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.  

Scorsese Watch: Goodfellas (1990)

Watched:  01/31/2025

Format:  4K

Viewing:  Unknown

Director:  Martin Scorsese

Goodfellas (1990) is one of my favorite movies, but I don't watch it all that often. It's not a comfort watch for me - it's a "everyone shut up, I'm watching a movie" movie.  And I take great delight in letting this particular movie run from start to finish.   I'll catch bits of it on cable, but I honestly don't think I'd sat and watched it end-to-end since pivoting my blogging to nigh-all-movie-conversations back around 2012.  It also is likely I did watch it and then forgot to write it up, which used to happen a shocking amount (I now make a stub as soon as a movie is over so I remember to write a post).

I saw Goodfellas in the theater during its initial release.  Oddly, I saw it in San Antonio, where I did not live.  My brother was there interviewing with the university he eventually attended.  I was still in the middle of high school, and my mom was elsewhere, but I have zero memory of how that translated to The Admiral taking Steanso and myself to see a Scorsese movie.  I remember, also, that The Admiral *hated* it, and Steanso and I were all but high-fiving at the end of the film.

Intellectually, I know this is a good movie, but...  man, in this blog's opinion, there's not a wrong note in the whole thing.  Acting is astounding from everyone, and you're talking a massive cast.