This is a movie about a naive American doctor and her family who inherit a Scottish castle. However, the diabolical groundskeeper seduces and bamboozles the doctor into falling for him so that he may claim ownership of the lands he's worked since he was a child. That same labor presumably led to his father's early demise, and this is his revenge.
With dead eyed smiles, he earns the trust of the stressed out family, offering to take care of everything and let them live off the fat of their inheritance.
Unfortunately the movie ends just after he's successfully bedded the heiress doctor but before we can put his nefarious schemes into motion, so we never see that part.
Goes to/ Returns to: stays in same place (this is the 2nd installment)
Event: Several ongoing Christmas festivities
Food: Cookies
Editor's Note: So, y'all. Despite my stated goals and belief I'd done a phenomenal job documenting ChabertQuest 2025 (pats self on back), I messed this one up. Yes, I'd seen this movie, but had I written it up? I had not. Thought I had, but that was a lie I told myself, and discovered my error in July. I felt terrible as we agreed the the deal was I would watch and review all of the movies I could find starring one Lacey Chabert and you'd be like "why are you doing this?"
So, here we are, rewatching this one. And writing up this movie. For you, the people.
There were really only so many directions one could go with the premise of Haul Out The Holly (2022), the first film in what is now a trilogy.
The premise of the first film is that a woman breaks up with her live-in boyfriend and goes home for Christmas, only to find that her parents weren't expecting her and are actually moving to a seniors' condo in Florida. She's essentially left behind in her parents' McMansion. However, her own father was head of the HOA, and he set up a very Christmassy set of rules, which Chabert finds herself required to adhere to (despite the fact she does not own the house) and is force marched through the holiday season. Guys, she also falls for Man nextdoor along the way.
So... we end the film with Christmas, love, and a 5000 square foot house in which she'll creep around like a Victorian ghost, I guess. But what next? Haul out another holiday? Tragedy strikes Evergreen Lane? She casually starts putting out inverted pineapples when the neighbors come over?
Here in the sequel, Emily (Chabert) been gifted her parents house, she's all-in on Christmas madness, dating Man, and helping out with the neighborhood festivities.
However, as Christmas approaches and events are just beginning, the Jolly Johnsons, winners of a Christmas-themed reality show, move into the cul-de-sac. To the longtime Christmas-nerds of Evergreen Lane, this is like having your favorite quarterback or rock star move in and they flip out (yes, these movies operate in a cartoonish heightened reality).
Three Wisest Men (2025) is the third film in the very popular (for Hallmark) Wise Men series. We previously covered the first and second installments.
The problem with this movie is that we've established not just three characters, but their mom, spouses and partners, children, etc... and it is not a small cast. And everyone needs to get a plotline. So it's a lot of movie. I couldn't help but notice that this one was an "extended cut", which means whatever aired with commercials had less movie, and I have to assume that made this even more of a jumble.
From a business perspective, it's a fascinating peek into how Hallmark now functions like an old-school studio with their constellation of stars.
We are somewhere in the year of the 100th Anniversary of the release of Phantom of the Opera (1925), the silent film starring Lon Chaney, man of 1000 Faces.
I haven't watched it again this year, but I will! I promise.
I can't say when or where we are in relation to the original release schedule. Google is telling me the release date was November 15th, but I'm seeing much earlier in the year on Wikipedia. In the 1920's the movie would play in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and other major markets. Then, it might move on to other cities. This could be several months apart. Eventually, beat-up prints might leave the country or be sent to podunk towns. So who knows when or if Phantom of the Opera played most cities. But 1925 is the year in which the movie was released.
I saw Phantom of the Opera the first time circa 1990 on a lo-fi VHS tape obtained from a bin at Walmart. As the film precedes 1928, it fell out of copyright, and I found a copy produced by "Goodtime Videos" that set me back less than $10, and as an angsty teenage kid I spent an evening watching my first feature-length silent film while listening to some moody music.
Frankly, I was blown away.
I'd expected the movie to just be actors more or less pantomiming in front of shoddy sets, and all in wide shots. And, instead, a film taking place against the massive backdrop of the Paris Opera House unspooled, with wild visuals and dramatic moments. What I do not recall is if I had already read the novel of Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux, but I sort of suspect that I had. I do know I had seen the film and watched the movie by the time I saw a non-Andrew Lloyd Webber stage play of the story toward the end of that same academic year.*
If silent-era films aren't your jam, I get it. I struggle with them as well and hats off to the folks who've trained themselves to watch silent films that aren't Buster Keaton or Chaplin. But I think Phantom of the Opera is practically must-see/ assigned viewing. It gives you an idea of how complex storytelling was handled during the era and the spectacle that could be created on the silver screen with visual tricks, gigantic sets, etc... It's almost hard to believe it wasn't actually filmed on location somewhere.
Lon Chaney is absolutely brilliant as Erik, which seems trite to say, but every time I watch the movie, I'm stunned by how terrifying he is. Others are good, no doubt. One does not dismiss Mary Philbin who plays Cristine and Mary Fabian's Madame Carlotta is terrific.
Whether I loved the recent Frankenstein or not, what I can say is that I love how it swung for the fences as an epic. We get one of those every few years in the horror genre, and it feels like Phantom of the Opera is the first of these in America. And, dang, you owe it to yourself to see this thing.
Happy 100th, Phantom of the Opera!
*I have no feelings on Andrew Lloyd Webber's version as I've only heard it and never seen it
Crossfire (1947) is one of the movies they recommend when you're first trying to sort out noir, which is a bit odd. It's about as far from Maltese Falcon or Out of the Past as you're going to get. Heck, it's a social message movie, and feels like a prestige film on top of that - earning a few Oscar nominations, including that for Gloria Grahame in a small but powerful role.
The movie is about a murder that occurs, and the suspects are from a group of soldiers waiting to be de-enlisted from the army in the wake of World War II. There's no obvious motive,just possibilities for opportunity.
Robert Young plays the cop figuring out who did it, and he pulls in a young Robert Mitchum, Robert Ryan and is looking for Steve Brodie and George Cooper. None of these guys seem to particularly like each other - their grouping is the loose affiliation of their unit, but they all know Cooper's character, Mitchell,is struggling.
Mitchell had really tied one on, and tried to find solace with a girl from a dime-a-dance joint, Ginny (Gloria Grahame). And, man, is there a lot of story in her relatively few minutes on screen. There's a whole other noir here about a girl trapped in hell who maybe saw Mitchell as anything from a chance at one night with a decent guy to maybe a way out.
And, kudos to Paul Kelly who plays a singularly weird role as "the man" against Graham.
The victim is played by one of my favorite supporting actors of this era, Sam Levene. And eventually it becomes clear that the only motivation that Young can figure is that he was killed merely for being Jewish.
If it's noir, the movie is a post war film reflecting on the darkness waiting for people as they came home, from cheating spouses to the same hatred that fueled the fascism in Europe and Asia that's festering at home. This is about people already out of control before the movie even starts.
The look is probably the tipping point. This movie is *beautifully* shot, and in the version on Criterion, you can really see how brilliantly J. Roy Hunt lit and filmed each scene. This is a movie that takes place mostly over one night, in the dark of the city, in bars, walk-ups and hotel rooms. And a few scenes in the balcony of a theater. As good as the film is story-wise, acting (Grahame was nominated for Best Supporting Actress), directing (Dmytryk also nominated), it's worth watching just for Hunt's work.
Also, the scene where Graham meets Mitchell's wife (Jacqueline White). Hoo-boy.
In short, I love this movie, but felt I'd watched it several times and could take a break. But I am so glad I returned to it. It remains as relevant and powerful as ever, and maybe hits harder in 2025 than it did a decade ago.
A cheap and cheerful B-noir from 1947, Blind Spot is a quick watch that depends on charm of its talent and two or three gags to keep it moving.
The film was programming on TCM's Noir Alley, which I confess I am not watching as much as I should be of late. The good news is that I found myself, once again, enjoying the intro and outro by noiristaEddie Muller as much or more than the movie.
This film follows an alcoholic writer of novels with an artistic bent (Chester Morris) who, while on a bender, goes to his publisher's office to try and sneak in and tear up his contract, which he has decided is unfair. While there, he meets a sultry blonde (Constance Dowling) and argues with his publisher in front of a successful writer of mysteries (Steven Geray). It is suggested that Morris switch to writing mysteries to make more money, and he agrees to do so.
He retreats to the bar in the lobby of the publisher's building and makes time with the blonde, who has just quit after the publisher got handsy.
That night, the publisher is found dead, and Morris seems to be the suspect. But the evidence is circumstantial.
It's a lost-time mystery as the now sober Morris tries to pull the pieces together, including possibly condemning himself as the murderer. It seems the technique he dreamed up for his own murder mystery novel is what was used to kill the publisher. Meanwhile, both Dowling and Geray are working overtime to assist the writer.
It's no award winner, but it plays like a solid novella or short story, and the characters are colorful. Morris and Dowling play very well off each other, even if she seems drawn to him for absolutely no reason. And part of the cost-savings appears in overly long scenes where the same ideas keep getting conveyed as we work to fill the necessary runtime.
It's absolutely not crucial viewing, but you could do way worse. Oddly, it would also fit in neatly with Criterion's current "Black Out Noir" showcase of film's where a lead is trying to account for lost time while they were drugged, asleep, drunk, hallucinating, etc...
Hallmark fans are never happy. And maybe with good reason. There's a contingent that seems to get mad if anything actually happens in the movies, and others who get mad if it's not a particular kind of movie. Which leaves Hallmark in a pickle as they can't keep making the same movies over and over from a decade or two ago, but anything *new* is also a threat to part of their audience.
But, all that matters is if people watch, and apparently they are watching. And, given the viewership habits of Hallmark viewers - which means a lack of awareness of debuts of new movies, watching later, catching the movies on the app or whenever... that's a pretty good turn out of viewership across streaming and cable.
This year it seems Hallmark is cramming more value into fewer movies to drive up advertising during broadcast and draw eyeballs to the app. This is opposite the decade-ago strategy of going for quantity over quality - ie: they chose not to release 75 new movies in a single Christmas and hope the novelty kept folks locked in. But it's a risk when you make new kinds of movies and fewer of them, and give people a chance to tune away.
And, bats. Austin is full of bats, and the Mexican Free-tailed Bats would flit about above us in the dark, occasionally throwing shadows in the screen.
Anyway, that was my intro to all kinds of movies, and where I developed a huge crush on Michelle Yeoh during Police Story 3: Super Cop, and then had it reinforced with Heroic Trio(and of course no one ever saw Michelle Yeoh again).
I considered myself a fan of action films, but, holy shit, I had never seen anything like Hard Boiled (1992) before that first screening. It had elements of what I was used to from American-produced action films with a dash of what I was used to from what I'd learn to call Neo-Noir. Chow-Yun Fat was so clearly a leading man, and Tony Leung an ideal up-and-comer. But it would be decades before I'd get around to watching him in In the Mood For Love, probably his greatest success in the west until Shang-Chi.
As a story, Hard Boiled has enough twists to keep you going, and not all of them add up. It's also largely a backdrop for the kick-ass action that John Woo would deliver that would fundamentally change action cinema world wide. As JAL pointed out, you don't get to John Wick without Hard Boiled. And, it has the mix of action and bits of oddball comedy that would come to punctuate American action film (and confuse a generation that is very cross that moods can sometimes mix in a movie).
In general, I feel like this is a movie that film fans should see at least once. You may not even like it, but if you understand the flow of time and how influence works in cinema, this is one of *those* films. Just be ready for more cartoonish violence than you ever thought could fit into a single minute of film occurring for at least 1/3rd of the movie's runtime.
I have no idea how this movie would read to The Youths. Fine, I expect, minus some of the jokes that would fly over their heads (ie: "The Doobie Brothers broke up?").
Mostly it makes me miss Kathleen Turner in movies (yes, I know she's still very active... we just don't cross paths anymore). And, man, she showed up fully formed as a movie star. Her Joan Wilder (this is her third film and fourth screen credit) is a really pretty fun character even if they have to work overtime to make you think she's "blossoming" during the course of the film.
Maybe the action-packed climax goes on too long (I've felt this since I saw the movie as a kid) but it's otherwise a lean, tight movie with lots of solid stuff.
But also, rewatching is a reminder of how 1980's the 1980's truly were. Romancing the Stone is an astounding cultural artifact in that respect. From turning Danny DeVito into a movie star (he was a huge hit from this, which is kind of odd when you see how little he's actually in this movie) to the Alan Silvestri soundtrack. Michael Douglas exudes weird 1980's male energy that lacks any self-awareness. And our odd relationship with South American countries in the 1980's as the drug trade was in high gear and the CIA was mucking about installing governments.
Unfortunately, they rushed the follow up and made one of the single worst sequels I remember from the era, killing the golden goose.
So it was the day after my surgery and I was taking pills that make it so I can't remember proper nouns, which is weird. Sure, I can remember the dog's name, but if you're like "name the people on Mythbusters" I'm hitting like 3 and 1/2 of them accurately.
But my dad came over to keep an eye on me/ keep me entertained, and I made him watch Fantastic Four: First Steps (2025). Which, he concluded with "14 year old me liked it a lot", which is I think a great take from a guy pushing 80.
Anyway, I think we were in agreement that this movie is pretty wild and fun.
It's Noirvember, so I need to keep fitting in noir, neo or otherwise. I also had foot surgery yesterday, so I am couch-bound and taking drugs. So maybe all of my choices are not great in the moment. I vaguely remember putting on like 4 Hallmark movies yesterday as I rode out a hydrocodone adventure.
Anyhoo... I was pretty excited back when I heard Hannah Waddingham was going to be in an ensemble locked-room-murder-mystery. She seems kind of perfect for being a little extra in a Murder on the Orient Express sort of movie. And I like Keira Knightley well enough. And I've been pulling for Guy Pearce since Memento.
I was even planning to make time for this movie the weekend it dropped on Netflix. And then the reviews hit. Not great.
And having had watched this movie, I am not surprised by this.
First: all the acting is fine to good. You cannot blame Ms. Knightley, Mr. Pearce or Hannah Waddingham (especially not Ms. Waddingham).
The directing is... fine? The script is awful. The cinematography is beyond dreadful. Who even knows about the editing...
But the movie feels like it has no idea why people find these movies interesting.
So, we were busy and we had stuff going on as I was having some foot surgery on the 6th, so we kind of randomly put this movie on.
There are two very exciting things about this movie, and one is that it co-stars Tia Carrerre as the "mom" if you want to feel your age, Gen-X'ers. And she is desperately trying to underdress so she is not obviously Tia Carrerre.
The second is that I was 4/5ths of the way through the movie and the dad character made a particular face and I ran to IMDB. And, yes, the guy playing the dad is Yee Jee Tso, who I suddenly recognized as someone from the 1990's Nickelodeon show Fifteen. Not even a main character. Just a guy. Which means this guy is exactly my age and somehow wound up 30 years later playing the husband to Tia Carrerre. Well done, my dude.
I know a tiny smidge about the Group Theatre in New York in the pre-WWII era, and have made a few connections over the years. And so it was that I saw Clifford Odets' name come up during the opening credits as the screenwriter, and I got a rough idea of the film that was about to unspool. Odets was an actor who participated in the Group Theatre movement before finding his footing as a writer - in fact, the writer upon whom the Coen Bros. based the titular character in Barton Fink.
So while Criterion included this movie in with "Blackout Noir", as in "people who lost time and are trying to recover what happened", my attention shifted to the usual social issues and naturalism that I expected to populate the film. Curiously, the film is also directed by Harold Clurman, one of the Group Theatre directors - in his sole film directing credit. Methinks it did not go well.
The major spoiler I'll drop here at the beginning is that this movie seems like a wandering mess until the finale slam dunks everything you've seen before, tying together themes, plot elements and character motivation that has seemed... wandering at best. Honestly, tip of the hat to that end, which is how I'll remember the film.
I first came across Diane Ladd - at least saying "I know that actress is named Diane Ladd" - when I rented Wild at Heart in high school. And that is one hell of an introduction to any actor.
I don't think I've seen Winchester '73 (1950) since Jamie and I rented it circa 1998 when a Hollywood Video opened near us, and unlike Blockbuster, Hollywood prided itself on having a section for older films. And the nice thing about that was that they had limited shelf-space, so if they had it in, the movie was pretty solid.
The movie often gets mentioned in the discussion around "Western Noir", and seeing it now, I can absolutely see why. It doesn't hurt that director Anthony Mann rewrote the film to better suit his interests, and his prior films included noir classics like Side Street, Border Incident, T-Men and plenty of others. At any rate, Mann was familiar with putting a lead through the ringer and understanding that they can have an irrational obsession and still be a compelling protagonist.
In this case, all we know is that Jimmy Stewart is playing Lin McAdam, who comes to Dodge City looking for Dutch Henry Brown, and it's a vendetta. In Dodge City, he and his partner (Millar Mitchell) have to hand in their guns just as they come across Brown, also without a gun. A lengthy shooting competition for a prized Winchester '73 rifle takes place with McAdam winning, but Brown steals the gun and makes off.
Soon, the gun is changing hands from Brown to an Indian Trader to a chief on a warpath, to a cowardly would-be criminal. It's great stuff. And along the way, we see early appearances of Rock Hudon as a war chief and Tony Curtis as a young cavalry soldier.
Stewart's obsession will be reflected in 6 years in Johns Wayne and Ford's The Searchers, but here it feels like pure noir. Millar Mitchell's sidekick is there to comment upon said obsession as well as keep our hero on the straight and narrow. And even the ending, where our hero has accomplished his task (spoiler) sure feels like noir with Stewart looking haunted and having to realize even as he holds the female lead (Shelley Winters), he has no idea what to do now, or if the murder of his brother did anything at all to soothe the rage.
Yes, the movie co-stars Shelley Winters, and this may be the movie where she's totally fine. At no time did I want to shoot her out of a cannon. Dan Duryea shows up to add to the noir flavor and play Dan Duryea, even letting his hair flop in a scene. God, he's an amazing asshole on screen. It's amazing.* Charles Drake plays "Steve", the world's greatest coward. Character actors John McIntire and Jay C. Flippen are used exceedingly well.
It's also shot (in monochrome) in the Tucson area, and makes excellent use of the western landscape. Gorgeous stuff.
I guess this movie was a sort of career-saver for Stewart, and allowed him to start playing more complicated roles. I need to check out his re-teaming with Anthony Mann on The Naked Spur. But I certainly think of Stewart as a guy who can and did do everything in his work, from Vertigo to Harvey. I mean, come on.
Anyway - I kind of loved it. On the disc there's actualy a commentary track with James Stewart and I want to give it a listen ASAP.
*I would pay $400 to watch a movie that was just 1950 Duryea and 1950 Richard Widmark insulting each other
Pal PaulT worked behind the scenes on A Newport Christmas (2025), and had nice things to say about the production, so I wanted to get to this movie when it aired. I did not expect it to air in early November, but I have a broken foot, anyway, and had been laid up all weekend, so here we go.
From time-to-time, Hallmark's willingness to indulge in Christmas Magic has included Time Travel of the Somewhere in Time variety - people falling in love after one of them gets time-shifted, sometimes someone from modern times going into the past, and sometimes someone from the past coming to the here-and-now. This movie is the latter, with a Newport, Rhode Island heiress of 1905 coming to 2025.
I was messaging Paul a bit as the movie rolled along asking him questions and I did mention to him that it was very odd that this Hallmark Christmas movie had some of the tightest time travel logic I'd seen on display in a time travel movie in a while.
In case you were wondering, we're already Counting Down to Christmas over at the Hallmark Channel.
Back in September we shared Hallmark's forewarnings, and the schedule, as it was then published. What it didn't indicate was that Hallmark was dipping into its now endless stash of movies and that, as near as I can tell, they went into Christmas rotation on two of the three Hallmark channels on October 17th with the arrival of a new seasons of The Mistletoe Murders. But, for days beforehand, they had been playing Christmas stuff, but I didn't really pay it much mind.
For those who don't check in on these things, Hallmark moves around when it goes all in on the Christmas season, and in many years refuses to stick to the internationally favored Mariah Carey Calendar, which declares 12:00 AM on November the First as when we can begin prepping for the holidays.
