Classic Watch: The Godfather Part II (1974)

Watched:  04/13/2025

Format:  4K disc that failed, and then streaming

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Well.  What do you even really say about The Godfather Part II (1974)?  I mean, really.  If you're looking for insight into this movie, is The Signal Watch really going to crack the case on this one?

As we'd done with Godfather, we broke Part II into two nights of viewing.  Jamie hadn't actually seen this one (I have no idea how that happened, and neither did she), and it was a delight seeing her wrapped up in the movie.  She can weigh in down in the comments with her reaction, but it was very positive.  

We had plenty to say about the impact The Godfather had on us back when we were a youth watching movies aimed at adults circa 1990.  In an era when the common wisdom was that the sequel was always worse and a money grab, watching the then-16 year old The Godfather Part II was a revelation of what was possible when you have the ground work of a classic.  Honestly, one of my reactions watching the movie is anger that it doesn't seem like many filmmakers have even tried to take apart these two movies and see what makes them work and try to one up them.

Chabert Watch! The Lost Tree (2016)

Watched:  04/13/2025

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Brian A. Metcalf

Woof.

The Lost Tree (2016)?  More like "lost me 30 seconds in".  Amirite?  Where are my Lost Tree bros?

To me, the thing that is most interesting about this very not-good movie is less the movie than digging in a bit to how Hollywood works/ worked.  It's famously a town of hustlers, and for a brief while in the late 90's and through the 00's, thanks to the power of indie film, some of that got celebrated as we had breakout films like Swingers.  But since Ed Wood got his hands on a fog machine, genre has also been a part of indie film made for no money, but hoping an idea and a performance will carry the day.

That does not happen here.

This movie is a mess from the start.  The camera-work is maybe not the best, and shot on consumer video as near as I can tell.  The audio in mostly fine, I guess, but the soundtrack/ score is doing some Olympic-class lifting, desperately trying to convince the viewer something is happening, and we're not just watching a dude wander around by himself in an empty cabin or an open field for insanely long stretches.

I will be honest and say:  I watched this movie and I can describe what happens in it, but if there's a story here with a point or an ironic twist, I am at a loss.  

Horror Watch: The Body Snatcher (1945)

Watched:  04/12/2025

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Director:  Robert Wise

So.  I love Universal Horror.  This is where we get Frankenstein, Dracula, the Wolfman, et al.  But, gosh darn it - those RKO horror films are good.  I was basking in how well done I found The Body Snatcher (1945) when I realized it was directed by Robert Wise, who I consider one of the best directors ever produced in the US, but who doesn't ever seem to get named among the greats.  But this is my blog, and here - Robert Wise reigns supreme.*

RKO's horror flicks are more "creepy tales" than relying on monsters and Jack Pierce make-up.   There's nothing supernatural here, no super science bringing beings to life.  It's more about the darkness in people, and that's where I think this movie works astoundingly well.

Anyway - I also learned some interesting history!  So, for twenty years or so, I've been aware that back in the day, it was hard to come by cadavers for medical schools, and so they'd, uhm....  pay dudes to steal bodies.  If you were near a medical school, there was an absolute chance that you were going to be dug up and dissected.  What I found out thanks to this movie is that ground zero for this practice getting particularly grim was in Edinburgh, Scotland.  Look up the Burke and Hare murders.  This shit is wild, yo.

But it turns out that if your business is selling bodies for fun and profit, it's easy to turn living people into bodies.

Anyhoo...  our movie finds a promising young medical student about to drop out of school as he can't afford it anymore  At the same time, a(n attractive) woman and her daughter come to see the school's headmaster to see if he'll perform surgery to help the daughter walk again.  The cab that is taking them there is driven by our man, Boris Karloff, who also happens to go dig up corpses by night and sell them to the school's headmaster.

What spins out is not a monster movie, but more the horror of the young doctor-to-be realizing what is going on, and his own complicity in the practice, while Boris Karloff and the head doctor reveal how they've been entwined for decades in this foul business of grave robbing, and what sort of man is happy to make money doing it, and why doctors are desperate for it.

The movie also co-stars Bela Lugosi as a servant who wants to get cut in on the body business.  

There are some truly great scenes and ideas in this movie - some from the source material, a short story by Robert Louis Stevenson, and others made up for the film.  It's wonderfully shot by Robert De Grasse - and one of those things RKO always seemed to know to invest in to make their movies look phenomenal.  RKO was no poverty row studio, but they knew where to spend money (until Hughes took over).

All of the stuff with the singing girl is great horror movie work.  Hats off to Wise.

Karloff and Lugosi are rock solid in the movie, but I also really liked Edith Atwater as Meg - the head doctor's maid and mistress.  A complicated role that has to emote and thread the story together, she nails it.  She looked super familiar and I figured out that 24 years later, she was the inn-keeper in True Grit.  

Anyway - I really don't care to spoil the movie, just add it to the list.  There's also some more Val Lewton produced movies from this era I need to get into. Karloff followed these with Isle of the Dead and Bedlam, both of which are held in high esteem, but I've not yet seen.

*Dude never made a bad movie.  Maybe instead of watching every Chabert movie, I could have made a point by watching every Wise movie, but here we are.

Chabert Watch! The Lost (2009)

Watched:  04/11/2025

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Bryan Goeres

Here's my theory:  the writers came up with the ending for The Lost (2009), and then had to work backward from there.  Desperate to keep anyone from guessing the ending, they kinda screwed up what you need to do with a mystery, which is leave clues that make you realize "oh, yeah, it was kinda there all along!"  But, nope.  They hid it so well, and the twist is so out of left field, you're just sort of left shrugging.

Not that anyone was invested in the prior 85 or so minutes of the movie before the twist ending.  

This is an oddly misogynistic supernatural thriller/ psychological mystery wherein Lacey Chabert plays a young woman in a Spanish insane asylum.  Three years prior, she seems to have set a mansion on fire as well as someone inside.  As a student, she was living in the guest house.  She looks pale and spooky as she watches it all burn, and maybe has psychic powers.

The movie is kind of badly shot.  The audio is poorly mixed, and not helped by Assante mumbling his way through the dialog so badly we turned on subtitles.  Also, a good portion of the cast is Spanish and not hitting every line in a way you can hear.  So when Dina Meyer shows up enunciating, it's a trip.  

Armand Assante, who I've only ever seen in Judge Dredd, plays a psychiatrist who examined Chabert briefly 3 years ago before saying "she's nuts" and leaving her in the Spanish psych ward.  Why she did not come back stateside, I am unsure.  Chabert's sister is Dina Meyer, who basically blackmails Assante into going to take a look at Chabert again.

Noir Watch: The Narrow Margin (1952)

Watched:  04/06/2025

Format:  TCM Noir Alley

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Richard Fleischer/ William Cameron Menzies

I've only mentioned this movie twice on the blog from what I can tell.  Once in 2010, and once in 2018.  That seems nuts, because I'm sure this was more like the 5th or 6th time I'd seen The Narrow Margin (1952).  

Personally, I love this movie.  I'm shocked I didn't get to it during the podcast.  I think SimonUK and I talked about double-billing it with the Gene Hackman-starring remake, which I still haven't seen.

The movie is pretty straightforward.  It's an RKO flick, so it's a bit more rough and tumble, a bit sexier and sassier, and the sense of danger a bit higher.  There's a whole backstory to the movie that stars Howard Hughes being out of his mind and thinking Jane Russell should really be in everything and also not getting how his own movies work.  You can look it up.  Today is not the day I make this a film history blog.

Chabert Watch! The Color of Rain (2014)

Watched:  04/05/2025

Viewing:  First

Format:  Hallmark

Director:  Anne Wheeler

Job:  Church school admin

new skill:  widow

Man: Warren Christie

Job of Man:  I don't know if I ever figured that out

Goes to/ Returns to:  Stays in place

Event:  Christmas pageant

Food:  Italian, also, what other people bring by

So, I'm rapidly running out of Chabert Hallmark movies that are not holiday-themed, and I'm not sure I'll be diving into Christmas movies any time soon.

I don't know what was going on at Hallmark in 2014, or if this was a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie or what.  The Hall of Fame movies tend to be a little closer to regular-ol-movies as they originally aired on network TV, often on Sundays, but this was likely always on the cable channel.  The Color of Rain (2014) is based on the real life of two families who each was dealt a blow by cancer, each side losing a spouse, and then the two remaining spouses meeting and falling for each other.  And the resulting side-eye they get from their support structures.

I guess I'm basically shocked that this movie made its way to Hallmark, because it's sort of the opposite of the usually marshmallow fluff comfort treat that the network is known for.  Instead, it strives to show how people going through a spousal death and in the throes of grieving really are feeling and dealing with day-to-day life - and it's not a rose-colored version.  As both families have kids, they require daily care as well as the emotional support needed when you lose a parent - and that can include the kids just flipping out.  Man in this movie is angry with God, and this is a movie about good, church-going folks with the pastor as a supporting character and the center of their lives seemingly the church and its attached school.

Chabert's character had three years of knowing her husband was sick and had already taken on everything, but Man's character loses his wife abruptly to cancer, and is utterly unprepared.  The connection comes as Chabert is kind of the only one making sense to him in the wake of his wife's passing.

Angry Animal/ Kilmer Watch: The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)

Watched:  04/02/2026

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Stephen Hopkins

Somewhere in The Ghost and the Darkness (1996), a movie that tells the curious tale of two rogue lions hunting and killing over 100 people that were part of an effort to build a bridge for a train in a remote area of Kenya, is a better movie.  My memories of this film were that Val Kilmer is great, Michael Douglas is not, and the one scene at the end totally had me.

A second viewing, almost 30 years later, and a glance at Wikipedia puts some weight on my suspicions - that Executive Producer Michael Douglas decided that if this was his movie, he would be prominently featured, and the movie would flail around on screen.  If there was a story to tell, it would become hopelessly muddied by the film's end.  

Chabert Watch! Non-Stop (2013)

Watched:  04/03/2025

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Richard Gabai

Is this movie an absurdist comedy?  Or a straight-up Lifetime thriller that had two drafts written and then they shot it?  I honestly, earnestly do not know.

Non-Stop (2013) is a 90 minute movie that starts getting to the action in minute 41 or so, dragging out a both boring and overly elaborate set-up that includes exposition dropped during the credits - because no one thought to include this information in the rest of the film.  This is Lacey Chabert doing her absolute best against a movie that makes no sense and every actor seems to think they're in a different movie.  Meanwhile, Chabert is trying to convey something that the writing doesn't help her with at all.

I am not averse to the locked-room-mystery-aboard-transportation.  Give me a murder on a boat, a lady vanishing from a train, snakes on a plane.  But this is not a murder mystery for Lacey to sleuth out.  This is a movie that doesn't understand how these movies work, provides far too few potential suspects and a single motivation, and muffs the ending.  It realizes it has plot holes at the 2/3rds point and goes back and tries to paper them over with gigantic neon signs along the way, so you know what's up every time a plot point is introduced and where we're headed.

Superman 2025: Sneak Peek Released

You can follow our posts on Superman at this link, and our posts on the new movie, Superman (2025) at this link.

Well.  Heck.

Say what you will, but this movie is Warner Bros. finally getting someone on board who knows and cares about the comics.  And when it comes to Superman, it's sometimes unusual for the writers themselves to know more about Superman than the readers.  I'm not sure there's exactly misinformation out there, but there is a dearth of Super-info regarding the Amazing World of Superman.

What I think you can expect is that people will say "that is crazy" or "that is kind of silly".  Super dogs?  Super robots?  Yes.  Absolutely.  And it's long been my stance that if you're going to do Superman, you should lean into the Superman-ness of it all.  Despite the fact this has been Superman since Eisenhower was in office, and we've had multiple Superman shows and movies over the years, people really have never seen giant chunks of what Superman is.    

Superman fell into a weird spot where the was cost prohibitive to show a lot of what's in the comics on the big screen in the 40's and 50's when serials were coming out.  In the 1970's and 80's, just seeing a guy fly and do heat-vision was enough. When it became possible via CGI to show robots, dogs, etc.., it was believed at Warner Bros. that Superman needed to be something not in line with the comics.  Some of the joyless take appeared in Superman Returns, which tried to straddle the earnestness of the Reeves movies with the edginess that was coming - and fell into the crevasse in-between.  But most of it came from Zack Snyder's Ayn Randian Ubermench who wasn't sure he wanted to help people if it was going to be a whole thing.  Kelex was turned into a robot that tries to murder Lois Lane on sight.

But real ones know:

Musical Watch: Ziegfeld Girl (1941)

Watched:  04/01/2025

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Directors:  Robert Z. Leonard, Busby Berkeley

Increasingly lost to time is the impact Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. had on American culture of the 20th century.  A showman, theatrical empresario, producer, promoter and more, Ziegfeld is most famous for his Ziegfeld Follies, a series of extravagant Broadway shows that ran from around 1907 to his death in the 1930's.  Much of what we thought of as a stage full of beautiful young women that flooded musicals in the 1930's and 1940's and gave Busby Berkeley (credited here) a career was Hollywood tinkering with the shows Ziegfeld had staged, based on French revues.   He managed to employ folks like Irving Berlin, WC Fields, Will Rogers and many, many more.

Had Ziegfeld not passed when he did, it's likely he would have expanded into Hollywood in a more serious manner (he was already there and died in Hollywood in 1932), bringing his sensibilities to the big screen.

He was credited with creating "The Glorification of the American Girl", both featuring and populating shows with large choruses of female performers.  But he featured acts of all kinds, and shows to this day are based within the Ziegfeld Follies (see the currently running Funny Girl).  He was also not afraid to push into the risque, and folks knew what they were getting.  You can find all sorts of interesting photos online looking for Ziegfeld girls.

In what is a star-studded flick - the movie follows three girls/ women who enter into the Follies.  Like the Schwab's Pharmacy story, Ziegfeld - never seen in this movie!  And treated a bit like that Wizard Judy Garland had previously tangled with - would pluck girls out of their mundane lives by finding them behind perfume counters, working in elevators, etc...   A bit of instant wish-fulfillment if you caught the right guy's eye (which is kind of a nightmare, but in an era in which women's career options were limited, and many Ziegfeld girls married well, it's not nothing).

Val Kilmer Merges With The Infinite

Actor, writer and  Val Kilmer has passed at the age of 65.  

Kilmer had been ill for some time, suffering from throat cancer.

I first saw him in Real Genius on home video, saw his great turn in Top Gun: Maverick, and most recently saw him when I rewatched Heat.    

I always thought he was great.  Sure, you heard he was a method actor/ was difficult, but whatever.  When I saw him in a movie, he was always stellar - and for some reason I always think of how great he was in The Ghost and the Darkness.  But that was one of maybe two dozen things I saw him in.  Actually, a scan of IMDB tells me that it's likely far more films and roles than that.  Whether it was playing Jim Morrison, Batman, or Doc Holliday, or whatever... he was always a strength to whatever movie he was in. 

He'll be missed.

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.

I Just Walked Out of a Movie (because going to the theater sucks)

I'd love to also sit by myself in a theater with functioning chairs

Dear Nicole Kidman,

I love movies.  I do.  But... in the past couple of years, I've really grown to hate going to the movies. 

Here in 2025, there are no theaters that are all upside.  The Alamo is... fine.  A shadow of its heyday from a decade ago, and is currently a nightmare for labor.  How much I want to overpay for mediocre food is also part of the equation.  I've been relatively enthusiastic about the new chain, Cinepolis, but last time I saw a movie there, I realized we'd dropped > $100, and I just got mad.  I used to be able to do a full trip to the movies for $10.  Yes, inflation, but...

Nicole, I just tried to go see a movie at the theater run by your employer, AMC, by attending a screening at the Barton Creek 14.  I wound up walking out five minutes into the movie.

Things seemed afoul from when the moment we stepped in the lobby.  

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.

Western Watch: True Grit (1969)

Watched:  03/29/2025

Format:  TCM on DVR

Viewing:  First

Director:  Henry Hathaway

I saw the Coen Bros.' remake in 2010, but I'd go ahead and recommend both.  This movie is *great*.  

True Grit (1969) is the one where, after Stagecoach happened way back in 1939, the Academy finally decided to give Wayne some flowers for carrying an industry for 30 years.  But he also earns it - this is Wayne in top form even as the era of the Western had already been transformed, and had become as much about the illusion of the Old West as anything else - and  Westerns as a major genre were winding to a close.  Wayne himself would be dead by the end of 1979.

You likely know the story - an Arkansas farmer/ rancher is killed while away from home, trading for horses in Fort Smith.  The murderer is his own employee.  His precocious and pious daughter, Mattie Ross, comes to town and recruits US Marshall Rooster Cogburn to come hunt down the man responsible.  Cogburn has a notoriously high kill count, a drinking problem and nothing going for him other than his ability to hunt down crooks.

A Texas Ranger (Glen Campbell!) is also looking for the guy they're hunting and lures Rooster away with a greater bounty.  Until the indefatigable Mattie Ross refuses to be left behind.

This movie has plot, certainly, but is really a character piece about two wildly different people with a common goal, and their growing sense of respect for one another.  The dialogue of the novel is deeply stylized, and this movie makes it largely palatable, even when it sounds a bit odd.  It's one of those movies where both leads are individually difficult, stubborn humans - Mattie as a young woman of unhinged principle with a naive-to-a-fault worldview, but still smart enough to be wily, and Cogburn an old survivor who has gone largely unloved and misunderstood - and makes you kind of love them both.

Mattie's refusal to shed tears and desire, rather, to see justice done - justice that serves her own rage - is fantastic.  Just as Cogburn's shift in his attitude to Mattie kind of perfect (I am unshocked John Wayne saw how he could mingle this idea with Red River and make The Cowboys in 1972).

I don't know how many movies Kim Darby is in, but it's surprising she wasn't a bigger deal in Hollywood after this.  She's really terrific.

Anyway, I dug it.  Sorry I took so long to see it.

Musical Watch: It's Always Fair Weather (1955)

Watched:  03/27/2025

Format:  TCM on DVR

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Stanley Donen/ Gene Kelly

It's Always Fair Weather (1955) is a weird and wildly uneven movie.  It's either having an astounding number like the whole sequence in the boxing gym where Cyd Charisse seems like magic, or its three dudes boring me to tears with their individual issues.  And, yes, I'd seen it before.

I get that the movie is trying to replicate the trio of guys from On the Town, and, according to IMDB trivia, that was the original plan, but Sinatra was having his studio issues, and Munshin was on the outs with Hollywood.  

But I think if this movie had just been about Gene Kelly's character, it would have worked a heck of a lot better.  Or if it had been able to bring back all six of the characters - sure.  Instead, we get this weird "men in crisis" story that just kind of lacks charm and even feels depressing.  

Western Watch: Red River (1948)

Watched:  03/26/2025

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Howard Hawks

Who knew the highly regarded American Classic film would be pretty good?

Red River (1948) is a Howard Hawks post-war epic, one of a dozen John Wayne classics, and features a good number of the A-list supporting players of the era who show up again and again in different configurations through the 1960's.  

The film is also curiously myth-building for Texas history, and it's curious to see a movie made about it 80 years after the fact, rather than the additional near-80 that have since passed.  John Wayne plays a gunman who joins a wagon train in the years just prior to the Civil War going southwest out of St. Louis.  Somewhere in what would become the Oklahoma Indian Territory, Wayne decides to peel off and head South, crossing the Red River into Texas.  There a girl who begs to go with him (Coleen Gray*) but he says he'll send for her.  He's heading out into hard land with his pal, Groot (Western staple Walter Brennan).  

90's Watch: Romy and Michele's High School Reunion (1997)

Watched:  03/22/2025

Format:  Prime

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  David Mirkin

I have no notes.

This movie is hilarious from start to finish, is incredibly well written, well directed and has a cast that gets the assignment - starting with our two leads, to every supporting character.  It's not Citizen Kane, but that's also not the goal.  It's a flick that barely has any commentary and is just a situation with characters intended to derive comedy.  And that it does.

I have no idea if people saw this in the theater (we did, back in college).  But I assume everyone has since seen this since streaming or on basic cable.  If not, fix your heart and see Romy and Michele's High School Reunion (1997).  

If it's been a minute - Romy (Mira Sorvino) and Michele (Lisa Kudrow) are living in LA, hitting der clerb, and kind of drifting around but having a good time.  Heather, a former classmate (Janeane Garofolo), runs into Romy and informs her that there's a high school reunion of their school in Tucson.  Romy and Michele want to go, but slowly realize that maybe they haven't had the most productive ten years by many folks' measure.  

Of course, old crushes will be there, and folks who crushed on them (Alan Cumming and Justin Theroux).  And the mean girls from high school.  So, our heroes decide they need to come up with a story that will impress.

Fantasy Watch: Dragonslayer (1981)

the rare fantasy movie that earns the art on the poster

Watched:  03/21/2025

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Matthew Robbins

In an era before CGI, a lot of love, skill and money had to go into making FX movies, and it was often the difference between a Star Wars and a Starcrash.*  Dragonslayer (1981) was a VHS staple in our house back in the earliest days of home video when my folks thought *owning* a VCR was a crazy idea so we rented a VCR at the same time we rented a stack of movies from the grocery (shit was wild, kids).  

My opinion of the movie hasn't budged much since I watched it as a kid.  It's a gorgeous film with a miscast lead and spends too much time on being goofy at the beginning for the movie it wants to be at the end without enough connective tissue to make it all work.  Maybe because of The Once and Future King casting Arthur as a nerd, maybe because this movie has serious "Sorcerer's Apprentice" vibes, we're stuck with basically a nerd as our lead, which feels like it's a particular part of fantasy fiction.  Think of the near miss we likely had with Luke and Star Wars with writing, casting and editing (yes, we can always make any post a Mark Hamill appreciation post).  

I like the bones of the movie *a lot* - the lottery, the corrupt government, even a novice wizard trying to solve the dragon problem.  And, of course, the obviously female Valerian turning out to be a girl.  All good stuff.  I'd forgotten there's a whole bit about the church and the dipshit of a king sliding in and taking credit for the dragon's defeat.  That's some fascinatingly cutting social satire for a mainstream fantasy film.

But we're here for the dragon puppets, both Henson-y and stop-motion, and man, they still look amazing.  No kidding, because this was ILM in 1981 as all engines were really firing after Empire Strikes Back.  

Anyway, I like the film well enough, still.  I feel like they could have cut some business at the beginning, but I get why they did this for a more general audience and because fantasy fiction has a tendency to want to dick around before we get to the dark part.

I am sure the fact this was not CGI, even if it was computer-assisted will blow the minds of the youths, but I think it's a great example of state-of-the-art practical FX as I remember them as a kid.  And maybe why Star Wars, Dark Crystal and other contemporaries seemed so special.  This movie looks like a million bucks, and once you're in it, I think it's not half-bad.

I did read that Caitlin Clarke, who plays Valerian, passed back in 2004.  Y'all raise a glass to her.

*that said, I will defend Starcrash with my dying breath 

80's Watch: Arthur (1981)

Watched:  03/20/2025

Format:  DVD

Viewing:  First

Director:  Steve Gordon

Both Jamie and I were convinced we'd already seen Arthur (1981), but both of us realized at some point, maybe a 1/3rd of the way through the movie, that we must have started the movie and never finished it.  This doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.  SimonUK had popped around, promising not to bring a horror film, and this was his selection.

Anyway, Arthur was sort of a big deal when I was very young, but because it was about a raging alcoholic, I missed it.  Not that I think I would have understood it as a child.  Now, in 1981, that didn't stop The Chipmunks from including Arthur's Theme on The Chipmunks Go Hollywood.

And in this way, as a child, I knew all the words to Arthur's Theme.

In some ways, it's very much a classic comedy - something that would have been made during the Depression as a screwball comedy.  It's rich wackiness against rich stiffs and a working-class girl who meets a guy who so wealthy he can make all of her dreams come true.  

It also would make an interesting modern remake of sorts, as the signs of Arthur's stalled maturity materialize in a fantasy setting of random collectibles, train sets, etc... and it's not too hard to imagine that in 2025 terms, along with maybe a guy who won't lay off the weed.

Moore's performance is at an 11 at the start, which is a lot.   He's intentionally unlikable in his way, and it's not until Hobson enters as Arthur's butler/ father-figure that we see Arthur less through the eyes of people who are just temporarily dealing with him and instead with someone who cares about him.  What blew my mind was the timing of Hobson in pop culture (not quite a Wooster and Jeeves, but close), and the complete re-imagining of Alfred in the Batman comics that would occur with Frank Miller a few years later.  And, yeah, I can name another poor-little-rich-boy who also may be frozen in adolescence who sees his butler as his father...

I'm not sure John Gielgud as Hobson saves the movie, because it doesn't need that, but he absolutely wins the movie.  I think the scene with Moore and Susan's father under the moose head is one of the best comedy bits I've seen in a while.  And Liza is at her best - she's great in this as the waitress who dreams of being an actor.  She's really funny, as is Barney Martin as her father.  Or Ted Ross as Bitterman, the chauffeur.  

Anyway, I agree with Simon that the script is actually really solid, and I'll add it accomplishes the difficult task of making a lout loveable and believable when he does show he can do something when he cares.

I think the last time we got a comedy like this - that wasn't a very self-aware remake - may have been Billy Madison, which is just mind boggling.