The Signal Watch

Noir Watch: Down Three Dark Streets (1954)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 19:49:00 +0000

Watched: 04/12/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: First

We're just going to slowly make our way through the Ruth Roman filmography, I guess.

I had no idea what this was about, but it's a bit of 1950's pro-FBI propaganda. It makes sure we, the citizens and tax-payers, understand how the FBI is working tirelessly on crimes big and small.

When an FBI agent, a family man, is killed, Broderick Crawford is asked to pick up all three of his open cases to figure out which case was the one that got his pal murdered. And, much as in real life, things move a lot faster now that one of their own was the victim.

The three cases are:

1) A guy who is going to jail rather than name who hired him to move hot cars across state lines. He has a lovely wife at home who is blind.

2) A murderer is hiding out in Los Angeles and the only clue is his hot girlfriend (Martha Hyer) is around

3) A hot widow (Ruth Roman) has someone calling her and asking for the insurance money left by her husband.

The distinctly not hot FBI man, Crawford (who looks like someone we should call "Uncle Albert"), has to chase each of these cases down, and it's *a lot* of plot and minimal characterization. Like everyone else in the movie, he may or may not be considering putting the moves on Roman.

I don't really want to get too much into each plotline. It's a procedural, and as the less relevant cases get closed, we narrow down to the likelihood that the remaining case is the one containing the murderer. What's odd is that when they do wrap it up, they never really explain why he killed the FBI man or a witness. He just says "I had to".

Did you? Or did you just really want to?

I didn't hate the movie, but it doesn't have a lot of highs or lows. I can genuinely say I didn't know how it would unfold, so good on that. Crawford's fine, Roman kind of carries the thing, and it's not a bad time at the movies.

But it's a reminder that in 1954, men might have found women walking alone at midnight in a cemetery looking upset and *still* think it was time to try to pick them up.

Mid-20th Century fellas, come on. Simmer down.

Spoiler: the killer is Uncle Fred in Sixteen Candles.

Canon Watch: Conan The Barbarian (1982)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 16:50:00 +0000

Watched: 04/12/2026

Format: BluRay

Viewing: I have no idea

Director: John Milius

Conan the Barbarian (1982) is not for everyone. And were it released now, it would have social media film people absolutely up in arms.

I confess I've never read any Robert E. Howard, and maybe I need to fix that. He is a Texas boy, after all. But since the last time I watched the movie, I did read both the Prose and Poetic Eddas. And what Howard was up to, and what this movie was up to - and what a lot of heroic fiction of the past was doing - all feels much more part of a lineage.

The movie exists in a world far removed from a 2020's concept of "heroes act thusly" - something I am obviously behind as someone who felt like 2025's Superman and the TV show Superman and Lois finally got the character right on screen. But that doesn't make me naive as a reader or person - that's just one type of character in one type of story.

This movie acts as what should have been a terrific 3-4 movie set, chronicling the rise of Conan to be King of the Hyborian Age. But Conan the Destroyer came out, was quite silly, and kind of ruined it. (Yes, I have a disc of that, too, and will watch it again for the first time since high school.)

I'm stunned by the purity of actual storytelling in the movie. Somehow between viewings I always forget the plants and pay-offs, the way the story foretells itself, how deals are made with unseen gods, and the unspoken conversation on cults of personality, revenge, and forging one's own path by being a really, really obstinate Cimmerian.

If people were unfamiliar with Arnold Schwarzenegger from his days competing (and winning) Mr. Universe or hadn't seen the phenomenal doc Pumping Iron, this was likely their intro to the guy. And it's a stunning debut. He has maybe two dozen lines and some grunting through the movie. The heavy lifting is done by James Earl Jones as the despicable Thulsa Doom, Max Von Sydow as the king, and Sandahl Bergman as Valeria.

It's hard to say exactly what makes Conan the Barbarian work where a thousand other sword & sorcery movies fail, but if I had to guess - it's that they just @#$%ing went for it. It's got some money behind it, and isn't shot on a ranch outside of Los Angeles. A lot is shot at magic hour, and the score is one of the best in genre movies.

If someone is calling this movie camp, that's because it's flown over their heads and anything that doesn't work for them like a standard actioner can't process in their skull.* There's deft dialog and real characters and performances. The screenplay was co-written by Oliver Stone, so it's not exactly by hacks. The script worries about themes and nuance (that does not mean Conan worries about these things. He's an MX missile of a character until the absolute last second).

But because Conan is shrewd but unrefined (it's in the title of the movie, we can say it) I think people think the movie is doing something *wrong*. But this is a movie about a character who at age 9 or 10 begins his path toward becoming forged as a weapon, who - with freedom - turns himself toward revenge. Which is simple enough, but what are the lessons along the way?

There's certainly commentary here about what the powerful are up to with their cults of personality, and how meaningless their followers truly are to them except as a show of their power - and what you can talk some into.

But there's also a story here about two people who have been alone who surprise themselves when they find each other - somewhat like Vesper and Bond - before their chance is snatched from them.

A bit like the Eddas, the story does not require the hero to be pure of heart - there is no concept of the virtuous hero here. There is revenge, and that is the good in and unto itself and something often required in mythologies. Revenge is not something I personally subscribe to (it's exhausting) - but here's the thing, kids, it's a character in a story. But also... you know, sometimes it's okay to root for the guy taking out the evil snake cult leader turning people into suicidal cannibals. You don't need Captain America for that. Sometimes you need the guy who spent 18 years getting progressively more pissed off and deadly. And that's a story, too!

I was recalling when I first saw Conan, and I remember watching this circa 3rd grade with my dad right through the part where Conan is having sex with the lady who turns out to be a witch, and I am betting we did not make it much further. But I know I watched it as a kid with Matt A. - that dude loved Conan. So maybe fourth or fifth grade?

Btw, if you, like me have wondered who plays Conan's mother in the film - it's the mononymous "Nadiuska" who doesn't appear to have been in many English speaking films. Or much at all, really. Apparently she had it very, very tough after a career in Spanish cinema.

*I have a growing and particular disdain for reviewers who see anything in genre they can't immediately grasp and throw the word "camp" around. Let's be conservative in our use of the word. It means something whether the camp was intentional or not. The appearance of genre conventions you don't immediately embrace does not make something automatically worthy of derision.

51

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 12:03:00 +0000

This one is for Jamie. Who is, in fact, tougher than the rest.

Emmylou Harris' cover / version of Springsteen's "Tougher Than the Rest" from her album Brand New Dance.

Well, it's Saturday night
You're all dressed up and blue
I've been watchin' you go out
Maybe you been watchin' me too

So somebody ran out
Left somebody's heart in a mess
Well, if you're lookin' for love
Honey, I'm tougher than the rest

Some girls they want a handsome Dan
Or some good-lookin' Joe
On their arms some girls
Want a sweet talkin' Romeo

Well, 'round here, baby
I've learned you get what you can get
So if you're rough enough for love
Honey, I'm tougher than the rest

Yeah, the road is dark
And it's a thin, thin line
But I want you to know
I'll walk it for you anytime

Maybe your other girlfriends
Couldn't pass the test
Well, if you're rough and ready for love
Honey, I'm tougher than the rest

Well, it ain't no secret
I've been around a time or two
Well, I don't know, baby
Maybe you've been around too

But there's another dance, baby
All you got to do is say yes
And if you're rough and ready for love
Honey, I'm tougher than the rest

Yeah, if you're rough enough for love
Honey, I'm tougher than the rest

Canon Watch: RoboCop (1987)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 12 Apr 2026 06:39:00 +0000

buy this poster here

Watched: 04/10/2026

Viewing: ha ha ha ha ha

Format: BluRay (Arrow Deluxe)

Director: Paul Verhoeven

For some reason my Threads.com algorithm kept showing me people discussing RoboCop (1987), and I realized that it had been some time since I'd actually watched the movie. Not that I have to. It's one of the movies I've seen so many times I have recall of every scene in the movie - if not the exact dialog, I have the imagery of each scene locked in my brain.

Why RoboCop? I know I've mentioned this, but when I was 12, we were visiting my grandparents and my mom wanted us out of the house to talk about something with my grandparents, so we were taken to a one-screen theater in Ishpeming, Michigan where my brother and I watched the movie.

I don't remember not knowing this was satire, even if I didn't fully grasp the word at age 12. I got that this movie wasn't just having a cool action hero make quips. The movie itself was making fun of *everything* it seemed. It was 1980's capitalism run amok, the joke at the time being money was being made in what were non-profit fields like police and prisons.

And, man, the last forty years really showed OCP was forward-thinking.

It's a movie about the dehumanization of unfettered capitalism, where the bodies of the dead can be brought back and animated and made corporate product and boardroom skirmishes and jockeying for new positions can have a body count. Setting the movie in Detroit in the 1980's - a once vibrant city gutted by the decision to save some money and move production out of the city that built the American auto industry, seemed pointed. And in an era where we were more concerned with Michael J. Fox making it to the top of the business world and maybe Gordon Gekko futzing about.

I don't think it's a mistake RoboCop visits a school named Lee Iacocca Elementary.

Maybe the one thing that hasn't aged so well in the film is that cops are under-armed and under-budgeted, which doesn't appear to be a real thing anywhere in the US in 2026.

I'm not actually sure what to write about this because I feel like everyone has seen this movie and we all basically get it.

Future Nancy Allen will bring your coffee in square cups - which is how we'll drink IN THE FUTURE

But, yeah, it's a weirdly grounded film. Budgetary reasons meant that the changes from the world of 1987 to represent "the future" are minimal. The cars look basically like cars. People wear flannel, not silver jump suits. The suits worn by the corporate folks may be tailored slightly different. What seems to have changed is made pretty plain with things like walk-through tours of homes on the market, larger guns, and cybernetics about to be the next big thing. Only ED-209 and Robo really break us out of a very familiar world.

And then they do things like the square coffee cups.

But, yeah, it's another Verhoeven movies about the absurdity of power structures and how they inflict violence, and treat people caught in the gears as the cost of doing business. And in the case of this movie, it really is about any and all business.

Series Watch: Scarpetta Season 1

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 11 Apr 2026 04:03:00 +0000

Lots of Spoilers

I don't know the work of novelist Patricia Cornwell. But she's written something like 29 books about Kay Scarpetta, a medical examiner detective. Quincy, but super dark.

Y'all know I love me some Jamie Lee Curtis, and she co-stars and produces, and is the primary reason I tuned in. It didn't hurt that the show features Bobby Cannavale and Ariana DuBose, who I also like a lot. And Nicole Kidman, about whom I am ambivalent, as the eponymous Kay Scarpetta.

I just finished the eighth and final episode of Season 1, and... It was fine?

Here's kind of what I think...

Someone really loves those 29 books. I believe they take place over time with characters aging and growing. And someone came up with the idea that you could combine the action of an early book with a newer book (publishing wise, the first came out in 1990 and the most recent is like 2025). So, we'd get some origin story for Scarpetta and her first case and jump to "where is she now?" We can keep the story of the younger woman and pair it with the current version.

How much of this is based on the books in practice? I don't know. But it has a real feel of fan service for Cornwell fans, which should be in the millions of readers by this point. And I get it. "Her first case is coming back to haunt her" is hardly something new.

They have a whole separate cast for what I'm guessing takes place circa 2002 based on what is happening with computers. And it's refreshing that Kidman is willing to admit she's in her late-50's and lets someone else play a younger version of herself. And it's kind of wild how well the performers seem to echo each other with these characters.

After the jarring first episode where I was like "that's supposed to be young Bobby Cannavale?" (it is, in fact, his son, but is not a Kurt/Wyatt Russell-like-clone) and "oh, we're going to keep doing this?" I got over it and enjoyed the two timelines in concept.

But... it also just doesn't have a lot of exposition to explain what is happening.

Why does the *entire* Commonwealth of Virginia have one medical examiner? And why is it a 35 year old? Especially one who seems like she'd interview a bit like a block of wood? Why is it just her? Where is her staff? Why is it like this? Why not make her the examiner for a small city?

What you will hear is that even if you don't find the mystery/ mysteries compelling is that the character work is great - and that's largely true. The cast is stacked.* Kidman, Curtis, Cannavale, DuBose plus Simon Baker, Tiya Sircar. In the past we get Rosy McEwen as Kay, Jake Cannavale (Bobby's son) playing that analog, and Amanda Righetti - who really tunes into the same energy as JLC.

But in acting as fan-service, it can feel a bit like when I watched that one X-Men movie where they went to Egypt and fought Apocalypse. A lot was happening, and it probably meant something to people who got the references. But piling in and then *front loading* the interpersonal problems of the extended Scarpetta family is a lot. Some (see: me) might say it's too much. Everyone feels like they're competing to be the main character, and the titular main character is maybe the dullest one of the bunch. Maybe have one or two characters with an issue? And build from there?

If there's an ocean roiling inside of Kay Scarpetta, and the show sure tells us there is but not why, she mostly just seems like a dismissive asshole in the scenes played by Kidman. And I feel I have to say - and it pains me as someone who doesn't want to point out anything about someone's appearance - at this point Kidman's extensive botoxing, etc... is not helping matters.

And, look, no one is as much themselves (usually as much bad as good) as they are with family. And that's what the show is showing. But the mysteries each character presents about themselves feel unmoored or like (my favorite phrase offered up by pal Marshall) "novelistic nonsense".

In this case it's the stuff we accept about characters in books that is meant to give them depth, but feels oddly contrived. Lucy's wife died so she's created a perfect 1:1 AI simulacrum of her on her home PC. It's an AI that remembers and feels and has memories of everything from before her death - and it's si-fi novelistic nonsense. Kay's husband - Benton Wesley - has a secret dungeon sad room with a chair in it where he goes to feel sad? And the movie keeps suggesting there's something profoundly wrong with him, but they never say much about what it is - other than maybe he'll go bang his hot. much younger co-worker (that she wants this is never in doubt for some reason).

There's plenty more like that. Pushy secretaries you should just fire. Horny cops. Locking suspects in trailers and until you don't and assuming people won't lawyer up.

I guess... you have 8 episodes - each near 52 minutes or so, and this show felt like it wasn't moving forward, it felt like it was meandering back and forth over the same territory over and over, without a clear idea of what it was looking for or where it was going.

I really, really hated the bit at the end that Lucy is so fraught she decides "I'll join a cult". Like - that had no set-up, no nothing. Especially for a smart, former FBI agent - it just felt like "here's her deal for next season".

I also don't understand why the show felt it necessary to insert a confusing professional situation where Scarpetta takes a job under someone who doesn't like her who also seemingly still wants her job? And is sabotaging her? Like - none of that made any sense and didn't go anywhere, and I assume happened in the books but here it's a massive distraction.

The murder mystery itself is just confusing.

I blame this in part to how much time is spent on the family melodrama and trying to determine what mattered and what didn't (spoiler: it all matters so none of it matters). It also features some dead ends and dog-leg turns to nowhere. In the end, there's literally two clues that matter, and one of them is figured out in five seconds by someone well outside of law enforcement. And the second set of murders just decides to solve itself more or less, which is just some writing, I guess.

This show had the biggest, dumbest red-herring of all time with the falling space lab that felt as out of place as The Great Gazoo showing up on Flintstones. I was so not clear on what year this was supposed to take place that there were labs making synthetic organs in space for profit. Also, I don't know how to explain to the show what happens to space debri on re-entry, but human remains do not come down intact - usually burning up in the atmosphere, let alone if a cylinder collides with the Earth what those G-Forces would be - and what they'd do to the local area. (Hilariously, just next to where Scarpetta lives! Out of all the places it could land on this whole big planet! And she's already looking for the killer of the space murderer's girlfriend? jfc, show.).

You can't just introduce sci-fi bullshit into your show (space labs, fake skin, AI dead people) and it not matter.

For good or ill, I locked David Hornsby at the start said "huh. So, he's a suspect. He's way too big of an actor for this role." and then the show prayed I forgot about him, but I didn't. Just kept wondering "where's Rickety Cricket now?" 20 years of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia will do that.

But that should tell you how good I thought the main characters were in general. Despite the nonsense, I hung in for eight episodes. The characters may have all had too much going on, but I mostly bought it all.

But, man, I hate to bitch, but... I have no idea why the big secret was that Scarpetta killed the OG murderer (did we ever get an identity on that guy? Like... a name? A face?). Like, no one would give a shit if a law-enforcement person, or anyone else, killed a guy while in the line of duty or trying to save someone's life.

After something like four episodes of build up, I had to triple check that what I saw on screen is what happened. When "I ran to save someone, the guy tried to kill me but I killed him instead" was the big reveal, all of the pieces just felt diminished for the time spent on *the (unnecessary) lie*.

Also, her fake story was *fine* if she wanted to not have it derail her career, which it absolute might not have. In fact, it might have made her a hero.

Anyway - I am not shocked to see that the show is hovering at about 54 on Metacritic, especially as critics all came down around "meh", with just a few good and a few bad. It's just trying to do too much, and not committing to any one thing (the users in the reviews complaining about the show being woke can shove it up their ass and get out of their basement). And I think the biggest challenge is that if any of the characters got bumped off or did a horrific heel turn, I'd just shrug and say "well, now that happened, because why not. We already have space labs falling intact from 200 kilometers up and fully aware, possibly suicidal, AI dead-wives hanging out with the family."

What's surprising to me is that this is based on beloved books, so I have to assume it's a lot of pieces from a lot of books, all distilled down and probably making the readers of those books a little cross. Also, it's got directors as illustrious as David Gordon Green involved, but still every episode kind of feels the same. The show creator, and I assume runner is Elizabeth Sarnoff, who was on Lost for 91 episodes and Barry for 32 episodes. But she has writing credits all over this show. So. I don't know. It's not like Lost isn't known for losing its way.

*not an intentional pun, but there you have it.

Comedy Watch: The Naked Gun (2025)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 02:28:00 +0000

Watched: 04/09/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: Second

Director: Akiva Shaffer

This is the second time I'd seen this. Holds up. I laughed.

Noir Watch: T-Men (1947)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 02:16:00 +0000

Watched: 04/09/2026

Format: TCM Noir Alley

Viewing: First, surprisingly

Director: Anthony Mann

When you think of film noir, you may get some evocative images in mind. Deep shadow, fog, deep focus shots. There's a few photographers who helped define this style that we're still reeling from (and stealing from) today, and among the top three or so is John Alton. And, boy howdy, is this movie John Alton.

So, if you want a movie that's a gritty crime procedural (with a voice-over hellbent on taking me out of the movie) and looks like a million bucks, this is it.

It is also very much an Anthony Mann movie. Tough, not afraid to go dark, and not talking down to the audience. However, it's not a movie about bootleggers or guys running a numbers racket or any of that. There's no dame manipulating men with a promise of sex. This is a movie about undercover men of the Treasury department. Thus, T-Men (1947).

It's essentially about two men from the Treasury who are put undercover to uncover a robust counterfeiting operation. It is also, because of the way steam/ fog captures light, a movie that goes in hard at spending time in "steam baths". If seeing Wallace Ford in a towel is your jam, I have great news.

I was honestly a bit surprised how rough and tumble the movie was, but I think 1940's America and noir were able to handle the violence broiling beneath the surface of American life. The sort of paranoia you get in some modern undercover movies isn't quite as present in some earlier films - but it sure is here. The movie wants it clear that this is *dangerous* and the men who are doing this are sacrificing their safety, comfort and potentially their lives.

SPOILERS

This is one of the few movies I've seen where someone accidentally gets their cover blown quite like this - and the results are disastrous. One of our leads actually gets killed on-screen. Because June Lockhart (playing his wife) has a dumb-ass friend who spots him and starts blabbing to the gangsters he's hanging out with. Which seems right.*

The movie also ends in kind of spectacularly violent fashion. And the contemporary reviews were pretty enthusiastic about the results. It must have felt like a new kind of movie, and even in 2026, you can see the foundation it's laying down for the Serpicos and The Departeds out there.

Anyway, it's an odd one in some ways. I do not love the voice over that makes it feel akin to Plan Nine From Outer Space. O'Keefe is not my favorite actor, but he's good here, certainly. And the plot seems to jump here and there in its desire to feel *authentic* - like this is how complicated things are, while part of me kept thinking "a whole lotta people know what's going on with this scheme".

But, I also think it's intensely well managed as Mann and Co. elevate the script, and it really picks up steam as it goes along. The performances suggest something a bit more naturalistic for 1947, and hint at what's coming. Give it a shot.

*this is the sort of thing that as a young person I found contrived and annoying, but as a grown adult I now know - this is exactly how things actually do work

New Chabert for the Holidays? (I'm predicting July)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 08 Apr 2026 02:52:00 +0000

what the hell are they looking at?

I have a suspicion that Hallmark is going to release this Christmas movie during Christmas in July.

I don't know, obviously. But it's still early April and today Lacey Chabert released the poster for this movie that Hallmark very loudly announced they were producing back in December. And it *is* exciting. A Disney/ Hallmark collab? Like peanut butter and Nutella.

So, it struck me... Disney is likely making this movie to convince people to come to the parks/ resorts for Christmas. And if you tell people to book a vacation for December in October, it's way too late. But during the summer? Still time to book that trip. And sell your house so you can afford it.

Now, maaaaaybe Disney is all in on Christmas and wants to release this during the holiday season, but... ha ha ha... no. This is probably going to be 3 parts Hallmark movie, 2 parts travel brochure. And that's fine!

So let's have a watch party

When they announce the release date, whenever it is, I'll organize something. We'll have cocktails, toast Chabert, Mickey and Hallmark. Just be ready to use Google Chat.

Wise Noir Watch: The Captive City (1952)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 04:09:00 +0000

Watched: 04/06/2026

Format: Amazon Prime

Viewing: Second

Director: Robert Wise

So, this is the second time I watched this particular film. Here's the first. Apparently just before COVID hit.

A lot of what I'd say is in that first write-up. But to recap:

The story is about an editor at a small-ish town newspaper figuring out that (a) the mob has moved in on his town and taken over the penny ante gambling operation bringing it into a combination and (b) the people of his town are maybe way more invested in a bit of low-stakes gambling than who gets the house cut.

Our hero, John Forsythe, is pulled in when a private detective who tried to tell him about the racketeers is killed. Then, a key witness is murdered and its made to look like a suicide.

The power of the press is quashed when local business interests pull their advertising, threatening the paper's financial stability.

However, good 'ol real-life Senator Estes Kefauver has established an anti-mob task force, and Our Hero sees this as his salvation. Kefauver, a ridiculous publicity hound, signed on *after* the movie had been shot, and added himself to the movie.

I think in 2026, the movie is a curious artifact, and not just because it reminds you Kefauver may be remembered beyond his expiration date thanks to his publicity stunts. But also, in the past decade apparently we have up on making gambling illegal and sports books exist very profitably online. There's even sports books right inside many professional sports facilities.

Anyway, really excited about the epidemic of sports betting that's out there ruining lives. (We really need to take a hard look at our weirdo culture of 24/7 sports talk and sports books available at the touch of a button.)

As a Robert Wise movie, first - it's from his production company, Aspen Pictures. The budget isn't what Wise was playing with at the major studios, but his ability as a director is still absolutely there. He's getting the most out of the talent on hand (most of whom you won't know) and there's some great cinematography that really leans into the tension.

It really is interesting as it sort of refuses to have a single heavy at the center of the story, and instead is more of a crippling realization that when crime gets its hands into the right places and everyone wins, rooting out the problem is incredibly hard. Who do you even go for? If even the clergy thinks it's impossible to get their parishioners to quit the gambling or turn away from what they make on book? Seems bad. And I'm not sure if the Federal Government really is the magic bullet solution the movie presents.

Hitchcock Watch: Rope (1948)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Watched: 04/02/2026

Format: BluRay

Viewing: First

Director: Hitchcock

This was my first time watching Rope (1948). For some reason I have massive gaps in my Hitchcock viewing, and I do a poor job of just getting over myself and putting the movies on.

From even back when I was in film school, I came to believe that this movie was mostly just one big technical trick, but that the movie itself wasn't very good - which is why I never bothered watching the film. The description was always that it was a lesser movie. But I literally don't know what the @#$% those people are talking about. Rope slapped.

Yes, it is several long takes stitched together - and a technical trick trying to do something novel where the technology just wasn't there. Film reels were only so long in 1948, and camera equipment was hefty. And I'm kind of left to wonder if Hitchcock watched Lady in the Lake and thought "that's not the trick. The trick is to let the camera be the camera but keep it running - let the audience feel they're in the room."

And, especially in the third act, I found all of that incredibly effective.

It doesn't hurt that the movie has a few things I like in general:

Jimmy Stewart
John Dall
Farley Granger
an older society matron who has no idea what is going on and is solid comedic relief

And I think this movie would pair well with Strangers on a Train, which also sees people making a game of murder.

Based on a play, which, in turn, was based on the real-life case of Leopold and Loeb, who thrill-killed a 14-year-old boy - believing themselves to be intellectually superior and capable of the perfect crime - Rope must have been something in theaters.

Yes, the technical tricks, cinematography, sound design, management of time, etc... all were interesting. But at the heart of it, the movie starts as a game of murder - like so many plays and movies folks turn up to not really thinking much about the morality of what's at stake. And by the end of the film, it's ripped apart the notion of murder being harmless - of anyone's belief in their superiority giving them free reign to trample on others. It's a notion that must have left post-War audiences hushed as the grim realities of what that line of thinking had done across Europe still played out in international courts.

I think often about the commentary on Psycho where the speaker mentions how Hitchcock makes you cheer along Norman Bates and worry for him that he won't get away with murder. And this movie seems almost a reaction by Hitchcock to what he must have realized he was doing with the lack of consequence for murder and mayhem, "killing" people on screen and famous for the games his characters acted out to create "thrillers". Still, it's the rare movie I've seen by Hitchcock that pivots to ponder those things in a way that feels like it obliterates the notion of the clever movie murderer and drags them into the real world - and exposes them not as a twisted genius, but just the narcissistic sociopath they are - proving nothing to no one.

And, it puts on trial the very notion of harming others in the name of perceived inferiority and superiority - that it's nothing of the sort. It's the cruelty of mad dogs and people creating legends about themselves in their heads. Not that any of that is relevant to anything happening all of the time everywhere in the world.

Don't think I'm just skipping over the technical tricks. Deciding to keep the format of a play, the movie basically unspools in real time. This just wasn't really something movies did, and may be the first (I didn't scroll to the end of this list, but I feel confident I'm right). And as a movie taking place at the edge of evening, we get to see the change in light and mood as night descends, reflecting the events of the film. Out the large window we see steam blowing from pipes, clouds move. It's a hell of a thing.

Further, as things get more frenetic, the use of the camera shifts from showing things in medium shot to losing focus, following action as conversation happens off screen, asking us to split our attention. And, of course, as the final reveal occurs the flashing lights of advertising outside the apartment window reflect our mood. Just gorgeously done.

Stewart manages to be perfectly Jimmy Stewart - giving gravitas and grounding to slippery material and making it feel immediate. John Dall's narcissistic Brandon must have been a delight for him to play, and Farley Granger is probably the one modern audiences find odd. But I think the choices are all solid. Per the relationship: "It's queer coded" I'd heard - and no it's not. It's not subtext, that's just text for 1948. Probably not helping at all that homosexuality was seen as a mental illness until recent decades.

Anyway - loved this movie. If Broadway is going to keep making plays out of movies, they could do worse than finding the original play's script, using this adaptation (by Hume Cronyn for some reason?) and bringing it back.

Shocker. I thought a Hitchcock movie was really good.

90's Superhero Watch: The Rocketeer (1991)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Thu, 02 Apr 2026 04:21:00 +0000

Watched: 04/01/2026

Format: Disney+

Viewing: Unknown

Director: Joe Johnston

I can't put my finger on why, but I just felt like watching a movie where someone blew up a bunch of Nazis trying to operate on American soil.

So, I saw The Rocketeer in the theater back in 1991. Even 16-year-old me was thrilled it was going to have airplanes and a guy from a comic book and pre-1960's styling. And it was going to have that girl from Labyrinth!

Watching it now is a completely different experience but no less joyful. Back then I didn't get all the references and nods which the movie crams in left and right, using the movie almost as an excuse to reward Hollywood nostalgia nuts.

However, I recall being very *aware* of The Rocketeer as a comic property before the movie came out because comic fan mags and catalogs featured Dave Stevens' Bettie Page inspired art that was used to promote the property. However, I couldn't find the actual comics. And, a bit like some pics of P'Gell from The Spirit, it gave me some very wrong ideas about what the comic book was when I finally read it.

I'd get my hands on the actual Rocketeer comics probably around 2010, and it was way less racy than 13 year old me thought - but still sexier than the movie.

I don't know exactly the timeline or if this is apocryphal, but while artist Olivia made Bettie's face famous, apparently Rocketeer writer/ artist Dave Stevens was in some part responsible for the rise of Bettie Page as a semi-household name. The work she'd done with Irving Klaw was long in the past and had been mostly underground and extremely niche, and films like Teaserama were pretty far from mainstream cinema.* Stevens, I believe, knew her and tried to help her.

But the movie is also full of references real and otherwise. The comic and therefore the movie steals the likeness of real person Rondo Hatton - a horror movie actor with acromegaly - for Lothar, Dalton's sidekick. Dalton's character, Neville Sinclair, is clear referencing Errol Flynn both as an actor playing, essentially, Robin Hood, but also referencing deeply unfounded allegations that Flynn was a Nazi sympathizer and spy.**

Howard Hughes - played by Terry O'Quinn - is a character in the film during his Hughes Aircraft days. Making it hilarious that he just ignores Jenny in the film if you know anything about Hughes' taste and proclivities - and that he'd be bouncing between aviation and film during this era.***

Worth noting that Clark Gable in his Gone With the Wind era and WC Fields both appear in the South Seas Club sequence.

Locations like the dog-diner echo LA's Bulldog Cafe (established in the late 1920's and part of LA's mimetic architecture, like The Brown Derby). And, of course there were real air shows like the one seen in the film (more on that in a bit).

The film takes place in 1938 - as evidenced by the pre-war conditions of Nazis touring America, Bette Davis's 1938 movie Jezebel is playing in a scene and it seems they're finishing their Robin Hood nod.

The Zeppelin in the movie echoes the use of the Graf Zeppelin as a Nazi propaganda tool - something that ended with the Hindenburg disaster in 1937.

I am absolutely positive I'm forgetting and missing things - but there you go.

The movie is also chock full of people. I think in 1991, Alan Arkin was maybe the most famous person in the movie, playing Peevy - our hero's pal, Alfred, man-in-the-chair. Timothy Dalton was Sinclair (and awesome in the role - kind of stealing the movie). Of course Jennifer Connelly tops the bill of 2026 recognizable faces as Jenny - de-Bettie Page'd for this film.**** Paul Sorvino plays Valentine, the mob boss. O'Quinn as Hughes. Ed Lauter plays an FBI man. Our beloved Jon Polito plays the airfield owner. Eddie Jones is a colleague of Peevy and Cliff. A shockingly young Margo Martindale plays the owner of the cafe. And William Sanderson is there to deliver like two lines. (Late edit! I almost forgot! Melora Hardin shows up as the singer at the South Seas Club.)

I feel a big bad for Billy Campbell. He's good as Cliff - an earnest young man. He's very, very much like Cliff in the comics. But I think he got thrown under the bus when the movie wasn't a huge hit. I just think Disney flubbed the marketing. People who do see the movie tend to like it at minimum.

For what's roughly a superhero movie for 1991, it takes itself just seriously enough. But it really leans into the notion that the movie takes place essentially over 36 hours or so, so we never see a version of Cliff Secord's Rocketeer that is *good* at being the Rocketeer - something I think they were holding off on til the sequel. Just imagine if all of Spider-Man took place in 36 hours. And that's a script problem.

I'll go ahead and point to Danny Bilson and Paul De Meo, who most famously worked on the Trancers films and the Flash TV show. I think they mishandled the timeline and it causes more problems than it solves to keep the pace going.

The director is Joe Johnston, who is a legend for reasons beyond his directorial career, but he's made some films I absolutely love, including this one and Captain America: The First Avenger (yes, I suspect Rocketeer got him that movie).

While some FX work very well, and some less so, it all *works*. The Rocketeer is not shooting lasers, he's just blasting across the sky barely under control. And all of it - art design, set-design, definitely costuming - sell the hell out of a 1938 Los Angeles and the rural areas just outside. And, damn, if the look for The Rocketeer with helmet on, flight jacket and rocket-pack in place - isn't maybe the most iconic superhero look created post 1975, I don't know what is.

but not so wildly different from Steve Rogers in that first movie

also late edit: it's such a joy seeing real planes in a movie. The stunt work at the beginning of the movie was incredible.

*the story of Bettie's life is in many ways tragic, and expands way beyond the scope of a move write-up. I also won't dwell on the oddness of placing a 1950's Page-look alike in a 1930's context, but that's not an issue in the movie.

**Flynn had plenty of real-life dirt, and in no way am I going to get into it here

***Hughes would film The Outlaw in 1941 - release it in 1943 and make Jane Russell a huge star

****it is possible that the movie wanted a look less associated with the BDSM scene by 1990 and before the adoption of the look for the rock-a-billy scene almost immediately by the mid-90's.

Supergirl (2026) Trailer is Up

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:25:00 +0000

Heyyyy!!! The second Supergirl trailer is up.

You can watch the trailer from YouTube here:

Here's that Teaser Trailer from earlier:

I mean, so far, so good. It's a very particular take, and very far from her first appearance in 1959. Which, you know, is fun... but would never work in a million years as a movie now. The closest we'll get to that is Helen Slater, and then some of what Melissa Benoist brought to the screen.

I don't mind the traumatized refugee take - it absolutely makes sense. And, frankly, the comic they're using as the bones for this movie is a gorgeous, memorable story (Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow).

So far, I like Milly Alcock. The look and feel all feels spot on. So, sure! Looks like a blast.

Do I have qualms? No, man. I don't. I am not here to outsmart a trailer that looks perfectly nifty. At this point in my life I just say "is this for me?" And I think this is. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.

Totter Noir Watch: Under the Gun (1951)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 29 Mar 2026 14:22:00 +0000

Watched: 03/29/2026

Format: Sketchy Russian Site/ Archive.org

Viewing: First

Director: Ted Tetzlaff

So, because the studios are dumb and don't make their older movies easily available, I watched this on a sketchy Russian site (link above). And I wanted to watch this movie. In fact, I would have paid real American dollars to watch this movie.

"Why watch this one?" you ask. It has (in order of interest) Audrey Totter, Richard Conte, Sam Jaffe and John McIntire. And was a crime flick I'd not seen discussed anywhere except for one still I saw go by on social media a couple of months back.

Conte plays a mobster who has gone to Miami from NYC, and while there found singer Audrey Totter,* who he plans to bring back to New York and make a star. Totter is wary, but knows this could be her big break, and so jumps in a car with Conte and his two heavies.

The group stops off in a small town on the Florida/ Georgia state line and apparently old business comes back to haunt him as a former victim tries to get him, but Conte gets the drop on him and shoots him dead while Totter watches. At the trial, Totter gets a bout of conscience and says he murdered the guy (debatable, but okay) and Conte goes to prison.

Mostly it's a prison movie as Conte manipulates his situation in a Southern prison farm, eventually becoming a trustee who watches the other prisoners work, and even has a rifle to stop them should they escape.

If you want a movie where Conte is an absolute menace, this is the one. I always think it's a shame Conte is kind of forgotten outside of portions of the classic film scene - he's terrific in everything I've seen him in, and Hollywood had a ton of roles for him during this era.

The expression says it all - the guy looking for tips playing the violin is headed to their table

Totter doesn't have that much to do here, which is wild as she's kind of coming off some leading roles and her range is in no doubt. Maybe she just wanted to go to Florida, where the movie was filmed on location in Clay County.

Sam Jaffe plays a fellow prisoner who knows Conte is manipulating him into a deadly corner, and John McIntire once again plays the stalwart lawman.

I'm not sure why this particular movie seems like its been shelved. It's got name talent, a good enough premise and a pretty solid ending. But these things rarely make sense to me.

Also - there are multiple movies named "Under the Gun" and it struck me how funny it would be to watch all of them, but I don't think I'll do that.

*she's brunette in this, but it does nothing to change her Totteriness

Apeman Watch: Tarzan and the She-Devil (1953)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 28 Mar 2026 18:39:00 +0000

Watched: 03/28/2026

Format: TCM

Viewing: First

Director: Kurt Neumann

I wasn't planning to watch Tarzan and the She-Devil (1953), but had it on, and Cheetah the Chimp was carrying a rifle and I was like "yeah, okay... I'll finish this movie".

This isn't Johnny Weissmuller, it's Lex Barker* as Tarzan and Joyce MacKenzie as Jane. It also co-stars Raymond Burr(!) as a Great White Hunter-type, Tom Conway as a cuckold and Monique van Vooren as Lyra, the titular She-Devil.

Lyra is mostly just a woman of means who knows her own mind and doesn't let men dictate her life, which makes her a She-Devil. She also would like to be on Tarzan, but that's par for the course in these movies.

Basically it's a movie about some rich assholes trying to exploit Tarzan's elephant pals for the ivory trade, and those same assholes are happy to enslave Tarzan's pals and press them into work helping them. Tom Conway almost kills Jane as they plan to use her as a bargaining chip to get Tarzan to help them, but she escapes.

Anyway, it's full of footage of real animals doing animal things, including a real boa constrictor killing a real lion. Crazy, man.

Weirdly, this movie just doesn't use Black people. In 2026, it feels both racist to show Black people as the typical Tarzan supporting tribesmen, but also it feels weird seeing a white guy named "Henry Brandon" playing an African Chief. And then having Jane say "I haven't seen a white woman in forever!" when, girl, you just left a scene full of white and Hispanic women. Also - these folks all use boomerangs? Can you see the strings? 1000%.

It does end when the elephants in question trample and kill most of the bad guys.

There's also a certain level of kink baked into this one that I don't quite remember in other Tarzan movies, at least not bubbling beneath the surface. And maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I never know how to discuss old Tarzan movies. They're terribly goofy and watchable - swinging wildly between antics of a trained baby chimp to stock footage of real animals committing real atrocities on each other. It's all very high adventure, which is deeply entertaining if you separate it from the real world.

I grew up thinking Tarzan was the best (and, no, not the Disney version which I saw in the theater as an adult), so I have a hard time not continuing in that tradition despite the relatively bad taste of the character. But it's still a kick to see Tarzan swing on a vine, call animals, and beat hell out of encroaching bad guys.

*probably most famous in 2026 for his brief marriage to Lana Turner

Monique van Vooren is likely a primary reason I made it to the end of this movie, but that is not to besmirch Joyce MacKenzie's contributions

Wise Sci-Fi Watch: The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 03:43:00 +0000

Watched: 03/23/2026

Format: YouTubeTV

Viewing: 3rd or 4th

Director: Robert Wise

Hey! Happy 75th birthday, Gort!

The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) is a landmark for science fiction, especially in cinema, and would help launch a thousand imitators in the years to come (thanks, Ed Wood!). It's also an A picture, which for Sci-Fi in the post WWII era must have been something. We're still five years before Forbidden Planet would launch the notion that would birth Star Trek. Notably, it was released the same year as the doomsday epic, When Worlds Collide.

A flying saucer arrives and circles Earth, eventually settling on the lawn across from the White House. The whole world knows this is happening, and we get international news reports (is this the first use of this trope in a scifi movie?). Hours after landing, the craft opens and a man in a space suit emerges, who a soldier waits all of about 45 seconds to shoot for no reason. A giant, metallic robot emerges, threatening everyone with weapons - atomizing guns, tanks, cannons, etc... with a beam from its face.

Our hero, Klaatu the space man, turns out to be Michael Rennie - He looks and speaks just like a normal man. When world leaders refuse to meet to hear him out, he becomes frustrated, steals some clothes and bolts from Walter Reed. With great luck, he winds up in a boarding house where Patricia Neal is dwelling with her son, and he uses the name "Carpenter".

We learn that Klaatu's mission is to warn our fair planet that we can blow ourselves up all we want on Earth, but if we try to join the community of star-faring planets with our current culture of aggression (political sigh), the more civilized planets will wipe humanity from existence. And they can do it.

In its way, the film is the flipside of Godzilla, which would show up three years later and remind Japan that man's hubri and folly and war would come back upon them in a vengeful form. The Day the Earth Stood Still is a parable for the victors, who had tapped into cosmic destructive forces and now were really feeling themselves. But it's a reminder that, actually, you're now working toward becoming a *problem*, and you have done nothing to temper your base and violent instincts. And there are consequences for this sort of thing. (Less commented upon is the idea that there's always someone with a bigger gun)

There's some curious religious imagery in the film - Klaatu takes on the name "Carpenter", he dies and rises again, with the witness of a woman. He preaches non-violence and the terrible cost for the sin of aggression. There's also some rah-rah America stuff that shows our better angels, mostly embodied by Abraham Lincoln.

The movie is deceptively simple in 2026 standards. It's very on-the-nose, but when you think about this movie in context, just the messaging had to have felt a bit like it was both speaking the hopes of a post-war America, who wished someone, somehow would stop anything like WWII from happening again. But the film also issues a dire warning to humanity about their own moral compass as new powers were in their grasp.

But I also think everything it's doing is kind of lovely and poetic, which can be a real sweet spot for science fiction. It's a parable that happens to have death rays and flying saucers. But it also holds the mirror up to us and says "what are we even doing here? I mean, really?"

The movie has terrific casting - I can't imagine anyone but Michael Rennie as Klaatu or Patricia Neal as the war widow raising a son who befriends our alien pal. Robert Wise treats the movie with the utmost seriousness, any camp here is only a byproduct of the decades since. The saucer is masterfully handled and still holds up. Gort looks great, and any limitations are a product of the materials available in 1951.

I dig that Wise presents the material with an urgency and sincerity that never bubble over into maudlin camp. Yes, of course a lot is a product of its era, but there's no embarrassment in the film's earnest message or presentation. The pacing is also phenomenal. It's a chatty movie without much action, it's more about the tension of what will happen next, and Wise keeps it coming, using DC as a gameboard moving our pieces around.

Anyway - if you've never seen this one. highly recommended.

Valerie Perrine Merges With the Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 16:25:00 +0000

Our beloved Miss Teschmacher from Superman: The Movie, one Ms. Valerie Perrine, has passed. She was 82.

Perrine starred in movies like Slaughterhouse-Five, Lenny and Can't Stop the Music. She was such a fan favorite in Superman: The Movie that, despite being an original character for that movie, the character has shown up over and over in other Superman adaptations, from Smallville (Tess Mercer) to Supergirl to the 2025 Superman film, played by Sara Sampaio.

Perrine had been ill for some years, but had maintained a presence online, seeming cheery despite her condition.

We'll miss knowing she's out there.

You can assist with funeral expenses by going to this gofundme.

80's Fantasy Watch: The Neverending Story (1984)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 04:41:51 +0000

I'm with the horse by the last 30 minutes

Watched: 03/22/2026

Format: YouTube

Viewing: Unknown

Director: Wolfgang Petersen (I know, right?)

An absolutely seminal movie of my youth - I really grew to dislike this movie over the years. Sorry, nostalgia fans.

I saw it in the theater opening week, and Gmork, that big wolf, scared me so bad, I remember exiting for the men's room. But that was fine. I know I saw it a couple more times, but it wasn't one that landed with me as a kid in the way of other films. I didn't identify with Bastian or Atreyu, they were just kids in a movie with neat FX. It was fine, but not a favorite.

When I was 14, I was signed up to babysit a kid, and somehow got my hands on a copy of the movie so we watched it - and I realized - "hey, this movie isn't very good". Like, it looks neat, it has some memorable set pieces. But there's no story in the Neverending Story (1984). I mean, there is - but it's all meta stuff about a kid who reminded me of the kids at school who just never got their shit together and always looked like they might cry (middle school was going to eat Bastian alive).

The *idea* of a movie where someone watches someone else and, in turn, acknowledges that we're watching the kid watching sure helps explain the symbolism of the Auryn (that snake necklace). But it's handled so clumsily with Bastian acting like a full-on nerd in the attic, even as a kid, I thought he was maybe a little extra. Now, it's just full cringe-worthy. But the idea is good. In fact, I still remember the pages of the comic Promethea where she turns and looks at the reader and what I'd characterize as a very emotional reaction. It's a great idea when done well. I'm not sure they make it clear here that we're in the story.

But, yeah, Atreyu does a bunch of stuff and comes back to the Princess after killing his horse and getting f'd up, and the Childlike Empress is just like "yowza! I knew what we needed all along!" Which feels a bit shitty, Junior Robert Palmer Girl.

I do appreciate that the movie is very German and not concerned with making the aesthetics overly appealing. Sets are ugly, characters kind of horrific, and it's about the creeping Nothing - not a conscious force, exactly. Just something that consumes - nihilism made manifest. Heck, the movie gave us the death of a horse on screen that you'll still see referenced daily online, like nothing else bad happened in a movie in the 1980's.*

The movie's puppetry is a reminder of how good we had it with the Henson workshop - Falkor moves like he has a neurological disorder, and can only lift his head. Similar with the wolf. Green screens do so much heavy lifting in this movie, which is fine, but it's obvious they've got a neck and head that work and not much else.

In 2026, of course, Falkor comes off like a creepy neighbor you don't want anywhere near your kid. And we have to marvel at the detail someone decided was necessary on the boobs of the statues of the Oracles.

I am very confused, also, how Gerald McRaney tells Bastian he needs to have his feet on the ground, when Bastian is using his mother's name - which was apparently "Moon Child". Which... what? What was going on in the Bux household? How did this kooky businessman/ Haight-Ashbury romance start, and can I see THAT movie?

Anyway. I want to live this movie more. I just... do not. The visuals remain 1980's spectacular, but I am not going to Space Jam Fallacy this movie into something it's not.

The turtle had the right idea - don't care, send annoying kids to go talk to someone else very far away.

*I will never separate my viewing of the horse scene from the repeated and unwelcome viewings of Run Wild, Run Free at my elementary school.

Action Comedy Watch: Novocaine (2025)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:14:26 +0000

Watched: 03/21/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: First

Director: Dan Berk/ Robert Olsen

This movie hits that awkward spot of being "fine". It's more or less what you were expecting from the trailer - a bit better in some spots, and a bit lacking in others, but when you saw the trailer you were like "I know exactly what this will be". And you were 85% correct, with that remaining 15% not exactly blowing the doors off.

Novocaine (2025) should maybe have been like, one episode of a show. The concept is both interesting and wildly limiting, and the story here is not really enough to fill the runtime of a whole movie. And the movie around the concept is just boilerplate action stuff that feels deeply constrained by budget.

But it's also not bad. I wouldn't say that. It's fine. It's deeply gross at times, maybe a bit hard to watch in a scene or two. And maybe weirdly should not have named the condition that our lead is supposedly suffering from, as it exists and sounds very rough. It's kind of like turning epilepsy into a super power for a movie. Maybe a fictional condition would have sufficed.

I'll argue the performances outshine and make up for a lackluster story and concept that feels stretched really thin, really fast.

Our hero, Nate Caine (Jack Quaid), suffers from a condition where he cannot feel pain. Which sounds amazing, but it means he doesn't know if he's cut or burned himself, or really bruised himself, etc... Scalding coffee is just wetness to him. He's an assistant manager at a bank, and leads a life where he plays online games.

He has his eye on the new girl at the bank, Sherry (Amber Midthunder), and the two go out on a date - something Nate never does. His condition has kept him socially isolated as he must be careful doing everything - he won't even eat solid foods.

However, the bank is robbed and Sherry is taken hostage. Fearing the cops will take too long, he steals a cop car and takes off after them. The rest of the movie is his afternoon and evening pursuing the thieves and trying to rescue Sherry who he thinks will be killed to cover their tracks.

If you thought this was going to be a movie about a guy getting burned, shot, mangled and mauled in increasingly grim ways, you were right. It is that. And I think in the right theater with the right people, this might have been a hoot. At home, it was fine.

Speaking of fine, the movie co-stars Amber Midthunder, who you will remember from Prey. In the end, I get why they cast her - but it took a while to get there. I don't really get why she isn't a huge star at this point, just a kind of big one people know about, but who knows? Maybe 2026 is her year? She has 4 projects listed as coming soon on IMDB. Anyway - she's solid here!

Jack Quaid is always good, and the movie really relies on his ability to play the kind of nerdy guy with the fighter inside - which he's pulled off numerous times now. Guy is a star, and deserves it.* He handles the action really well here.

I was also delighted to see Jacob Batalon, who is finding a place for himself in movies as everyman comedic relief. Matt Walsh and Betty Gabriel as two cops who do not want to deal with all this are really good.

And I don't know who Ray Nicholson is - but he understood the assignment.

I kind of think something happened to the movie in editing because a few bits of connective movie tissue were missing - like why is this guy here now? sorts of stuff. Someone figured we needed to just keep the movie going. But it also feels oddly bloated with Nate tracking down the thieves in ways that just don't add up. So it was either editing or the screenplay.

Anyway - it was streaming free on Amazon, and that seems like the right place for it. But be ready for some old fashioned grossness and try not to expect a lot, and it's at least not a $250 million movie that is, in fact, pretty bad like so many flicks.

*if he's a nepo baby, actually so is Amber Midthunder in a way. I believe her mom is a casting director (on RezDogs) and dad a performer. But arguably Midthunder's folks are less famous.

Canon Watch: Big Trouble in Little China (1986)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:08:06 +0000

Watched: 03/21/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: Unknown

Director: John Carpenter

I'm glad they kept making movies after Big Trouble in Little China (1986), but what, really, has been the point?

Sci-Fi Watch: Project Hail Mary (2026)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:39:32 +0000

Watched: 03/21/2026

Format: Regal

Viewing: First

Director: Phil Lord & Christopher Miller

Not so long ago, we read the novel of Project Hail Mary, which we discussed here at the ol' interweb log.

I enjoyed the book a great deal - just as I'd enjoyed Weir's first book, The Martian. And like that book, it received the big screen treatment, which I thoroughly enjoyed and have rewatched in part and in whole.

First: Go see this in the theater. It will be fine on your TV or laptop, it is - however - a movie designed for the big screen and benefits from the image size and quality, plus the audio experience. And maybe even the audience reaction.

Like the novel, the book is told in the present as an amnesiac awakens in a spacecraft with the other two crewmates deceased and, as he discovers, light years from Earth as the craft he's in approaches a nearby star. Grace recovers his memories in flashbacks that fill in the gaps for himself and the viewer as he progresses, eventually realizing things about himself.

The impetus for the trip is that the sun has seen something called The Petrova Line form between Earth and Venus, and something about that effect means the sun is starting to dim - the predictable effects meaning Earth will become a frozen wasteland within 3 decades. The star he's heading toward is not fading, and Earth needs to know why.

Ryan Gosling stars as Ryland Grace, and it's a really solid fit. He's essentially acting either alone or against a puppet for the majority of the film's runtime. The past is shown on Earth as Grace is recruited into Project Hail Mary as a researcher.

The big surprise, of course, is that he meets a completely alien being - one seemingly made of stone - who is at the same star on the same mission. The two sort out a communication system, find the ying to their yang, and face challenges together. It is, in effect, a sci-fi buddy comedy.

It's popular to comment on how books and movies have different needs, and I think that's a fair and true statement.* Andy Weir has written two books that I've read, Project Hail Mary being the second - and I think it's fair to say that his books are like fun science puzzles with a fiction-suit hero, someone with so few defining characteristics and enough witty dialog, anyone can imagine themselves in Our Hero's place. The two novels are a great, breezy read that keeps the blood pumping with life and death stakes, accidents aplenty, and a hero really earning their conclusion. I do think Project Hail Mary looked for more complex and more diverse emotions than The Martian and showed some interesting growth for Weir.

Movies, however, are more about the emotional development of story and characters - they don't really have time to work through complex science puzzles or stop for a lecture on physics, biology, time dilation, etc... without losing the masses. You *can* do it in small bits - see Mr. DNA in Jurassic Park, but we generally worry more about the action and consequences of the action. And the emotional beats associated.

And this could be, really, a master class in the separation of the two mediums - both accomplishing their goals with high marks.

I did mention in my post on the book that I felt there was some human element missing to Grace (which one of you was quite cross and oddly political about in the comments) - but here I think they filled in that gap both through minor exposition, through his connection with Eva Stratt (Sandra Hüller) getting a bit of a pivot, and some minor chatter added into the movie.

Screenwriter (at least credited) Drew Goddard manages to mine the book for the emotional beats that *are* there, but I don't think that's Weir's foremost concern. Weir does write Ryland Grace as someone who feels a bit like an everyman with enough of a sense of humor to keep the show going, but I think the coordinated talents of star Ryan Gosling, Goddard and directors Lord & Miller humanizes the experience in ways other than "this is space travel and science, and these characters are funny sometimes".

What the movie takes from the book and isn't changed all that much is his relationship with Rocky. Sure, things are accelerated, but skipping over learning a whole language back and forth is exactly the kind of stuff you streamline for a movie. They manage to get right to the core of how the two characters reflect one another and give each other something they each need sorely - not just a puzzle fit intellectually, but in how they connect with another person.

Who knew the solution to the male loneliness epidemic was to fly 4.8 lights years away and talk to a rock?

There's some real beauty in the movie - both in the approach to the space scenes (that shot of Adrian... holy christ) and in the buddyship that grows between Grace and Rocky. Lord & Miller also are canny enough to understand that maybe the work Stratt was doing and Weir's take maybe could use some juice. We don't have time for all of the interpersonal stuff with the astronauts (a bummer as Mila Vayntrub is in the cast but has few lines) but we do get a more human Stratt than in the novel with her own cathartic moments. I won't spoil. But you may familiarize yourself with Harry Styles' "Sign of the Times" now in prep.

I am curious about more behind the scenes stuff regarding how this was made. I'm sure it's fascinating. I don't really have an opinion on this other than that the visuals work, are highly effective, and serve the story beautifully - from looking out the cupola window to Rocky himself.

This is probably the hardest sci-fi we're going to get in 2026, and it's fantastic it's such a watchable, entertaining, moving movie. You can have both! I loved The Martian as book and film, and I'm delighted to say if I liked the book of Project Hail Mary more, so, too, the movie.

We went to the local Regal Cinema before 12:00 to see this, and it was *very* clear in our sparsely attended show, folks who were there were fans of the book or all in on seeing this movie. In the lobby, they had three separate options for popcorn buckets, including a helmet and Rocky's rolling orb. So I guess this is the major release I thought it was - only bigger.

*I will comment that, curiously what I see as a lot of writing advice online for novelists seems to be writing a book that is digestible in much the same way as a film. That is never, ever, ever how the writing advice is phrased - and I don't think that's even consciously what the advisors are thinking. But we're pretty far from what can and should be the more experimental world of prose when it comes to writing advice, and much more of the rules of screenwriting I knew in the 1990s. (also, 90% of the writing advice is about YA fantasy one way or another)

Sam Kieth Merges With the Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:20:11 +0000

We're sad to report that comic artist and story-teller Sam Kieth has passed.

Kieth was the original artist on The Sandman, one of the greats of post Watchmen comics - basically originating the look and feel of the series before the comic strategically changed artists each storyline.

He moved on to join the Image explosion of the early 90's, launching The Maxx - a series that's been sadly mostly forgotten but was one of the best artist/writer creations of the era, deconstructing superheroes and their environment while telling a complex story about, essentially, what we'd now call mental illness on the fringes of society.

To give the kids an idea of how different things were in the 1990's, MTV turned it into a cartoon using Kieth's actual artwork and dialog.

Kieth has done work the past two decades, though not at the same rate or with the same acclaim as his 90's output. But it was always a pleasure to see what he'd take on.

In an era where what "good" comic art was being redefined on a weekly basis - The Maxx was hitting the stands alongside Liefeld, Jim Lee, Alex Ross and others who refused to work in a house style - he managed to bring a kind of soul to comics that much of the hyper-masculine and sexualized artists of the era favored, imbuing characters with quirks and personality via cartooning and allowing characters to - ironically - feel more real than photocopies of humans with different pockets on their uniforms.

But, also, man, Sam. I'm sorry to hear about the legal issues around The Maxx. That seems grossly unfair.

Noir Watch: Crime of Passion (1956)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 02:27:16 +0000

Watched: 03/20/2026

Format: TCM Noir Alley on DVR

Viewing: First

Director: Gerd Oswald

I was a bit shocked to learn I'd never seen or heard of a movie co-starring Barbara Stanwyck and Sterling Hayden, with Raymond Burr. And a noir, nonetheless.

Look, over the years I've really come to think of Stanwyck as *the best at what she does*, something Eddie Muller discusses in his pre-amble to the movie. She's just incredible in versatility, range, and believability in everything she does. And this movie is no exception. I love Hayden, but Sterling Hayden shows up and is Sterling Hayden in everything he does. Raymond Burr has three modes I've seen - big brute with a brain, Perry Mason and yelling about Godzilla. And that's okay. But Stanwyck is the focus here, and she's fantastic.

She plays a career-gal reporter - no longer a young woman - stuck doing a sob sister column and asked to get "the woman's angle" on stories. During a murder investigation she first gets her big break and national attention, and meets a detective played by Sterling Hayden.

There's a powerfully strong undercurrent of sex throughout this movie, and despite a life given over to career, Stanwyck is clearly powerfully drawn to Hayden. But even as they meet, she's trying to help him game to get credit for the arrest, which he refuses to do, bringing back his Captain (Royal Dano).

After her big story/ break where she lures a female murderer in to confess with an article appealing to her, woman-to-woman, Stanwyck is supposed to go to New York for a big opportunity, but gets waylaid, going to Los Angeles and deciding to stay with Sterling Hayden, marrying him. The banter as they head into his house is... deeply charged.

This being 1956, she's supposed to quit working if she's married, and so she *tries* to settle in and be a happy housewife, and... this is where you can read the movie a few ways. The modern take would be a post-Mad Men condemnation of the gender norms of the 1950's, and how it drives a career-driven gal to the brink. The parallax view likely sold at the time was that the same impulses that make her regret her decision to marry and play housewife (embodied in her breakdown at the party, which is cinematic gold) are what lead to the titular murder of the film's title.

With a cunning mind and nowhere to use it, Stanwyck begins to plot her husband's ascent in the LAPD, by ingratiating herself to the head of his division, Burr, and getting social with he and his wife. In addition, she maybe starts flirt a tad with Burr.

SPOILERS

Between her attraction to Burr and scheming for her husband, she sleeps with Burr, who then decides he really can't promote Hayden up to his own position, which he feels he needs to vacate for his wife.

Stanwyck shoots Burr *in the head* with a gun stolen from her own husband's homicide division. And, Hayden being a cop first and foremost, sorts it out an dhas to bring her in. The End.

It's a bit thin on story as far as A to B to C, but when it comes to thematic resonance and the work of Stanwyck and crew, everyone delivers a top notch performance. Hayden plays a tough guy, but one who actually cares - about his wife, about the right way to do things. Even if those things won't get him ahead. Burr isn't just playing the heavy - he's a guy in a complex position.

It's arguable that the movie is about scheming wives who f' up everything because they stick their noses into their husbands jobs (see: the entire run of I Love Lucy). But it makes more sense as a woman fighting in all directions against the cage into which she's placed herself. Which is a bit kooky, as it *seems* like Hayden might be game for her to work. At least it's never discussed, but it's not like he always had a wife at home and would expect dinner on the table... Man, 1950's gender politics in media sometimes are wild, and I assume they reflect the custom of the time or they wouldn't be treated with such shorthand.

Anyway, one to check out some time.

Wise Noir Watch: The House on Telegraph Hill (1951)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 15:45:16 +0000

Watched: 03/20/2026

Format: Amazon

Viewing: Third

Director: Robert Wise

I saw this one initially with JeniferSF at Noir City at the Castro. And then gave it another spin just two years ago.

Based on a stage play (someone should do this one) it's an interesting film that feels like, emotionally, it pulls a bit from Rebecca and a bit from Laura, what with the huge portrait hanging over the hearth that seems to stare back at the cast, a ghost judging everyone.

A Polish refugee (Valentina Cortesa) from a concentration camp steals the identity of her friend - hoping to have a life on the other side of losing everything in the war. The friend had a rich aunt to whom she'd sent her infant son, but as no one knows what the friend looks like - she figures she could pass.

However, by the time she makes it to the US to find the relation, the aunt has died and left everything to the boy. A relation (Richard Basehart) has adopted the boy, and when Cortesa meets Basehart in New York, he decides she's the one for him, and marries her.

Now in San Francisco, there's a nanny for the boy who is just creepy and possessive (think Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca). And, as a shocker, the kind US Army Major who was helping our hero at the concentration camp shows up - he's a friend of the family and an attorney in SF. And clearly would gladly be on our hero given the chance.

Anyway - things go very sideways.

SPOILERS

I really dig the slow reveal of the actual threat and in this film. You really aren't sure it's not all in Our Hero's head until the last minute - because she is acting *crazy* - but, also, one can see how Richard Basehart's smooth delivery was used to make his every word unnerving. Even as he explains what he did and why.

He's, of course, top dropped by Fay Baker's icy performance and final coup de grace. Just perfect to her last frame on screen.

Credit, also, to child actor Gordon Gebert, who was also in The Narrow Margin (and filmed around the same time - but that movie was shelved for a couple of years because Howard Hughes was insane).

It is funny how in this era, the beautiful scrolled woodwork of a Victorian/ Queen Anne style house is seen as necessarily spooky and claustrophobically insane as the 1950's would roar toward minimalism and mid-century aesthetics. There's a sort of suggestion the place should (and, in the end, will be) torn down. Kind of like Millennials buying lovely houses of the 20th Century, gutting the, turning them into warehouses, and painting them monochrome.

All in all, it's a winding movie that I've now seen three times and which has kept me engaged with all of the viewings. It doesn't hurt that the camera loves Valentina Cortesa and she earns the audience's sympathies in the two roles where I've seen her.* It's always a joy with Richard Basehart doing his thing, that is always 6 degrees away from something that feels like someone doing an impression of Richard Basehart. What's funny is William Lundigan has just as much of a specific voice, and it is a wild ride between the three.

There's a few things here that say Robert Wise to me. He handles the complexities of Karen/ Victoria's past in a smooth and seamless way that makes sense. He's shooting on literally multiple levels with the old rambling house and SF itself, and manages to convey some fascinating stuff just through imagery (Margaret's suite is far superior to Victoria's, for example). And I wonder how he felt about those staircases after Magnificent Ambersons.

*She did return to Europe (she's Italian) so we didn't get as many American movies - and therefore more likely I'd see them - under her belt as she likely could have.

Chuck Norris Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 14:29:10 +0000

Chuck Norris - sometime Texan, internet meme, ace martial artist, actor, star of B-movies and the long running Walker: Texas Ranger - has passed.

Anti-Western Watch: McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 12:33:00 +0000

for reasons I don't understand, all of the posters for this movie are bangers

Watched: 03/19/2026

Format: TCM on DVR

Viewing: First

Director: Robert Altman

A much beloved Robert Altman movie that was part of the new Hollywood movement and a "revisionist" Western, I'd long heard this was one to see. And as a movie that was part of a specific moment in movie history, and a very watchable movie - glad I did.

We're 55 years out from the release of this movie, and the mythology of the expansion of the West carved out in the pulps, dime novels and movies has been exploded endlessly during my lifetime, with very little made to reinforce the supposed white and black hats of the cowboy movies.*

Warren Beatty plays someone who may or may not be named John McCabe, a gambler who is smarter than the dum-dums out at the mining town he stumbles upon, but nowhere near as smart as he believes himself to be. McCabe sees an opportunity and starts a saloon and brothel. Out of nowhere, a Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) appears, offering to run the place for McCabe.

Mrs. Miller makes the place profitable and successful, which McCabe sees as his own success. He tries, but he isn't the brains. Eventually a company comes in offering to buy him out, and McCabe overshoots what he thinks is the value of his businesses, ignoring the advice of Mrs. Miller, and trouble ensues.

This is Altman, so the movie is not so much about plot as its about characters and vibes. I can talk endlessly about plot, but instead what we get is a town full of characters that each feel like they could have been the focus and a sense of life in such an outpost. The film is populated by familiar faces like Rene Auberjonois, Shelley Duvall, Keith Carradine, William Devane and others. It's a reminder that the West wasn't settled initially by smiling women in petticoats, it was people eking out a living however they could at the end of the world.

There's symbolism aplenty in the empty church while the brothel is well appointed and looks like real civilization. That the only person who knows what she's doing is a woman no one will listen to who is also an opium addict. That McCabe seems to be as much an invention of himself as the rumors seemingly built from scratch by the locals.

It's beautifully shot, but I kind of laughed - that Altman managed to build towns here, in Popeye, and arguably in MASH. And I haven't seen all that much Altman, but apparently he liked having a town of his own.

My guess is that traditional film reviewers in 1971 were not huge fans of the film, those embracing where Hollywood would go for the next few years were very into it, and now the film almost feels like early days pointing to what we'd eventually get in Westerns where moral complexity is the spine, like Deadwood. Altman isn't a director everyone will love - no matter what we were told in film school in the 1990's. I do think he's a singular director, and you know its him when you put on one of his movies - even Popeye. And generally I think Altman did fantastic work, and we'd do well to getting back to his minimalism in exposition and let people just get immersed in a movie's world.

*I find that a dubious claim unless you're a very concrete thinker, but the Henry Hathaway/ John Ford polish is certainly off