Summer 2024 Games Begin - Opening Ceremony

Things I didn't know I needed:  a chorus of beheaded Marie Antoinettes singing along with French metal band, Gojira, reminding the world that France knows a little something about liberté, égalité, fraternité - and that France hasn't forgotten that liberté sometimes comes with a bad end for tyrants. 

The Paris Summer Games Opening Ceremony has officially (and finally) raised the bar for what is possible for a 4-hour long broadcast that has, now seen every two years thanks to Summer and Winter Games, become a bit of a slog.  

Rather than the usual attempt to do interpretive dance numbers that serves both an arena and a television audience and fails both, followed by hours of anonymous athletes walking in a big circle - Paris put the athletes on a variety of boats and shipped them down the Seine to the Eiffel Tower, making it more of a floating parade.  A sort of narrative was created with pre-recorded videos of what I think can best be described as "Assassin's Creed torch bearer parkouring their way across the city".  And then songs and dance along the river.  In the brief moment they included children, there was less a sense of wonder and, instead, a crocodile attack and a tour of the catacombs.

Vive la France!

Zut Alors! It's Time for the Paris Olympics

Well, you'll definitely see a lot less in the way of movies the next few weeks.  Here at The Signal Watch, we are fans of the Olympic Games, both Summer and Winter, and will tend to watch whatever we can.

That said, we've got Peacock - and it looks to be the best bet.  Looking at the menu over on The 'Cock, they have amazing coverage planned with a menu telling you what all the sports will be, and when.  And, I am sure, all of them will be available asynchronously.

I can guarantee I'll watch:

• Soccer/ Futbol
• Beach Volleyball
• Track and Field - all events
• so looking forward to seeing our sprinters - we were great at trials
• Table Tennis
• Swimming
• Gymnastics - need to get a box of Wheaties to see if they're on there (yay, Simone Biles!)

But I'll watch pretty much everything!

Don't forget:

• Dressage - horse dancing
• Breakdancing
• Handball
• Archery
• Basketball
• Pentathlon

This year the opening ceremonies will be in the middle of the day on Friday with evening replays.  My belief is that the parade of athletes is taking place on a flotilla coming down the Seine.  

It's gonna be a hell of a show.  My belief right now is Beach Volleyball will be played in the shadow of the Eiffel Tower.  They're really using the city as a backdrop.

My default is to cheer for the US, then Mexico and Canada, then randomly cheer for whomever I feel like.  

Mostly I cheer against any announcers who think it's s good question to ask an athlete how they feel about not getting the gold.  Them, I hope a boom mic hits them in the face.

Anyway, let's go, Team USA!  

1980's Watch: Starman (1984)

Watched:  07/24/2024

Format:  Alamo

Viewing:  First

Director:  John Carpenter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Franchise Watch: Ghostbusters - The Frozen Empire (2024)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  Netflix

Viewing:  First

Director:  Jason Reitman

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

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

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

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

I think... it kind of sucked.  

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

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

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

Baseball Watch: Eight Men Out (1988)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  Second or Third

Director:  John Sayles

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

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

Happy Birthday, Lynda Carter

Happy birthday to patron saint of The Signal Watch, Ms. Lynda Carter.

Kid Movie Watch: Despicable Me 4 (2024)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  Regal Cinema

Viewing:  First

Director:  Oh, who knows...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, success there, Dreamworks.  

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

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

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

Western Watch: The Far Country (1954)

Watched:  07/23/2024

Format:  TCM

Viewing:  First

Director:  Anthony Mann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doc Watch: The Ashley Madison Affair (2023)

Watched:  07/22/2024

Format:  Hulu

Viewing:  First

Director:  ABC News?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dunno.  Neither of these are great.  

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

Watched:  07/21/2024

Format:  Amazon

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Walter Hill

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

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

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

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

The prior five versions - three of which must be silent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And plenty of other "that guy!" actors.  

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

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