Chabert Watch! The Dancing Detective - a Deadly Tango (2023)

Watched:  02/20/2025

Format:  Hallmark/ Amazon

Viewing:  First

Director:  Stefan Scaini

Job:  Police detective

new skill:  ballroom dancing

Man: Will Kemp

Job of Man: dance instructor

Goes to/ Returns to:  Goes to Malta

Event:  Dance competition

Food:  cocktails

This movie is bonkers.  

You will never follow the premise, because it is baffling and exists to making the central conceit of the title happen - that a detective will dance!

For reasons, The Dancing Detective: A Deadly Tango (2023) is shot in Malta, a place of which I am mostly uninformed, but makes Malta seem lovely, and I'd love to see it.  It's modern, but retained its architecture, features old-world streets and buildings, and many pleasantly snoozing cats. But also because it's Malta in the middle of the Mediterranean, the sun is brutal and I pity the DP.

As a Maltese-shot film, a lot of the talent in the movie is local.  All the characters sport very Anglo-sounding names while the actors mostly wrestle down a range of accents from Maltese, to multi-lingual-kinda-Spanish to Slovenian.  

The film basically exists to exploit the fact that Will Kemp, one of the Hallmark A-Listers, has a background in dance.  Lacey Chabert, who is the co-star, does not.  Chabert and Kemp are both Executive Producers on this movie, and I cannot imagine what the business dealings at Hallmark are actually like, as this is also a Bristow produced movie, like the Safari movie we caught the other day.  Globetrotters, these Bristows.

The set-up:  a suave CEO dies suddenly - and while no one else sees it but us, the audience, we know he was poisoned by someone dressed as a ninja.  It turns out he's the CEO of a company like the Arthur Murray Dance Company, which is actually global (I didn't realize Arthur Murray still existed until last year when I noticed a studio next to a restaurant where I sometimes meet my folks).  So, this is high stakes!  Someone is bumping off CEOs!  Of dance!

Horror Watch: The Substance (2024)

Watched:  02/19/2025

Format:  4K disc (SimonUK's disc)

Viewing:  First

Director/ Writer:  Coralie Fargeat

Worst.  Shazam movie.  Ever.

Let me start by saying, I quite liked The Substance (2024).  I'm not sure what's going on at the Academy that this got a best picture nom, my confusion mostly stemming from the fact this is a satirical body horror movie and that sort of thing doesn't usually get nominated over Very Serious Pictures(tm) - but I am thrilled for everyone involved and for this movie getting the nod.  

I was unimpressed with the original trailer for the movie, and then after the movie came out, Simon told me he'd already seen it a few times,* and then later said he'd seen it four - and I was supposed to see it with him on his 5th viewing. However, I went to the wrong theater.  SO.  Tonight he brought over his new disc and we watched it.

On paper, this movie is what I figured from the trailers - to a point.  And it is all along the way more entertaining, bizarre, fascinating and generally better than I expected.

The only prior Coralie Fargeat movie I'd previously seen was Revenge, which I don't remember well, just that it lost me at some point and didn't win me back.  But re-reading my own review to refresh my memory - I can see a loose breadcrumb trail that led to The Substance, and what Fargeat was doing with Revenge that maybe didn't work for me but landed well with me in this instance.  

Chabert Watch! Love on Safari (2018)

Watched:  02/18/2025

Format:  DVD

Viewing:  First

Director:  Leif Bristow

Job: Web designer for corporations

new skill:  looking at giraffes, deus ex machina identification

Man: Jon Cor

Job of Man: Safari ranger

Goes to/ Returns to:  goes to South Africa

Event:  Birthday for Lacey

Food:  Cookies

First of all, Brad sucks.  

Brad is Chabert's City Man, and he prides himself on loving spreadsheets.  That's fine.  I love to spend time in Google Sheets, too.  But that and misogyny are his whole personality.  He's a gigantic tool, and we're supposed to dislike him, and, hey... mission accomplished.

Chabert plays a web developer from Chicago.  In the way that only seems to happen in movies, when a great-uncle she hasn't seen in 20 years dies, Chabert inherits a whole frikkin' animal reserve and lodge in South Africa and is now responsible for miles of bushland, the animals upon it, and the people employed by the reserve.  All without a letter or phone call from the uncle forewarning her of his plans.

Coppola Watch: The Godfather (1972)

Watched:  02/17/2025

Format:  4K disc

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Francis Ford Coppola

Guys...  it's possible The Godfather (1972) is a good movie.  

So, I'm not really going to review this movie.  If you were coming to this site to read whether you should watch one of the most well known and beloved movies in cinema, a game changer for American film, and a career high point and career maker for a handful of people...  I recommend you just set aside 3 hours of your misbegotten life and watch it.  

If you haven't seen Godfather and Godfather II, you're probably missing a lot of cultural references from your elders.  Just so you know.  It was hard to find a bigger, more universally beloved set of movies than these two, even during the Star Wars era.  Star Wars was for teens and kids, and Godfather was what is now prestige television for adults.

My first exposure to the film was in the summer of 1989.  We were staying with my uncle in DC and he happened to own copies of Godfather, Godfather II and Das Boot.  And each night after my folks and uncle went to bed, we watched parts of the movies and wound up watching all three.  

When we came home from DC, we watched The Godfather with some pals.  You had to watch it on two separate VHS tapes.  My guess is they split movie right after Michael shoots McCluskey and Sollozzo, but I honestly don't recall.

Chabert Watch! Crossword Mysteries: Terminal Descent/ Riddle Me Dead (2021)

Watched:  02/14/2025

Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  Peter Benson/ David Winning

Job: Puzzle Maker and Police Investigation Meddler

new skill:  complete knowledge of plant scientific names/ riddle show participant

Man: Brennan Elliot

Job of Man: Detective

Goes to/ Returns to: Remains in NYC

Event:  canceled puzzle contest w/ a computer, taping of a game show

Food:  Italian cooking made by supporting characters/ some diner food

I guess I should mention, Jamie was digging these movies a bit.  Her reason, and I agree, is that they're not structured like a Christmas film or romcom, and the two leads bounce off each other very well.  It's a refreshing change.

Anyway - we went ahead and knocked these two out.  You're welcome.  

I will note - the audio was pretty bad in these two movies.  I can't say what happened, but there were garbled lines, the echo of shooting on location mixed with ADR. Wind.  It was all over the place.  

With two years since our last movies, we have some new supporting cast, and we're given some lines about what happened to the former colleagues.  

Marvel Cap Watch: Captain America - Brave New World (2025)

Watched:  02/13/2025

Format:  Cinepolis

Viewing:  First

Director:  Julius Onah

It was hard to miss the negative reviews for Captain America: Brave New World (2025), which was maybe a good way to go in.  I already had pre-purchased my tickets, even knowing this movie has been delayed for months, had serious reshoots, and I'd noted Marvel was already pushing Fantastic Four and Thunderbolts as hard or harder than this movie.  

I also know that taking to social media and bravely saying "this new Marvel movie isn't very good" is the current cool thing to do, whether it's Quantumania, which fully deserves every iota of hate it got, or Deadpool and Wolverine, which was amazingly meta and a fun Saturday afternoon at the movies (and richly rewarded for the effort).

After numerous misfires and mid-level efforts, it's fair to say Marvel hit the point where the quality of what they do has slipped.  What I think folks fail to appreciate is that Marvel's long run of putting out fun, watchable stuff was singular and extraordinary.  No one else has come close.  And if you're younger, that's hard to appreciate.  In a couple dozen movies - they became an institution almost as much as the idea of the Western or Costume Drama.*   And, of course, being an institution rightfully means they're the ones to take down/ make fun of/ be skeptical/ cynical of, especially in their modern work.

At the core, I think the same problem plagues Marvel movies that plagues Marvel (and DC) comics themselves - which is that there's a crippling level of continuity in their sprawling universe, and that can be paired with the fact that Marvel seems unwilling to build any second-generation characters in the old-school fashion with their own mythologies, rogues gallery and *personal* continuities.  Characters like Sam Wilson just kinda loosely fit into the big picture and exist in the Marvel Comics U.  And that is how this movie feels.  Captain America: Brave New World operates more as a sequel to 2008's Hulk and other MCU continuity threads than it is a Captain America film.  Arguably, Sam Wilson is not the star of his own movie in much the same way, Steve Rogers was one of many characters with understandable motivations in Civil War.

Why Did I Do This Watch: Madame Web (2024)

the derp crew

Watched:  02/12/2025

Format:  Netflix

Viewing:  Second

Director:  SJ Clarkson

I swore I'd never watch Madame Web (2024) again, but I did.

A year on, it's horribleness has already reached mythic status in the superhero movie nerd community, and it's just growing in stature as Sony piles on Morbiuses and Kravens.  

I stand by every word of this lengthy discussion from last year.  

What I was trying to sort out was whether I just misunderstood the movie the first time, had I missed something?  Worse - was this just such a new take, and maybe a female-centric one I didn't get, that I was too hard on this movie?

Chabert Watch! Crossword Mysteries: Abracadaver (2019)

you'd think the prop would indicate this movie is more fun than it is

Watched 02/10/2025
Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jonathan Wright

Job: Puzzle maker and Police Investigation Meddler

new skill:  close-up magic

Man: Brennan Elliot

Job of Man: Detective

Goes to/ Returns to: Remains in NYC

Event:  Birthday at Magic Manor

Food:  I don't think there was any food

In a move that makes total sense from a cost-savings perspective, Lacey Chabert and Brennan Elliot (as Detective Man) return for a third installment in the Crossword Mysteries series - a series which was clearly shot all in one big sprint for these three installments.  Chabert has the same hair, and, occasionally, the same jacket.  The sets for the police office and the newspaper are the same, and the cast remains intact-ish.  

This time, the only tie to a crossword puzzle is that - in order to create a single day's crossword puzzle, Chabert has enrolled in weeks of magic classes at an approximation of LA's Magic Castle.  I do not know if New York has one of these.*  

It is a crazy reason for Chabert to be on site, but I guess it's weird Jessica Fletcher was always floating around when someone dropped dead 23x a year.

Superman 2025: Merch as Marketing

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

We have Superman (2025) on the way, which means a whole new, very specific wave of merch will roll out from now until, likely, next Christmas.

In a general sense, *some* Superhero nerds will buy almost anything with the right logo or image on it.  T-shirts, sure.  But I've had toothbrushes, picture frames, piggy banks, rubber ducks...  I'd feel worse about this, but I also follow sports, and, friends, there is *nothing* you cannot buy that doesn't come with a Cubs logo slapped across it.  The point being, one will find a wide array of items featuring superheroes, and for a bit, this will feature the Superman movie-specific license.

Back in 2001, I remember my own brother, Steanso, saying to me "if I put a Superman sticker on a pile of dog@#$%, I think you'd buy it."  And that has haunted me ever since.  But he's not too far off when it comes to how far DC and Marvel will go in letting just about anyone license DC and Marvel art to slap on a product.  

And, since Zazzle showed up 20+ years ago, DC in particular, has been pretty free with "yeah, here's some clip art.  Go nuts."  And a lot of their imagery has just been out there, with Superman logos showing up on anything you can imagine.  

The onslaught of super-product can be overwhelming, and it does not help that some people don't bother to get the license.

Chabert Watch! Crossword Mysteries: Proposing Murder (2019)

Watched 02/08/2025
Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  Don McCutcheon

Job: Puzzle maker and Police Investigation Meddler

new skill:  Escaping from enclosed spaces

Man: Brennan Elliot

Job of Man: Detective

Goes to/ Returns to: Remains in NYC

Event:  None, really

Food: you know, I don't think they stop to eat in this movie

If I was concerned this was going to be a series of movies about crimes being hidden in crossword puzzles, I needn't have worried.  Instead, the crossword tie-in here is that the victim is a friend of Chabert who (prior to checking out involuntarily) asks Lacey to hide his marriage proposal in the Sunday puzzle.  A few days later (that very Sunday!), he manages to gets murdered.  

Rather than a crossword housing the mystery, there's a whole thing about cryptography, WWII codes and a hidden treasure.  It's not bad.  The idea here is that Chabert's character is naturally adept at solving puzzles and codes, as well as driven to do so, exploiting her interns along the way - in pursuit of justice!

Detective Man is assigned to the case, and immediately he and Chabert cross paths.  Flirty paths, with meaningful glances.

Our victim, Chabert's platonic college pal, had just received tenure at College University, and was getting engaged to a woman he met a year ago.  She's a chef with access to pointy knives.  In addition to the fiancé, other possible suspects pop up, like a librarian, a faculty member, an antiquarian and an ex who is a surgeon.

Action Watch: Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023)

Watched:  02/09/2025

Format:  Amazon Prime

Viewing:  First

Director:  Christopher McQuarrie

This whole movie could have been an email.

Dug tells me this movie has a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I have no idea why.  It is true the entire Mission: Impossible franchise has been a struggle for me, going back to MI:2.  The movies are mostly Cruise running around and not getting his MacGuffin, punctuated with Ving Rhames reiterating the threat, so you don't forget what we're doing here, and Simon Pegg giving objectives for the next action sequence.  However, the action sequences go on so long, I completely forget what the objective was by the end.  Between the cut-scenes explaining things and the long, overly complicated action bits - it is very, very, very much like watching someone else play a video game.

The cast is impeccable.  The globe-trotting locations tremendous.  Cruise looks 45 at age 60.  Stunts are stunty.  

The plot is that an AI has gone rogue - and seems conscious.  And devious!  It has failed QAT, and apparently the dev team had never seen a Terminator movie.  The MacGuffin is a literal key that exists in two pieces that will *possibly* help control the AI.  People keep having it and then not-having it.  No one wants to just put it somewhere safe.  Hayley Atwell* shows up as one of those thieves that exist in movies like this.  She's not a spy, she's just big on ripping people off.  Vanessa Kirby, the latest addition to the Marvel U in this summer's coming Fantastic Four movie as Sue Storm, appears as The White Widow, just as she has for a couple of these movies.  Rebecca Ferguson shows up, and has like two lines, and I struggled to remember why she was important, but I think she's been in several of these.  Pom Klementieff shows up as our sexy, silent awesome hitwoman (and it feels like they let her dress herself, which I applaud).

Chabert Watch! Crossword Mysteries: A Puzzle To Die For (2019)

Watched 02/07/2025

Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  Don McCutcheon

Job: New editor of the Puzzles section of a major metropolitan newspaper

new skill: solving crimes!

Man: Brennan Elliot

Job of Man: Detective

Goes to/ Returns to: Remains in NYC

Event:  Crossword contest

Food: There are a lot of pastries seen, and deconstructed canapes

If you're a cord-cutter, you may not know that multiple Hallmark Channels exist on the cable spectrum.  In the holiday season (1/4th the year), they kind of throw the intention of the Hallmark Movies & Mysteries channel out the window, pre-empting their cozy-mysteries format with Christmas movies.  

But the rest of the year, the Hallmark Movies & Mysteries network is dedicated to movie series in which women solve mysteries.  The movie-series idea harkens back to network TV movies of the 1990's, when we'd get, like, Perry Mason movies with Raymond Burr, with a recurring character, set-up, and supporting players.*

I was previously aware of these movies as, in my occasional channel surfing, I'd seen they had really wild titles like "Garage Sale Mysteries" and "Murder, She Baked".  In their wildest dreams, SNL writers were not cooking this up.  But I also hadn't seen any of them.  However, when I was figuring out how many movies Ms. Lacey Chabert was responsible for, I stumbled across "The Crossword Mysteries" series - 5 films in all.  

Yeah.  So.  I guess the deal is we're mixing in hobbies of the Hallmark audience with genre TV, and while it may seem silly on its face, I watch approximately 10,000 hours of superhero content every year.  Let people like what they like.

90's Watch: Singles (1992)

movie tag lines are just kind of stupid, aren't they?

Watched:  02/08/2025

Format:  YouTube

Viewing:  First

Director:  Cameron Crowe

I am of two minds how I would have viewed this movie in 1992.  It is equal parts likely (1) I would have enjoyed it as a piece of media that seemed to be aiming itself at me and my generation, that had a happening soundtrack and Bridget Fonda.  It is just as likely that I (b) would have found it an older person's attempt to co-opt some of the music I listened to and what was happening with indie culture, and make a movie about romance that in no way seemed based in reality and was just people trying to say quippy things.

It largely would have depended on my mood going in.  I'm a monster that way.  Therefore, I can only go off of how I reacted to other movies aimed at me that came after Singles (1992) that I did see.  Reality Bites, Threesome, whatever that one was where Joe Pesci played a hobo at Harvard.  I didn't like two of them, and for someone who once thought Reality Bites was surprising and kinda okay, I now find it painful to watch.  It is, as the kids say, cringe.  I know if I'd waited and seen it just two years later, this movie would have driven me as much into a rage as the endless advertising of Surge soda.

I am aware that one is not to speak ill of Cameron Crowe, and I also like Say Anything and Almost Famous, but...  In it's way, Singles feels like Crowe tried to take some of the format of a Woody Allen movie, of romantic navel gazing, and remove it from Allen's very specific world, and sought to find another playground in which people sit around and talk about relationships, while saying things out loud, casually, in a way that would get your friends to tell you to shut the fuck up if you tried that after your sophomore year of college.  What's novel about the movie is the structure, complete with MTV-approved hand-written title cards for each segment.

Chabert Watch/ Forgot to Mention It Watch: Moonlight in Vermont (2017)

Watched: 02/04/2025 

Format: Hallmark 

Viewing: First 

Director: Jonathan Wright 

Job: Manhattan-based Realtor

new skill: talking to peasants

Man: Carlo Marks

Job of Man: Chef at B'n'B

Goes to/ Returns to: Goes to Vermont

Event: MapleFest/ MapleFest ball or some nonsense

Food: Maple syrup

I watched this in January, before I committed to the Chabert-a-thon, and forgot about it immediately after watching it, but saw it pass by on Hallmark and was like "oh, right.  That one."

This movie was bad and I didn't like it.  There are two male leads, and both characters are terrible humans who suck.  The jury is out on what kind of human Chabert's character is, but she's dressed very smartly.

Chabert plays a born-and-raised Manhattanite who is dating a Manhattan guy who sucks.  They break up because she works too much/ is completely inconsiderate of her boyfriend over and over, apparently.

Mad that she's been dumped, she joins with best-pal Fiona Vroom, and they go to her father's BnB in Vermont at the height of MapleFest.  AND WHO AMONG US HASN'T FOUND LOVE AT MAPLEFEST?

Her father had been a big-deal real estate guy in NYC, but after Chabert's mother passed has slowed down and re-married to Rebecca Staab (who this viewer knows from her role as a seductress of older, but viable gents on Superman and Lois).  It turns out Chabert and her father have some tension about him selling the family apartment after her mother's passing, and leaving town to live in Vermont.  She's kind of mean about it to him, but they've saved any discussion of this gigantic topic for the movie instead of when it happened.

Lupino Noir Watch: They Drive By Night (1940)

Watched:  02/06/2025

Format:  DVD

Viewing:  Second

Director:  Raoul Walsh

I watched They Drive By Night (1940) about ten years ago now, and had only vague memories of the film.  My write up of it is so brief, it did not help when it came to trying to remember more than a few snips of it.

But somewhere on the internet I saw someone mention it starred Bogart, Ann Sheridan and Ida Lupino in one movie, and that seemed like a darn good reason to watch it again as I've certainly become more familiar with all of their work in the ensuing years.  The film stars George Raft, and, to be honest, George Raft is not my cup of tea.  I think this movie was, even 10 years ago, when I decided "I just don't think that guy is much of an actor".

The movie is almost two separate movies - the first half being about the dangers of being a truck driver pre-WWII America, driving produce from Northern California to LA.  There's lousy management that will try not to pay you, guys trying to seize your truck because that manager won't pay you, and the less than stellar pre-Eisenhower road system.  And so being married seems like a dumb thing to do, because you're never home.  

90's Watch: Se7en (1995)

Watched:  02/05/2025

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  3rd or 4th

Director:  David Fincher

I hadn't seen this movie since VHS, I don't think.  It kind of fell into the category of "a very well-crafted movie I never need see again".  But, it had been a while since I had a hang with Simon, and this was where we wound up.

Se7en (1995) is fascinating as a movie that happened at a very specific time, with stars on the rise, stars at the height of their power, during a particular wave of movies passing through the world.  And, certainly, a look brought to film that was different from everything else on the screen at that moment thanks to director David Fincher.

Pitt had been skyrocketing since 1991's Thelma & Louise, and co-starred with Tom Cruise the year prior in Interview With a Vampire.  He was on the forefront of the new Hollywood of the era.  I'd seen Paltrow in Hook and Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, but didn't know who she was until this movie.  Kevin Spacey, who had been around for a minute, had just exploded with The Usual Suspects, and was about to take off on a huge career.  And Morgan Freeman, a veteran of the screen, finally blew up in 1989's Lean on Me, and seemed like the established star of the cast to my young eyes.  

Chabert Valentine's Watch: Love, Romance and Chocolate (2019)

Watched:  02/04/2025

Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jonathan Wright

Job: Food Stylist for magazines shoots?
new skill: making chocolate/ chatting too much with royalty
Man: Will Kemp
Job of Man: failing chocolatier
Goes to/ Returns to: Goes to Bruges, Belgium
Event: chocolate tasting at palace/ royal ball
Food: guys, you're not gonna believe it...  chocolate

Firstly, salute to Chabert for getting to knock around Bruges for however long this took to film.  Well done.

This is a movie about a woman who flies all the way to Bruges to tour of the city, and spends her whole trip working for free in a chocolate shop that has no customers. 

The start of the movie does nothing to explain what Chabert does for a living, and we're well past the half-way mark when she tells someone she's a food stylist for advertising and the like.  Magazine covers get brought up before I finally figured it out.

What we do know is that she starts the movie with the world's least interested boyfriend who - in a completely whackadoo scene in which he looks like he has a bomb strapped to him and must dump her in under a minute or the whole place explodes - ditches Chabert for a promotion and a quick move to Albany.  This leaves her with airline tickets and a trip she's already booked, wherein she is to tour Bruges and all the chocolate shops.

Marvel Movies: Fantastic Four First Trailer Drops

oh.  okay, Marvel.  We're trying again.

There are so many factors that have played into Marvel's post-Endgame slump.  Too much content that felt rushed out was certainly part of it.  Not following up on concepts we did like (Shang-Chi, cough cough), and not taking care with the concepts we were iffier about (Eternals, cough cough).  

But the key issue for me was that the spirit of some well-loved characters just wasn't there on screen.  DC's biggest struggle from the comics - and I love DC - is that they lack consistent vision and character from creative team to creative team unless you're talking about maybe seven or eight characters.*  But Marvel has this down in comics - in part because Stan, Jack and the original bullpen laid down who these characters were with such a strong hand way back in the 1960's.

Yes, you get a James Gunn to come along and say "nobody knows who Rocket Raccoon is, so I'm just gonna James Gunn this @#$%", and that's great.  But Tony Stark is Tony.  Steve Rogers is Steve.  Natasha is Natasha.  And, frankly - and why I'll pay to see the movie - Sam Wilson is Sam (love me some Sam Wilson). But since?  I think our best take on that was The Marvels - and as much as I liked it, the last few minutes made me wish they'd pushed a bit harder.  Ant-Man and other movies just kinda slopped along. Who are all these characters and why do I care?

Due to licensing issues going back to the 1990's, Fox owned the Fantastic Four's film rights, and made 3 very bad Fantastic Four movies.  We talked about them at the PodCast a while back.  Part 1.  Part 2.  But Disney now owns Fox's movie wing, and therefore, has back X-Men and the FF.

I have some firm FF ideas in my head, and they're a mix of the very few comics runs I've read and a handful of cartoons.  But I know the Fantastic Four when I see it, and... y'all... this sure finally looks like the Fantastic Four to me.  There's no embarrassment at the idea, making it into whatever hokey mess the first movies were, or feeling like we needed to go grimdark, as the last movie did.  

Yes, this is just a trailer, but we see that Reed is Reed, Ben is Ben, Sue is Sue, Johnny is Johnny and... holy cats...  that there at the end is a big ol' gift to comics fans who have not understood why we couldn't see our pal, Galan, and his funny hat. 

I dig the idea of making this a retro-future movie existing in the multiverse (and surely bumping up against the main MCU).  The opportunity to put a real visual stamp on one of these movies for the first time in forever is deeply welcome.

We'll see how it goes!  They kind of had me at comics-accurate HERBIE and Ben in the kitchen.  They won me over with Sue being the backbone of the family.

Get back to what makes the characters work to begin with, Marvel.  And I think this trailer, at least, feels like they have.

*I actually count Barry Allen among those, and never was comfortable with the Justice League movie version of Barry

Fantasy Watch: Legend (1985)

Watched:  02/03/2025

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Third, I believe

Director:  Ridley Scott

An absolute trainwreck of a movie, Legend (1985) is worth seeing mostly to say "wow, they had all these resources at their disposal, and this is what they did?"  

Unsurprisingly, this was also my impression of the movie when I saw it aged 10.  And knowing I saw it at age ten also reminds me my dear mother sat through this movie.  Sorry, KareBear!

Of course, in 1985, I was a Dungeons and Dragons kid, and was expecting more of a Conan style adventure, so was disappointed on that level.  But I did understand  we were looking at cutting edge sets, make-up and effects.  And especially now in the CGI fantasy world we see daily, this movie looks amazing - because it is practical and has real light, etc... and all that is really the thing to recommend it.

But...  The story was and is both overly complicated and mind-numbingly simple.  You can dress up anything in faux-Shakespeare or fantasy-novel-speak, but you're still just saying "Jack has to get the MacGuffin back - and the girl.  But that bad-guy stole them, and he's really tough and mean".  

I watched Legend again, I believe, in college (maybe high school) and liked it no better.  And then Jamie and I put it on probably 20 years ago, made it ten minutes in, and then tapped out.

But tonight we watched it from beginning-to-end, knowing this movie is bad.  But, wow...  is it a mess.

Visually?  Yes, it's a masterclass of 1980's optical and practical FX.  The make-up and creature effects are stellar.  If you want to put it on and listen to some music, you might have a good time.

I didn't, and don't, think this movie had characters.  It has impressions of characters.  It has vague archetypes.  Most surprising, no one really has an arc, they simply go through a little adventure where we're told that maybe the universe is at stake - but how, why or if we should care about this fact is all a little bit up in the air.  

What is the movie is trying to say?  I couldn't tell you.  Something about light and dark, not approaching wildlife, and that Mia Sara being the source of all of our problems.

A quick glance at Wikipedia tells me that there is a "director's cut" available that people are not as mad at, that actually lets the characters develop and reveal themselves and have motivations outside of the immediate crisis.  I am both intrigued by a version of this that isn't just people in costumes shouting over Tangerine Dream, and horrified at the idea of watching this movie ever again.  But it sounds like they trimmed out 30 or more minutes, and that tells me we accidentally left the story on the cutting room floor.

It's just a stunning disaster of a movie that may have been murdered in editing and sound design.  It fails basic tests like "hey, explain how and why these characters are now in this scene".  

As something that tried to go full Tolkien and create a new world based on familiar fantasy characters, it at least achieves a unique look, but then, if it had anything to say about it, forgot along the way.  The world is too empty - there's no sense of anything beyond the sets, which gives the film no stakes.  So what if this mile or two of woods is compromised?   "You can't have light without darkness" is a fine sentiment, if you want to spend any energy whatsoever giving that phrase meaning in the context of the movie, but here it just sounds like a 17 year old who just discovered the Doors.  

Anyway - if you think you need to watch this movie because it's been a while, I'd just watch any of the 1980's many, many fantasy movies other than this one.  Maybe even Krull.

Valentine Chabert Watch: An Unexpected Valentine (2025)

I am profoundly upset by how this is not the color, make or model of the car in the movie

Watched:  02/01/2025

Format:  Hallmark

Viewing:  First

Director:  *unlisted at time of this writing*

Job: Chocolate scientist 

new skill: picking up Lyft drivers
Man: Robert Buckley
Job of Man: Lyft driver/ mediocre artistic photographer
Goes to/ Returns to: just drives in circles, really
Event: product reveal gala?/ gallery show
Food:  baked goods and peanut butter chocolate cookies

This is a movie about a woman who is so lonely on Valentine's Day, she sleeps with her Lyft driver.

I'm sorry, you can dress it up any way you want, but that's what this movie is about, and I'm okay with it.

We watched this movie on a slight delay during its broadcast premier as Hallmark pivots to a two week extravaganza hoping people can believe Valentine's Day, the worst holiday, is as big a deal to people as Christmas, which is a lie, Hallmark.  A terrible lie.

In this movie, which has a script that needed several more passes and major issues with what we like to call "pacing" in the movie-blogging biz, Chabert plays a New York City-based food science person who specializes in chocolate (please remember the chocolate detail).  

I feel like the script was written by AI or a MadLib, because it does follow some oddly specific Hallmark tropes but then refuses to make sense.

Chabert's chocolate scientist starts the movie, as happens A LOT in Hallmark movies, giving a speech to colleagues around a table about their corporation's widget of choice.  In all Hallmark movies, often in Chabert movies, people are blown over by the set-up of a lukewarm corporate presentation explaining the hero's job and that she is good at it.  Her colleagues and bosses will lose their minds and offer promises of better jobs.  A rich fantasy.

In this case, I would believe the script is written by AI as the product Chabert is showing off is: a chocolate purse.