a less-than-perfect family unit containing a kid who is acting out in the wake of the loss of her parents and her older, barely-an-adult sister, who is trying to keep it together.  Add in an alien-prison-escapee-genetically-created-space-WMD and it's a ride.  

But, yeah, Disney is at its best when it taps into those core universal emotions, that kids and adults can tap into, but when they come in at an oblique angle.  Do I spend time thinking I do not know who I am and if I have a family?  No.  But all of us can sympathize if not empathize with not feeling like we know how to fit in like Lilo, or that no one told us the basics, like Stitch - and reach for a place to belong.  

Voice talent on this thing is interesting, with Tia Carrere, David Ogden Stiers, KITH alumnus Kevin McDonald, Ving Rhames, Zoe Caldwell and a young Daveigh Chase as Lilo.  

The character animation is top flight, much as Princess and the Frog will make you a little sad that so much of what 2D did so well was really hitting on all cylinders just as Disney pivoted to 3D.   From both the first space sequences and the introduction to our out-of-the-way Hawaiian town, you can tell Disney's animators were leaning in hard.  There's a lot of motion-capture that makes the action fluid but still fun in a way I think we're kind of forgetting, as well as layered work that's just fantastic.

And the story is kind of daring in having both a little kid who maybe isn't a precious angel and her far worse alien pal - and you genuinely can buy that they help each other be better.  That's some solid writing.  We're a pretty far cry from Belle being an oddball for being nice and reading books as Lilo smacks around her classmate.  And, yet, I pull for Lilo - and holy cow, does it land as I look at my own niece and nephew puzzling through their younger years.

Anyhoo, I finally caught up on this one, and will certainly watch the live action remake.  It looks really fun.

Holiday Horror Watch: Black Christmas (2006)

Watched:  12/20/2024

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Glen Morgan

I watched this movie because last weekend, Brandon Z told me that he'd watched all three version of Black Christmas (I did not know there were three) and that the 2006 edition featured Mary Elizabeth Winstead (always great) and our Christmas Queen, Lacey Chabert.  He did not endorse this version - just let me know: it exists.

Well, this is the opposite of a Hallmark movie, but if it has Chabert, and it's Christmas, who am I to not watch this movie?

A few years ago I watched the 1974 original version of Black Christmas (2006) and it scared the bejeezus out of me.  THAT is a horror film.  It leaves us with unknowns, an uncaught murderer who we never fully see, no motivation...  it's just... people getting popped off one-by-one and because of how college worked in a pre-internet/ pre-cell-phone era, when people weren't around, you just assumed they were okay until you heard otherwise.

This movie is bad.  It feels like it has no idea what worked in the original film, and made it smaller and less believable and went for gore over the terror of a guy slowly picking off unsuspecting sorority girls.  It changes it into a Halloween movie, but if Michael Meyers' thing was being mistaken for a banana.*  It even ends like Halloween 2 instead of leaving us with the absolute spine chiller of the original's conclusion.

Full stop - I am well known for face blindness with young Hollywood talent, male and female.  There was a hot minute where I thought Eva Green and Emily Blunt were the same person circa 2006.  So throw a sorority house full of girls at me who have no discernible personalities, different wardrobes or even really have blemishes, and my only hope for knowing who they are is "that one wears glasses" and that one is "MEW".  But I literally couldn't tell you how many girls were in the house, who they were, what their stories were, etc...  But, yes, I did look at IMDB and vaguely remember Michelle Trachtenberg.  But if they're all the same person, plus Andrea Martin, it makes it hard to care about anyone but Andrea Martin.  

And... look, MEW wasn't quite a thing yet in 2006, but Chabert kind of was.  So it's weird she has like 10 lines and is shoved in the background.  She's kind of funny in this.

As mentioned - awesomely, this movie *does* have Andrea Martin in it as a new character - the house mother.  And we love Andrea Martin.  Glad to see her.  And - because it's the writer/ director's wife, we also have Kristen Cloake, who is not a bad actor, btw, but it seems like she's hung up her acting guns.

This movie isn't scary.  1974's Black Christmas is so spooky, it's going to take some effort for me to watch it again.  This one is what you always see me complain about - jump scares in place of scares.  There's no real mood.  The backstory is just dumb and in no way an improvement - especially the post-Scream two-killer reveal (whoops, spoilers).  And the last act in the hospital just sucks.

I don't know why this exists.  And I don't blame the talent.  The people I do know in this are fine actors, so it's not them.  A quick look at wikipedia shows the problem was likely The Weinsteins.  So.  There you go.  Something else they made horrible.

I do not think I will watch the 2019 version unless there's a very pressing reason to do so.

*there's some liver problem we're told he has, and that it makes him yellow.  It looks *ridiculous*

RiffTrax Watch: Suburban Sasquatch (2004)

"it'll look great on camera"

Watched:  06/21/2024

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  First

Director:  Dave Wascavage

I watched this over 4 days, finishing just moments before putting on Ember Days, and could not muster the energy to discuss both movies too close to each other.  It was too much for any one man.  But here we are.

What stirs the visions of would-be writer/ directors?   Is it the story they must tell that drives them so?  The need to express themselves?  A dream of becoming part of the Hollywood establishment?  A dream to work as an outsider?

What keeps them going through the long days and nights of pre-production, shooting and then editing?  What is the motivator to make a film when it requires expensive FX they simply cannot afford?  What convinces the actors to show up every day of that shoot, put on their "costume" and read clunky dialog?

Simply, I cannot imagine.  This is, like, time and money out of someone's life.  It's a real "maximum effort for minimum return" proposition.

And yet, every day there's someone out there who has convinced people in their lives that: what we all need to do is make a movie.  How hard could it be?  

00's Watch: National Treasure (2004)

Watched:  06/07/2024

Format:  Disney+

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jon Turteltaub

This is one of those movies everyone is shocked to find out I have not seen.  Which, you know, when that happens, y'all can all settle down.  Of all the movies in the world, I only watch a small portion, and this one had no apes, sharks or robots.

2004 is a time period I do remember, and I remember seeing the trailer for this and thinking "this is going to be a Dan Brown/ Indiana Jones knock-off, and it's going to just get a bunch of shit wrong."

And, friends, call me The Oracle, because I was surely correct, lo, those two decades past.

What I failed to predict was that this movie would be extremely boring, have plot holes you could lose a jumbo jet through, and be the last gasp of 90's-style gender politics in an adventure film.

Brought to us by the director of 3 Ninjas and The Meg, National Treasure (2004) is one of those things that could have flopped, but - instead - people decided it was great.

Geology Watch: Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)

Watched:  05/08/2024

Format:  Max

Viewing:  First

Director:  Eric Brevig

So, this movie feels like an experiment, and given the year of release, 2008, Journey to the Center of the Earth might well have been Hollywood floating all the latest toys and the concept of "movie as amusement park ride" more than they were trying to make an actual movie.  But they also still wanted to be Hollywood, so, while it does feel almost like a Cliff's Notes version of a movie, it does have a legit star in Brendan Fraser.   

First - it's clearly intended to be seen in 3D.  And like other 3D features - from Creature to the Black Lagoon or Friday the 13th 3D, there are clear set-pieces intended for the experience that just look weird on my regular ol' flat TV.  Things are basically hurled at the viewer from time to time.  You get it.

Second - I checked, the movie was also an early entry for use in 4DX or whatever they call it.  This was when some theaters decided to add fancy-assed chairs that rumbled and maybe moved, and sprayed water in your face (no thanks).  And there are multiple places that the movie feels like it should be part of a ride at Universal Studios or something.

I'll editorialize and say:  I think this is a perfectly fine avenue for Hollywood to pursue.  It would be weird for many-a-movie, but I think there's a market for thrilling movies that are a bit of an interactive experience.  I would come up with a new name for the experience to differentiate it, but I would strap in for a Star Wars movie about X-Wing pilots zipping about.  Or car chase movies.  Or running around Tokyo whilst Godzilla strolls around.  But I don't think they'll work like a normal movie, and we just don't know what that would be, yet.

G Watch: Godzilla - Final Wars (2004)

Watched:  04/26/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Fourth?

Director:  Ryuhei Kitamura

Selection:  Me

It's been over a decade since I'd rewatched Godzilla: Final Wars (2004).  Because of the *when* of its release date, it was also one of the first Godzilla movies I saw when I re-engaged with Godzilla at the start of the 21st Century.  Back then, Godzilla movies were kind of hard to come by so a new one was a welcome thing.

For those of you who aren't wasting your life with Godzilla minutia:  this is/was the 50th Anniversary offering from Toho, as Gojira had debuted in 1954.  It is also Toho's final man-in-suit kaiju feature film (they have continued to make shorts and commercials, etc... starring a man-in-suit).  Following this movie, Toho put G on ice, renting him to Legendary pictures, who released Godzilla in 2014 until Toho finally made a new Godzilla movie with Shin Godzilla, released in 2016.  

Most of the post 1998 American Godzilla movies made by Toho had their own shared continuity separate from the Showa and Heisei era films, but Godzilla: Final Wars is probably not directly associated with Godzilla 2000, Megaguirus, Giant Monsters All-Out Attack, Against Mechagodzilla or Tokyo S.O.S.  And good luck figuring out the continuity of those movies, tbh.  So it is *odd* that the final movie from Toho (and they really did think they were done, at least for a while) wasn't a conclusion to those movies as much as a conclusion to the concept of Godzilla as much as anything.

Neo-Noir Watch: Femme Fatale (2002)

Watched:  04/07/2024

Format:  DVD

Viewing:  First

Director:  DePalma

A while back I was watching some DePalma movies, and enjoying them, and made a mental note to watch Femme Fatale (2002) sometime.  And, then, whilst watching Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, which stars one Rebecca Romijn as Lt. Commander Una Chin-Riley, I was once again reminded to watch the film, and bought it on DVD via eBay for, like, $4.  

And then promptly forgot to watch it.  

Well, no more!  I have now finally seen Femme Fatale, and...  this is a tough one to discuss.  

DePalma is a curious film maker.  I genuinely like some of his work, and, at minimum, find stuff like Body Double at least worth a watch.  He's like a film studies book come to life, but he also isn't afraid of every day adult things like "people get naked" and "have sex" and gets those are pretty major motivations for people, and so can be for characters.* But he's also usually telling a thriller/ neo-noir crime story (see: Dressed to Kill or Blow Out) and so there's something to hang that on.  

Femme Fatale plays all of DePalma's greatest hits.  It has the most breathtakingly bizarre use of the concept of "doubles", it absolutely makes our kinda hero (Antonio Banderas) a voyeur, it goofs on identity, fate and concept of a femme fatale.  Heck, it opens on Romijn watching Double Indemnity.

Romijn was still a bit green when she took on the role, and I note that she was nominated for an off-brand Raspberry type award for this, but if the past few years have taught me anything, it's that those awards tend to age badly and generally show more about the awards' intolerance for anything not fitting into neat categories of that year or talent stretching beyond what the committee *thinks* they should be doing for a living (Romijn had been a model - which will shock no one watching this movie).  

I think Romijn is actually *pretty good* in this.  The character is a bit of a cypher, by necessity, and when the woman behind the face pokes her head out, it's interesting and buyable.  She's not as good as she's been on Star Trek, but - again - early days, and dealing with some material that works as an academic exercise as much or more than a coherent film.

SPOILERS

Uncanny Valley Watch: Beowulf (2007)

I have no idea how to feel about them putting heels on Grendel's mommy

Watched:  03/26/2024

Format:  Paramount+

Viewing:  First

Director:  Robert Zemeckis

Selection:  Me

When Beowulf (2007) was released, all it did was make me feel guilty I'd never read the book.  I never had it as a class assignment, and despite owning a copy, I just never prioritized it.  However, it would still be 2023 before I finally got around to blowing through what is a quick read via audiobook.  

But then I forgot to watch the movie, which I have now finally taken care of.

First:  I had no idea the whole movie was animated - I'd only heard about animated, naked Angelina Jolie which is a YMMV proposition.  

Once I figured out Robert "Polar Express CGI Nightmare Fuel" Zemeckis was in charge of this venture, I settled in.  

Look, I'm not a Norse Mythology scholar.  Nothing close to it.  Neil Gaiman, one of the two screenwriters on the film (the other being Roger Avary) is, actually, a Norse Mythology scholar, so I bow to him on the many and significant changes he made to the brief story.  I don't know what his motivation was, but it's a re-shaping of the story that has an impact on the sparse themes and point-of-view of the original poem.  Which is a fair thing to do with a text that's about a 1000+ years old.  And it's highly unlikely the version we've been handed down was anything like the original 500 or so oral-tradition tellings of the story.

00's Watch: Pootie Tang (2001)

Watched:  03/22/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Louis C.K.

Selection:  Jamie

It's easy to forget that before he got #metoo'd, Louis C.K. was maybe one of funniest, smartest guys working in comedy.  I was a fan of his FX show and stand-up.  And it's all the more remarkable he became what he did before his big fall, because this movie and his failed sitcom should have tanked his career.

Now, Pootie Tang (2001) is, hands down, one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.  It's one that gets funnier every time you see it, imho.  And while C.K. is listed as director and writer, I can only imagine how this thing was actually put together, because it seems like it was a bunch of late 90's stand-ups and comedic actors piling into a movie and doing bits.  I would *love* to see a "how this was made" doc.  

I am sure there are people who watch Pootie Tang and do not enjoy it, and those people are dead inside. Not everything lands, but the ratio of success is incredibly high.  And clearly the direction was "I dunno, just do your bit" for most of the film, including for Robert Vaughn who is happily chewing scenery and absolutely gets what his role is here.

Anyway, it's a great chance to see a ton of folks you know from TV and elsewhere as they were riding their wave or just before they blew up.  Heck, a teen-aged Kristen Bell is in the movie for about 20 seconds.  But you've got JB Smoove, Jennifer Coolidge, Reg E. Cathey, Wanda Sykes and more.  Star Lance Crouther didn't really do much more acting - which is a shame, man.  He's incredibly funny and charismatic.  Some of the comics aren't as big as they were, and I don't really know what happened to them - but I don't follow comedy.  Back in the day, Laura Kightlinger and Dave Attell were huge in comedy.  And both are still out there in various capacities and occasionally I'm still, like "hey!  Is that Dave Attell?" when I'm watching a thing.  But time, it does march on.

So, here's your unapologetic endorsement of Pootie Tang.

I have no idea what The Kids would think of this one.  This may be my new litmus test.

Doc Watch: Hell on Earth - the Desecration and Resurrection of "The Devils" (2002)

Watched:  03/21/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Paul Joyce

So, I posted on the 1971 Ken Russell film, The Devils, and old college chum and podcast contributor, Ryan M popped into my social media to recommend this documentary (I'll link to his letterboxd review).  

I'm glad he did.  The movie is not your usual US or British cinema offering, and hearing what the thinking was, and what happened in production and upon release was fascinating.  The doc captures several of the folks involved in the picture 30 years on, still vibrant, and with clear memories of what they all considered a massively important film that was brutalized by a few critics and rejected by audiences.  

Were this Holy Mountain, I'd get some of the rejection by audiences and critics - Jodorowsky is brilliant, but his films are straight work to watch.  The Devils challenges a lot, but is not a puzzlebox to view.  As can happen, it seems The Devils may have simply spoken right past the critics who were concerned with "taste" and a lot of external factors rather than the film in front of them.  Which I absolutely understand, but that doesn't mean it isn't a failure of the critic or reviewer if you can't meet the film where it lives (and this is something even at this dumb ol' blog I try to do, and I know I still fail routinely).  

So, I'll leave it to you to read what Ryan M has to say on the key scene that was cut, it's re-discovery, and how it's handled over at his review (I agree with every word he writes).  I'll add in that if you think that scene is a blaspheme, you're missing the point of the film, and it would have been an absolute exclamation point on the film's major themes to keep it in.  

But also I'll chime in with how pompous the reviewer was and remains who dismissed the film.  And I deeply enjoyed watching him absolutely get owned by the documentary while refusing to give an inch.  

Not many movies get to enjoy this kind of retrospective or get to return to what amounts to the scene of a crime as it were, and get a chance to see something they thought lost.  I have 100,000 words on the complications of art and commerce, anti-censorship, et al.  But if you've been kicking around the blog long enough, you can probably guess my stance on these things (art and commerce is complicated!  Censorship = bad!).  Add in the peculiarities of 1970's British censorship, US-based censorship, dumb people and poor media literacy, and it makes for an interesting confluence of events vis-a-vis The Devils.  

If I have one last note - and the doc came out before the show, there's some real Garth Marenghi's Darkplace energy to the host and his presentation style.  I am guessing this was just a BBC thing at the time.

Neo-Noir Watch: Sexy Beast (2000)

Watched:  03/05/2024

Format:  Criterion

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jonathan Glazer

Selection:  Me

I had a budding interest in noir and neo-noir when this movie came out, but I remember having no interest in the film.  I suppose it was a trailer or write-up or word-of-mouth that did the trick, but I couldn't say.  Now it's on Criterion, and my tastes have ebbed and flowed over the years, and as I couldn't recall why I didn't want to see this movie, I gave it a shot.

In some circles, this movie is a bit of a classic, enough so that there is a television show coming in short order (or arrived already in England, I don't know) that tells the story of the early lives of the main characters of the movie.  

The movie is a weird mix of a single-location character drama and crime movie, and I... didn't think it worked.  Which is a tough thing to say about a beloved movie with famed actors like Sir Ben Kingsley, Ray Winstone and Ian McShane and which still gets referred to a lot.  But I just... didn't buy it.

SPOILERS

G Watch: Godzilla vs. Megaguirus (2000)

Watched:  03/02/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Masaaki Tezuka & Ishirô Honda

Selection:  Me-ish

This is the one about the very lazy scientists who create a wormhole on earth and don't monitor said wormhole and it lets in a bug, and that bug almost destroys the planet.

So, yeah - this movie is part of the Millennium series which kicked off with Godzilla 2000, and which I'm unclear if there's even supposed to be any continuity.  But Godzilla is a problem, so science decides the thing to do is create a gun that can shoot a black hole at him, which...  look...  that just seems like you're creating way more problems than you're solving.  

On a test run, the scientists are successful, but the black hole leaves a @#$%ing wormhole and no one seems all that worried about it and I guess they go home?  Because that night a giant bug flies out and leaves an egg a very, very dumb kid picks up.  But he's been sworn by our supposed hero not to tell anyone about the experiment, so, logically, he tells no one about the egg.  

Which he then dumps down a Tokyo sewer when the egg gets slimy.  But the egg is hatching thousands of tiny bugs that will grow into horse-sized dragonflies that kill people.  So, amazing job all around.  

It's not really a wonder that some Godzilla movies harp on how the Japanese government tends to shoot itself in the foot and hurt the citizenry by constantly trying to hide information.  

Anyway - Black Hole Gun doesn't quite do its job on its first live fire, and Godzilla is swarmed by giant dragonflies who siphon off some of his *power* and take it to their resting queen in a submerged city.  The queen then fights Godzilla, and if you signed up for a pretty good kaiju fight, I have great news for you. 

I may slowly be developing a thing for women in well designed helmets thanks to these movies, but there you are.  Our hero helps direct the Black Hole Gun at Godzilla and the movie ends with us knowing they only think they got rid of him.  By the time the credits finish, we think they did not as the dumb kid from the movie's first half is seen staring out a window in what we can only hope is Godzilla about to crush him.

This movie is weirdly gross.  Doug described it as "gristley", which seems right.  There's a lot of stabbing of Godzilla by a stinger, and lots of ooze and slime and bug parts.  Which is interesting as the movie is rated 7+.  Kids were tougher in 2000.  There's also two straight up horror movie deaths as the dragonflies take out some unsuspecting people.  But the design on the dragonflies and the eventual Megaguirus is really solid and shows what Toho was pulling off really well in this era.

Some fun casting:  Yuriko Hoshi who was in a couple of Showa-era films returns as a veteran scientist with some major mom hair.  And Misato Tanaka is pretty solid as our helmeted lead.

This is nowhere near my favorite Godzilla movie, but it has some good bits.  Godzilla has the edgier, pokier design, and I love the pink in his dorsal fins, which is why I'm pumped about Pink G in the coming film.  

00's Watch: Josie and the Pussycats (2001)

Watched:  02/17/2024

Format:  Criterion Channel (I know)

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Harry Elfont/ Deborah Kaplan

When I moved to Arizona for reasons I can hardly remember in the summer of 2002, I remember spending my days unpacking while Jamie was at work - and Josie and the Pussycats (2001) running all the dang time on HBO.  So, no, I have no idea how many times I've seen it.

I was well aware of the concept.  As a kid I knew Josie and friends from Archie Comics, and I had seen both versions of the cartoon, Josie and the Pussycats and Josie and the Pussycats in Outerspace (Hanna Barbera was nuts, y'all).

But like a lot of people, I dismissed the movie when it came out, assuming it was *not for me* and aimed at pre-teens.  Which, fine.  But not my movie.  But sitting there, delirious in the Arizona heat, I sat and watched a few minutes of the movie and was, like, "...ooooohhhh.  They let them make this?"

And I don't mean that in a bad way.  When this hit in 2001, making a movie for the audience about how they were being easily led dressed up as a frothy, fun ride was kind of unheard of.  And also sort of reflected the spirit of the Gen-X generation's initial push into leadership roles in media - just before they decided it was more lucrative to be the villains from this movie instead of spunky musicians.

SPOILERS

Christmas Watch: Elf (2003)

Watched:  12/14/2023

Format:  Hulu

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  John Favreau

Not too long ago on the nu-social medias (BluSky, maybe?) I opined that Elf (2003) is the last generally agreed upon holiday "classic".  

While there's plenty of good Christmas movies that have arrived in the past two decades, it's hard to find one this many people have seen - which maybe isn't the best endorsement, but it is a fact.  Elf was the last holiday movie to land in regular rotation on basic cable (as in "24 hours of Elf!"), and it's hard to imagine that in our splintered way of viewing media and smaller and smaller shares of audiences that a movie will be able to get much traction as part of folks' holiday habits.  And, even now, the classics of a decade or so ago have been pushed aside for 1980's Gen-X nostalgia and the endless Die Hard debates by people young enough to have their own movies.

It's not hard to see why Elf has earned it's place, though, and why it's imitated with movies like Noelle.  It's a great concept to imagine a North Pole elf loosed in the big city, trying to connect to the rest of us and missing.  There's an innocence and joie de vivre ascribed to children that it's fun to see a 6'3" guy embracing.

The "elf culture" gags are fantastic, and - while I know Will Ferrell's energy isn't for everyone - but it seems to be coming from a place in this one.  And, really, the whole cast in this thing is great.  Casting James Caan as Buddy's father was absolutely inspired.  Zooey Deschanel, Mary Steenburgen, Bob Newhart, Ed Asner, Michael Lerner, Amy Sedaris, Andy Richter and Kyle Gass, and, of course, Peter Dinklage.  

It fits neatly into a space where we've already seen innumerable movies about how Santa is de-powered because there's not enough Christmas spirit... like, that's a major plot point and they never really get into it.  We just look around and say "yeah, fair enough, I guess".  And it knows we've all seen the stop-motion Rankin-Bass specials enough, it just overlays that world over the North Pole.  

Anyway, you've seen Elf.  I don't need to belabor the point.  The only real thing that sticks out in 2023 is - why on earth does Zooey Deschanel's character fall for Buddy?  Inquiring minds want to know.  He's a grown man who acts like a hyper 7 year old, has no job, and is insane/ obsessed with Christmas.  Which is going to feel weird in July.

I mean, yes, he helped encourage her to sing, but.  Look, people encourage me to do stuff all the time, but I am sorry - I do not start making googly eyes at you as a result.  Googly eyes are reserved for Jamie.

TKD Watch: The Foot Fist Way (2006)

Watched:  11/12/2023

Format:  Max

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Jody Hill

I saw this back in the day when it was a theatrical release (apparently contributing $40 or so of the $250K take), and while I am sure it was originally hitting the festival circuit in 2006, I saw it in 2008.  

At the time, I took my pal Matt, who had just earned his Black Belt in something other than Tae Kwon Do. But strip-mall TKD was something with which I had a lot of familiarity.  I, myself, tested for a Black Belt circa 2001 after a few years of lessons.*  And, yes, everything in the movie about how these schools operate felt absolutely true.  

Your strip mall TKD dojo is a place where grown adults take instruction and direction from 13 year old kids left in charge of the class, and it's a place where people with jobs spend their time yelling mispronounced Korean words and treating everything with deadly seriousness as they kick targets and punch dummies.

Godzilla Day Watch: Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S. (2003)

Watched:  11/03/2023

Format:  Amazon 

Viewing:  Second or Third

Director:  Masaaki Tezuka

So, I'd seen this one before, and as near as I can tell, it's a favorite of the Millennium Era (spoiler, y'all.  I kind of dig all eras for their own reasons).  And that's not a bad take.  The suit in this one is pretty rad and toyetic, Godzilla is in "unstoppable natural force" mode, and the story is just absolutely bananas in the best way.  And, man, so much monster-fighting.

Our story - Mothra and a pair of Faeries (is there any other kind from Infant Island?), show up to tell one of their old contacts from the original Mothra movie that Mothra wants the JXSDF to return 1954 Godzilla's bones to the ocean.  Where are 1954 Godzilla's bones?  Inside of MechaGodzilla.  Why?  REASONS.  Apparently that's what they used as the support structure.  

So, yes - (a) the Godzilla you've known since Godzilla Raids Again is NOT OG Godzilla (which makes sense since he's very dead at the end of the first film.  And (b) there are mystical forces at play that want those bones in the ocean, and those forces talk to the Faeries and Mothra.  

Of course there's a very earnest and hard working mechanic who met Mothra who, by day, is on the flight crew for MechaGodzilla.  There's a bunch of other characters, but I'll be honest - they kind of don't really matter.  This is about Current Godzilla wanting to fight the bones of his counterpart, Mothra showing up and self-sacrificing, and MechaGodzilla being haunted.  It is a ride.

I won't hard sell you on this movie - it's part of a series and I didn't mean to watch it.  But we pulled together a last-minute watch party and I intended to watch Godzilla versus Astro Monster, but apparently that got pulled from Prime on Nov. 1 and I panicked.  

If you're going to panic, there are worse movies to decide to watch.

Hallo-Watch: Ghost Ship (2002)

Watched:  10/20/2023

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Steve Beck

So, I remembered this movie being better than I expected when I watched it back in the mid-00's.  Watching it in 2023, it is as bad as I first suspected when the trailers hit.

It has a few highlights - the opening is a banger if you can tolerate some gorey gore.  There's some interesting set design, and the overall concept of a haunted ship (on sea or in space) is a good one.  I like haunted house movies, and what is a cruise liner if not a floating resort?

But the movie is essentially a cliche-fest, borrowing from better films and engaging in the goofiest of 1990's ragtag, blue-collar, post-Abyss team dynamics that just absolutely throttled movies by the 00's from Deep Blue Sea to Name-Your-Film.  We get bits of The Shining, we get bits of just general ghosty-stuff you're like to see in any spook movie new or old, but now with CG!  Which was all producers thought we cared about in 2002 (spoiler: it absolutely was not).  

What's weird about this movie is that it's never scary.  Beyond that, I'm not sure there's really ever any tension.  It's so by-the-numbers that you'd literally have to be a kid who hasn't seen anything to get anything novel out of it.  So then you're left with execution.  And - it's...  again, by-the-numbers in a way that at the time we were told was being done for sale to foreign markets.  Which.... (a) cool for them, but I am also your audience, and (b) I don't know if you've ever seen an Asian film or a European film, but "complicated" is not something they have any trouble wrangling, so why these movies get reduced to people shouting last names at each other and commenting on "tiddies" is beyond me.

The cast on this movie was kind of no-joke at the time.  Gabriel Byrne, an up-and-coming Julianna Marguiles (her magnificent hair reduced here for blue-collar action heroism).  We have a rising Isaiah Washington, Karl Urban and Ron Eldard.  Less well known, Alex Dimitriades, Desmond Harrington and our token ghost-girl, Katie, played by Emily Browning.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention torch singer Francesca Rettondini, who plays a ghostly chanteuse.  While noteworthy for general foxiness, Rettondini would, in 2012, go on to become a television host, and in that capacity would be aboard the Costa Concordia when it ran into rocks, capsizing to become one of the larger scale boat disasters in Europe on this century.  No, Rettondini does not find the irony amusing.  

A few items of note:  Apparently these people all believed they were in a very different movie about people trapped on a ship who slowly go mad thanks to ghosts, but when they showed up, they found out that the script had been re-written to make it what we see on screen.  Which absolutely feels like a second draft generated by a Script-o-Tron 2000 running on Windows 98.  

Also - the movie was directed by a gentleman who had directed just one prior film, and this would be his final bow as a director of features before heading into commercials, which has apparently treated him well.  But it does make you wonder how much the very big name producers (Joel Silver, Zemeckis, etc...) decided to just push this guy around as a young gun-for-hire, which was a standard power move in the 90's.  

Anyway, the movie decides that in the third act it needs to have a plot, and that plot is clunky, dumb and even a little confusing.  We are forced to learn that there was some heist of gold?  A second boat?  Armed bandits?  a quadruple cross?  I don't know and I don't care.  It's dumb and unnecessary.  Ghost stories don't need concrete origin stories.  Especially when they get tossed out in favor of "actually, demon magic" immediately after.  

Horror is hard, y'all.  It really is.  And I know people love this movie, and I gave it a pass for something like 17 years since I last saw it, but.  Nope.  It's just a product of the time in so many ways, and really has nothing new to offer that doesn't happen in the first five minutes.