The Signal Watch

Waddingham on SNL UK

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 11 May 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Sketch comedy is hard.

Sure, anyone can do it - but not well. Further, week in and week out, putting on a sketch show that actually lands most of the bits is a challenge. It may be one of the oldest forms of television, but how many of these shows are well remembered? How many jokes last the length of a sketch?

While Saturday Night Live has lasted 51 seasons, innumerable other shows have come and gone.

I've aged out of watching the US version of SNL. And that's fine. I had a very good run of watching the show off and on. And I'm glad the humor is pointing to a younger audience than me. I am old. I do not even know what SNL is talking about a good 1/5th of the time. Thank god.

It never occurred to me that SNL was a franchisable concept, but I suppose so. Why not? American humor may not always translate, but the way the show works is a well-developed machine which you could plug in anywhere.

Launched this year and on its 7th episode, apparently SNL has had a hard time getting a foothold in the UK with SNL-UK. Ratings are, to put it bluntly, quite bad. They started around 200K and dipped down to 130K or so.

Now, that may not be a big deal. People may be watching on YouTube or elsewhere. I don't know how you count viewers in 2026.

Anyway, I didn't give the show's existence much thought. I don't need something else to watch, and my Anglophilia is not that pronounced. I only know the broadest bits about UK politics and who is who. I don't get inside jokes about specific shoppes or whatever. But I do like Hannah Waddingham, who hosted this week.

Tina Fey hosted the premiere, and in her monologue - the only bit I watched of the premiere of SNL-UK - no one is agreeing to host because of a very different sensibility of "what if this goes wrong?" versus the American notion of "well, they tried" and letting it go. Apparently a bad outing would haunt the Brits more? I don't know if this is true or not. But I understand fear of exposure in a country that loves tabloid coverage.

However - nothing I've ever seen about Waddingham has led me to believe she's a particularly reserved person. And, so, on May 9th, she hosted. We watched the next day on Peacock here in the US.

For good or ill, Waddingham seemed an absolute natural in this environment and had a better understanding of what works here than the actual writers and cast-mates. Where in the US hosts are often given the straight-man bit to do, reading off cue cards while the players do goofy stuff around them, Waddingham leaned into every bit as the featured player and seemed the polished one versus the cast mates who seem like what they likely are - comedians who are trying on some comedic acting.

I guess decades of stage and screen experience will do that. And a sense of the profoundly silly.

She had sketches as a driving instructor (she seemed to get the bit better than the cast), as a high school drama instructor, as Christine from Phantom who has settled down into the suburbs and forgotten her past. She had a pretty good bit of singing in a sketch about where one is depending on how many glasses of wine they've had (kudos to the cast member doing her best to keep up with Sarah Sherman). Not all of the sketches landed, but Waddingham was solid.

The one dud was "Sunburnt Lawyers" that was both pre-taped and a 10 second joke stretched out to two minutes and was the fault of the writers for thinking this was ever a good idea.

She was not in the political cold open that went a bit over my head but I got mostly. And she wasn't in the Weekend Update segment that was a reminder that BBC's late night standards are different, and the Brits have no problem saying the quiet part out loud. As with modern SNL, it was the part worth watching. Even if the pro-wrestling bit seemed like something we would have cooked up for a school video project in 8th grade.

This show is not for me, and that's fine. Great, even. I hope it succeeds and all those players become huge stars. They need time to find their vibe. And Lord knows SNL is constantly working to refind its vibe.

But this episode felt more like "what if Hannah Waddingham were Carol Burnett?" for most of her sketches. And that is the highest compliment I can really give when it comes to this form of entertainment. Hopefully they'll have her back when the show finds its footing a bit better.

Do I have a ridiculous, huge crush on Waddingham? I do. But I stand by how good she was here.

Neo-Noir Watch: Bound (1996)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 10 May 2026 15:52:54 +0000

Watched: 05/09/2026

Format: Criterion Disc

Viewing: Third

Director: The Wachowskis

I know I saw Bound (1996) once in the theater and once on VHS. But it's been at least since last century since I've given it a whirl.

The movie is mostly famous for the not-exactly-subtle eroticism between stars Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon. I am not going to undersell the Wachowskis clearly seeing the erotic thrillers of the 1990's and saying "hold my beer".

And while I enjoy a bit of post-9:00 PM cable in any movie, I think this is a great example of a neo-noir thriller that understands genre conventions and doesn't think sexy sex in a noir somehow elevates the concept so much it excuses abysmal writing. Maybe not every line in this movie lands, but from a plotting standpoint and from a character standpoint- it just works.

Bound is also very 90's in its desire to do something with art direction - actually use the sets to help tell the story. I love the look in this movie - the icy interior of Violet's apartment, that feels like a sterile museum.* While Corky's environs is decaying maximalism with deeply hued and patterned wallpapers. When they do have sex, it's in Corky's one room apartment on a stained mattress - getting down to gritty realism. It's curious, by the way, that Joe and Caesar, who hate each other, both have similar places, down to the art on the wall that's just a circle.

That said, this is a smart, small movie - using few locations and centering in Violet and Caesar's place, with some action in the nextdoor apartment Corky is renovating.

Add in the cheeky cinematography that walks us to their coupling - where are some of these lightsources? and that pipe shot - yowza! And how the cinematography pushes the story along - those shared walls, the blood in the sterile environment? Well done.

The real smarts of Bound come from setting up a clockwork operation and then kicking the legs out from under the schemes and audience expectations a few times - just enough to keep the viewer off-kilter and unsure what will pay-off and how. It doesn't let anyone show up as a complete moron or patsy, and that's frankly a bit unusual. So it can feel like the movie isn't *streamlined* to get us to the end. And that's great.

In a way, the over-the-top sexuality of the first act is necessary because it sets up the questions and stakes of the rest of the movie. Why else would these two go in on a scheme - and will it pay off for either of them? Especially as they stop sharing screentime for a huge chunk of the movie's runtime. We have to buy that there's at least a chance these two really do have a connection after their chance encounter and short shared history.

Tilly kind of found her rhythm with this movie, and she's sort of been this version of Jennifer Tilly ever since. And that's great - if you find something that works, make a career of it. Gershon has always been mercurial as a performer - there's a lot of great performances, but there's no "oh, that's a Gina Gershon role" where you'd slot her. And I appreciate that she leaned so hard into her tough girl persona even if you can see she's working through "how would Corky move?" in some scenes.

This movie was where I figured out who Joe Pantoliano is. He's @#$%ing great in the flick - and his Caesar is a curious antagonist. After all, he's being lied to, has no idea what is actually happening, and everyone is fine with him getting killed. That he's an asshole is beside the point.

We also have a young Christopher Meloni, character guys Barry Kivel and Peter Sellos, and plenty of others.

It's still mind bending to me that the 90's were a place where someone could have one movie like Bound under their belt - co-written and directed by Lana and Lilly Wachowski - and then not be shoved into the corporate machine to lend credence to big IP machines, but instead were given the resources to go do The Matrix. I dunno, maybe The Matrix was way cheaper than I thought at the time. I haven't seen it in 27 years.**

Part of me wishes Lana and Lilly would back up and make a sequel to Bound rather than worrying about the Matrix as a property. Or at least something in this mode, because they had a real knack for noir.

* a look fully embraced for some reason by Millennials in what will age as well as toadstool wallpaper and orange shag carpet.

** I was not a huge fan of the movie and only saw it once, and none of the sequels.

Western Watch: Montana Belle (1952)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 08 May 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Watched: 05/07/2026

Format: TCM on DVR

Viewing: First

Director: Allan Dwan

This movie opens strong by being both racist and deeply misogynistic in just the first three lines and, in this regard, refuses to take its foot off the gas til the end. Truly breathtaking. It is also a movie from 1952 out of RKO, so it's a release from right in the meaty part of Howard Hughes' control of the studio.

How can you tell it's a Howard Hughes joint?

Jane Russell stars
Jane Russell's elaborate wardrobe
For no real plot reason, Jane Russell stops to do a musical number
All of the men speak in tough-guy clipped voices
Guns guns guns
No adherence whatsoever to history while using known historical figures

Russell stars as real-life sometimes-outlaw, Belle Starr. Chucking her real life out the window, this is an entirely fictional version interacting with a fictional version of the Dalton Gang.

It seems the Dalton Gang is hiding out in the Oklahoma Territory when one of the brothers rides up with a freshly widowed Belle Starr in tow. He's rescued her from the noose, because he dislikes *injustice*, but mostly because she looks like Jane Russell. But... everyone agrees women are trouble.

There's no small amount of threat of sexual violence (see: another Howard Hughes item) which she just seems irritated by. And one of the brothers decides she's his woman - an idea she doesn't seem to share.

Meanwhile, an insurance company is tired of paying out on the robberies performed by the Dalton Gang, and so they hire walking Honey Baked Ham George Brent to put an end to it. He hires Andy Devine to send the gang straight to his saloon where he plans to nab them. But when the Daltons ride off to prepare to rob Brent, a posse stumbles over the hideout thanks to Iron Eyes Cody (the actor who played the weeping Native American* in the litter commercial). Belle and her fellow leftovers make good their escape.

Convinced the Dalton Gang sold them out, Belle, Mac and Ringo (the very white Jack Lambert in bad make-up also faking being Native American in a way I'll describe as "iffy") form their own gang and begin robbing trains, banks, whatever.

In disguise, they come to Brent's saloon where Belle shows up Brent at cards and he offers Belle a partnership. She's obviously clever and cunning, and knows her way around a saloon. But, mostly, she looks like Jane Russell and this is a frontier town mostly full of dudes named "Smitty".

Trouble's a-brewing because the Daltons figure out Russell's game and start interfering.

Look, I... am not a George Brent fan. He's a better actor than George Raft, but I missed the part of his career where he seemed like a leading man. He's believable enough, but feels oddly cast here. Everyone else is employing basic-1950's B-movie acting techniques, and the dialogue is as fresh as hamburger buns left at the back of breadbox for two months.

At one point, Russell is supposed to pass as a man because she's in pants, and never before has a disguise failed so decidedly.

Sometimes you just finish a movie because it's short and you want to see where it's going, and that's this flick. It is not good. And ends with a kind of boring shoot out and Belle willingly going to jail, I guess?

I'm not mad, but I can't say I felt like this one was particularly worth anyone's time.

On a side/ historical note - the real lives of these people are *always* way weirder and stranger than fiction. The line between law officer and criminal thin as a spider-web. Multiple marriages, divorces and curious pairings always get listed. And in the case of someone like Belle Starr, you're left wondering: wait, how did a girl from what seems a respectable family wind up running with gangs and wind up dead from a shotgun blast?

No one ever makes that movie.

*word on the street is that Iron Eyes was never actually Native American, but Italian? Which... man. Sometimes showbiz is just wild.

Austen Watch: Emma (2020)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 08 May 2026 03:51:57 +0000

Watched: 05/07/2026

Format: Disc from Library

Viewing: First

Director: Autumn de Wilde

The funny thing about Jane Austen adaptations is that I guess, because I've never read any Jane Austen, is that Austen is the spring from which rom-com tropes flow. So, even when you're watching a faithful or semi-faithful adaptation of Austen, you may feel the beats or arcs once the many, many moving pieces of an Austen story settle in.

But that's okay. It's not like people can't pick out the beats in a Spider-Man movie.

I do recall this one being advertised, but seeing it came out in 2020 means it may have played to empty movie theaters, but I'm also seeing it is not embraced and beloved as other Austen adaptations. And Jamie's reaction was pretty muted when the movie wrapped up. That said, while I was goofing off with CB and JAL on Sunday, she watched Clueless,* which is loosely based on the book of Emma, so maybe too soon?

The challenges of these movies are manifold. You need to adhere largely to the book or the Austen-heads will make sure that if you don't, they can drag you. Of course, the books do not follow the "wisdom" of modern screenwriting rules, which are intended to serve audiences who can only handle knowing who is good and bad, and when will the final boss show up.There are far more characters than modern screen-writing guidelines usually will say are a good idea. And that can include characters who are discussed and not seen for quite a while - we're not meeting everyone important in the first five minutes as Modern Screenwriting Law would insist. And we're certainly not clear on everyone's specific deal. Communicating the social rules of Regency Era England to modern audiences - especially Americans who bristle at these things - can be hard.

And yet - we keep making these movies and people tend to like them, because Austen knew how to write/ created a very specific kind of fantasy that's as satisfying in its way as any "male" fantasy story. And they've already stood the test of time - which means they just already work for a wide audience.

The cast is punctuated with actors who would soon be more familiar. The eponymous Emma is played by Anya Taylor-Joy - I think very well. Her pal Harriet is Mia Goth. Josh O'Connor plays Mr. Elton (and is hysterical, imho). But there's also Bill Nighy as Emma's father and Miranda Hart as Miss Bates.

This is my first exposure to the story of Emma other than seeing Clueless one time in the theater. I don't know. It was a thumbs-up from me. Anya Taylor-Joy and Mia Goth were solid. Bill Nighy was terrific (and I guess Emma laid the groundwork for the oft-repeated solo-girl and her daddy sad-house). It was a good mix of silly and semi-serious - including characters both rich and cartoonish. The life-lessons imparted were non-bullshit and I didn't roll my eyes, which is not nothing. It's well shot, and I thought it got honestly better as it went along, versus what too many movies do.

I have no idea if any of it was historically accurate, but it was pretty to look at.

Weirdly, this was the last IMDB movie credit for director Autumn De Wilde who I *do* know, but only from her many Florence + The Machine videos. She's super good at those. Three thumbs-up.

Anyway, the best uncommented upon gag in the movie is the casting of the 6'1" Miranda Hart with the 5'1" Myra McFadyen as her mother.

*I am unapologetic in my loathing of Clueless, so it's best I was gone. If I never have to watch it again, I'm good. And walking in on the last ten or fifteen minutes did nothing to make m rethink my case.

Ted Turner Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 06 May 2026 15:25:13 +0000

let's see how he likes it

Broadcasting pioneer Ted Turner has passed at age 87.

Is anyone more American than Ted Turner? A Paul Bunyan of the 20th Century, launching ideas like CNN and Headline News. TBS. TNT. Making us all watch the Atlanta Braves when the Cubs were right there if we had WGN.

I don't even know if what he did was good or bad - he made the 24 hour news cycle, but he also didn't make it into the mess it is now. All he did was give us Lynne Russell* in the early evening, and maybe we can blame him for Wolf Blitzer.

Two things I'll be grateful for forever - he gave us Turner Classic Movies, which has been a lifeline for me year in and year out. And he also had a steakhouse in Bozeman, Montana - Ted's - where I had some excellent meals.

He lived large and publicly - one does not just marry Jane Fonda and expect it to be a minor deal. In an era where being a corporate figure meant you could be made fun of as a Bond Villain (see: Tomorrow Never Dies) he simply loomed larger than life, and not in the dumb-ass way of today's weirdo oligarchs.

Ted, you lived large. Heck, you once got mad and decided to manage the Braves yourself. Hilarious.

Here's to a media baron who actually did change the world.

*I had a real thing for Lynne Russell and became shockingly well informed due to my endless viewing of Headline News

Thriller Watch: Arabesque (1966)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 03 May 2026 15:30:59 +0000

Watched: 05/02/2026

Format: TCM

Viewing: First

Director: Stanley Donen

As a fan of artist Robert McGinnis, I had seen the poster art for Arabesque (1966) for years, but it's also a movie nobody ever really mentions, which I found odd given the star power, director Stanley Donen and a score by Henry Mancini.

But I did record the film off TCM and so gave it a whirl.

It becomes immediately clear that in the wake of Charade, Donen and Universal wanted to try to do that again. But on the second attempt, it just doesn't quite work the same way.

You can't blame the leads - Gregory Peck is Gregory Peck, and Sophia Loren is Sophia Loren (and maybe even more so. Good golly.). Peck is trying on being Cary Grant and for reasons, Loren is playing an Arabian woman. I mean, it's an entire movie full of Arab characters played by non-Arabs, which isn't entirely a shock when you consider this is five years after West Side Story having some interesting ideas about who Puerto Ricans are.

The plot would maybe make Dan Brown a bit cross as this is about a specialist in ancient languages and scripts (Peck) who is recruited by the Prime Minister of Nameless Arabian Country (in secret) to be a double agent and work for a shady fellow to translate some hieroglyphs.

Sophia Loren is an unknown quantity, first seen in cahoots with the baddie, and then aligning herself with Peck - and then it's unclear what her game is.

Her job, though, is to be Sophia Loren looking, let's be honest, amazing. She's dressing in the best clothes and has just astounding hair and make-up, and she's witty and sexy and fun. And that is literally what the movie feels like what it's selling as a movie star in a way that movies haven't done in decades, for good or ill.

But the movie wants to be *fun* so badly, and wants to fit into the burgeoning cultural swing into hep cats and cool kittens - I mean, check out that poster - that it sometimes barely feels like anything is at stake. And maybe that's the point? But it's easy to get lost in the "who is she working for and why?" sub-plot and kind of forget to care about the main plot, which is mostly chasing around a piece of paper.

I didn't dislike the movie. It's fine. If someone was picking between this and Charade and I'd direct them to Charade. Sometimes movies from this period and in this rough genre have surprised me, like The Silencers. But this one just felt like it cruised along without much behind it, with confusing stakes, and what was someone a bit too old for the mod, Swinging London scene of 1966. And then layering on so many concerns about Arabians not really participating in that scene that it's all a little baffling.

It *does* have some interesting photography courtesy Christopher Challis, and it really helps translate what I think Donen wanted to do - occasionally tilting into psychedelic imagery and surrealism, or using the frame to show the vibe in creative ways. And it never treats Arabs as some mysterious and inscrutable *other*, which is pretty progressive for 1966.

But, also, I don't think Peck lifts a gun in the whole movie, let alone the canon in his hand in the poster. But it sure sells *a* movie if not this one. But you sure know where Steranko was getting some of his ideas when you ponder the thrillers of the mod era.

LA Movie Watch: Under the Silver Lake (2018)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 03 May 2026 06:26:51 +0000

Watched: 05/01/2026

Format: DVD - library

Viewing: First

Director: David Robert Mitchell

Under the Silver Lake (2018) is an interesting movie. For what it sets out to do, I think it succeeds. I am not, however, particularly a fan of movies that basically say "you'll get it when you watch it again and everything at the beginning will mean something different now that you know the end". I mean, it's fun in a way, but I ain't got time for that.

SPOILERS

It's a movie that is having great fun encoding the hidden jokes and meaning in the movie while being about someone who is falling down the well of conspiracy theory and seeing hidden messages in everything. From an academic exercise - it's no doubt an interesting magic trick, what writer/ director David Robert Mitchell is doing.

I guess I'm kind of caught on the "...and so what?" of it all by the end. Like, it's a neat trick. But... to what end?

Deciphering what was actually happening and why could absolutely be something one could try. And maybe the movie even could have spoken to the moment as, in 2018, QAnon was still a force, and America was fully descending into seeing hidden meaning in everything (we just live there now).

It's certainly saying something about the ephemeral (and corporate) nature of pop culture, music and things we value versus the lives we envy - which it pitches somewhere between the ascension of Christ and the damnation of Dracula and his brides.

Our lead, Sam, is a loser on his way down - but who harbors delusions of grandeur. He's 33 and still basically hanging around the scene of 20-somethings, jobless, where it's no longer cute to be a slacker. Banging an actress who *is* working. And, of course, he's maybe a serial dog murderer. And in a movie laced with codes, and hidden meaning, we can name someone else who had a big year when *they* were 33.

But, yeah, it's a movie with an unreliable narrator/ protagonist. Which is absolutely an unusual thing to see. It just takes a beat to figure it out. I guess I figured out something was up when we first meet Sam (Andrew Garfield) looking at the "dog killer' messaging painted on a window and then he has dog biscuits and claims to have just had a dog die.

A lot of folks want to frame this as neo-noir, including the movie's marketing. It just never really landed with me as neo-noir. It was pretty clear from jump that our lead is delusional, so his pursuit of the missing Sarah is suspect for the audience from the second he decides he has to find her. So, yeah, I guess if it's about someone in a mystery where they're in over their head - sure. Neo-noir. I'm not here to play Noir Cop.

The movie is essentially the hazy POV of someone who may be hallucinating for a good half of the movie. It's open to interpretation what is real and what isn't. I suspect large portions in the second half are just Sam's version of events.

The movie also wears the face of something serious while insisting it's not, while asking you to do a bunch of homework and watch it a few more times. And... No thanks. If you want that, don't be a drag to watch the first time.

I just didn't care enough about what was happening to put the pieces together. That "so what?" of the movie - which it puts on the table about all pop culture and therefore about itself as a mass-release movie - never really gels. It just feels like a junk drawer of young-male cultural touch points which it seems to want to criticize - but to what end? At some point, it's just the writer/ director being clever and I guess "deep". And that's fine. I just didn't give a shit anymore as we rounded the corner into the last forty-five minutes (the runtime was something like 2hr 20 min).

I've seen plenty of movies that left me off-kilter and were not S.O.P. narratives. I'm fine with that. We should all enjoy a challenging viewing of a movie. I happily accidentally sat through three hours of Inland Empire in the theater. I watched The Holy Mountain and gave it a "I'm glad I did that" thumbs-up.

But I just couldn't get excited about a movie that seems like it was kind of just saying Los Angeles is actually for making some people rich, but not you. And that's something anyone paying attention in every city in the world in every year of all time should be pretty aware of.

It's likely thhere are dozens and dozens of sites run by bros deconstructing the film from clues - basically Sam with his Nintendo Power Magazine and the viewer from the cereal box. And I wish those people well. I get that people believe this is a good use of their time. I just had no emotional investment or intellectual investment in this, and why this movie didn't work for me when Mulholland Drive felt engrossing and moving is something I'll not dissect here.

I just wish the movie had actually felt interesting after the first hour. And if it had something to say that wasn't "dudes soaking in pop culture can suck", cool. Text me what it was when you get a chance.

Friday Superhero Watch: Superman (2025)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 02 May 2026 20:06:40 +0000

Watched: 05/01/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: Sixth

Director: James Gunn

With zero prompting from me, on Friday night Jamie put on Superman (2025) as our evening's viewing.

I married well.

This is my sixth viewing in a year, which is too many, to be honest. One starts to look at the seams rather than the quilt, seeing how the thing is put together, and that's not all bad if you want to start really dissecting a movie, but for staying in the intended flow, it can give you time to think about things other than the story presented.

After this viewing, I still think Superman does so many things very well that were necessary for reframing the character in the public consciousness. But it is an odd movie because the metatext of the reframing becomes what the story is *about*. We're reframing Superman after Superman Returns and the Snyder universe films. While also setting up the fundamental argument of Luthor versus the argument for Superman.*

Eschewing the direct origin story, Superman has to do the heavy lifting and table-setting for what's to come with the DC Studios Universe.

So, mostly, it's about getting something like a version of Superman on screen that will endure and work for the intended audience (sorry, edge lords! I know it's confusing when not everything is for you.). If a story is intended to show an event that changed our protagonist, how does a Superman grow? And this movie really does show that. While also showing the audience that Superman is not who he is because of cosmic destiny or alien heritage, but because of who he is and the choices that Clark Kent makes.

I do have issues.

I certainly wish the movie were longer. There's so much to get into, and it feels like it was cut for time - but it also came out in the wake of folks complaining about near 3-hour run times for superhero films. I can only guess what they cut at the script stage and in the edit bay.

But... Lois and Clark could use a scene prior to the "3rd month of dating anniversary" scene. I wonder if the impact of the interview and their disagreement would land harder if that dinner and the interview were separate scenes? It's the first time we really see them together and it ends badly. So... what are the stakes? Or am I looking for an excuse for more Brosnahan? MAYBE.

I continue to wish the Daily Planet crew had more to do. Jimmy and Lois sure get plenty - and I so love what Brosnahan is doing in this movie. (She deserved an action figure. Mad she doesn't have one.) But we just get glimpses of Steve Lombard and Cat Grant, and I don't think Ron has any lines at all. Gunn clearly *gets* the dynamic, so it would be cool to see them do something with it.

And I sort of wish Superman saved the Kaiju in spite of the Justice Gang. How much different would the outcome be if he flew it to Monster Island or something?

That said, the Justice Gang still works for me. I'm ready for the Justice Gang movie. Gimme the screwball buddy comedy Bwah-ha-ha of the Giffen/ DeMatteis/ Maguire/ Austin era. Or a Mr. Terrific show or something. I just think that character works like nobody's business.

I want to know more about *why* The Engineer allowed herself to be changed, and I'm a little bummed they didn't say she was one of Lex's scientists who did this to herself. I liked the idea in the comics she didn't volunteer, she did this to herself and understood the implications. And this is only a degree or two from that. But I liked *actual engineer* Engineer.

After rewatching Superman Returns, it really is a pleasure to see a Superman who is allowed to cut loose with his powers, and we can maybe see why he's not lost a battle in 3 years. I mean, he essentially cuts down a fleet of Iron Mans in about twenty seconds.

And, yeah, we've already talked this movie at length before and now - so I'll go here: I've seen the people online who feel very smart indeed that they think Lex giving orders to Ultraman is too slow - I think we can assume that Superman really doesn't fight many people where the speed is the issue. At 6'5", if I wade into an army of pre-schoolers, I don't really need to learn kung-fu, do I? So, yeah, I buy that Lex making a study of moves based on Superman fighting footage is a thing that would work.

Also - I hate to tell people, but Superman comics are *funny*. Like, Superman and Lois crack wise. If you're writing Superman and not looking for jokes, you may be doing it wrong. But it's a long tradition that Superman comics end on punchlines or a wacky twist. Not so much since the Bronze age, but instead they've just found places for jokes inside the stories. That's how we get a Steve Lombard and where Jimmy shines. And Gunn understood this. Just as he understood, Lex is a genius, but he's also kind of got a zany edge. That's how you get scientists all required to wear Hawaiian shirts and pith helmets. But also having someone like Mr. Handsome driving his weird floating wagon.

Anyway - it was fun to rewatch. I think every six months is plenty, and I only made it five months between viewings, but that's okay.

*for the record, I do think Snyder's Luthor came close to this same argument, it was just presented horribly

Horror Coppola Watch: Dementia 13 (1963)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 01 May 2026 01:03:00 +0000

Watched: 04/29/2026

Format: TCM

Viewing: First

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

The story Ben Mankiewicz and producer Roger Corman shared about why this movie exists sounds like a movie in itself.

Basically, while filming a motorsports movie in Europe, Corman was running severely *under* budget. With $20K left in in the bank, a crew and equipment available, and some time before they had to go home - he set his second unit director loose to go make something for $20K. That director? Francis Coppola.

This is Coppola's first movie, and it feels like something between a Gothic mystery - one of those books with women running away from a castle, or Turn of the Screw or some such, and a modern thriller (for 1963). For a first movie made on the cheap (the final total budget was $40K after selling the rights to the UK to bolster the budget) and written in a rush, and produced on-the-fly.

It has a stellar first 25 minutes or so, borrowing a wee bit from the structure of Psycho, but with the added bonus of being about a family dwelling in a castle in Ireland.

Seven years ago the only daughter died, drowning in the pond out back. The family has an annual ritual where they re-enact Kathleen's funeral and the mother collapses emotionally and physically. Every year.

This year, one of the sons has come home with an American wife, Louise (Luana Anders), who is just learning about the strangeness of the family - and that the mother (Eithne Dunne) plans to give the castle and fortune away to charity when she dies.

After a shocking opening to the film- establishing Louise's greed - we see her plan to manipulate the mother.

However, other things are afoot at the castle. One brooding brother and his American fiance. Another brother who seems fragile. And an off-kilter doctor who wants to solve the mystery.

SPOILERS

There's no real mystery to the mystery. It's clearly the fragile brother who picks up the axe, but it's also a really great movie right up until he gives Louise 40 whacks. Psycho's opening is great, but the pivot to the rest of the movie is mind-boggling. But the movie that follows the plot we think we're getting with Louise's scheme is less interesting and far more predictable.

But - on that budget? This is a pretty tight little movie and presages some of Coppola's ability to get a story across economically. It does not begin to hint at his best works. It's just a really good API release.

The cast is mostly unfamiliar - I had seen Luana Anders in a few things, but not as the scheming blonde like she is here. Again, when she disappears, the movie loses a gear both plotwise and from her energy.

Also, Mr. Coppola - there could have been so many twists, and this is a sprint to the obvious choice for the killer.

Anyway - worth a watch for the historical value, some creepy ideas included, and some great visuals.

David Allan Coe Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:57:36 +0000

I had believed David Allan Coe died five years ago, but apparently he just passed.

I do not know what the youths do now, but if you didn't know all the words to "You Never Even Called Me By My Name" - were you even really Texas'ing in the late 20th Century?

I don't know how much Coe and I would have agreed on in this life, maybe not much. But that song is one of the greatest ever performed.

And one night at the VFW in Bozeman, Montana, I surprised several digital library colleagues by singing all the words to this most important song. I may have had a few cocktails beforehand.

Gerry Conway Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Tue, 28 Apr 2026 02:55:25 +0000

It's hard to measure what any one creator gives to comics, but since the original wave of creators in the 30's and 40's, and since Stan, Jack and Ditko did their thing - there have been some major players. And top among these is Gerry Conway.

Conway is responsible for some of the most important storylines and characters in comics. The man was wildly prolific - having started at age 19 writing at Marvel and just going wild.

Here's a list of characters he co-created: From Wikipedia

Here's some of my favorites:

Can you imagine?

And, among his many important contributions, he wrote "The Night Gwen Stacy Died", one of the most important stories in Marvel Comics history. The guy had chops.

I assumed Conway was in his mid-80's, having no idea he was a teenager when he started his career. Gone way too soon.

Nedra Talley Ross Merges With The Infinite

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Nedra, Ronnie and Estelle

The final Ronette, Nedra Talley Ross, has passed.

A part of the Phil Spector music empire, The Ronette's place in American music of the 20th Century can't really be overestimated. You may only know a few of their songs, but they qualify among your favorite musician's favorite musicians. And this certainly helped carry them in the years after Spector and his wife, the eponymous Ronnie Spector, split less than amicably.

Nedra was a cousin of Ronnie Spector and Estelle Bennett, and the trio broke at a very young age, and never looked back. Ronnie passed in 2022, and Estelle passed in 2009.

Here's a performance video from back in the day with the group at their peak.

Super Watch: Superman Returns (2006)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 06:02:11 +0000

Watched: 04/26/2026

Format: HBOmax

Viewing: Unknown

Director: Bryan Singer

I was maybe ten minutes into this rewatch of Superman Returns (2006) when I messaged Stuart that we needed to bring back the podcast just to do a ten-part series on this movie. The pre-history of the movie is worth discussing, as is the production, months up to the release, the lackluster response to the movie, what came after with a reboot in the form of the Snyder movies, and that both the director and Spacey were canceled.

It's also a movie from the wild west, exciting days of the superhero explosion that came after two great Spider-Man and X-Men movies, Batman Begins and a terrible Catwoman film.* But no real rules had been written yet for how superhero films should work. We're two years prior to Iron Man here.

The DVD releases of the Superman quadrilogy had really brought the Donner film (and its sequels) back to the public consciousness, and looking for a safe bet, with Batman done and Wonder Woman the only other DC IP that seemed possible - but that was a girl and Catwoman had failed -Warner Bros went back to DC's original moneymaker.

Here, I'm just really going to cover the movie - but really what I thought at the time versus where I am in 2026.

I was 31 when Superman Returns was released. At the time, the movie felt like a gift. I was a huge fan of those four movies from the 70's and 80's, and was being told the first two, anyway, were the basis for this new movie - just with an all-new cast. I was enthused by the casting of Kevin Spacey, Frank Langella and Parker Posey. Curious about what role Marsden would play. And it was very hard to know what the movie was actually about.

It turns out the movie jumped five years in time from Superman's ongoing adventures - which we'd only seen snippets of in Superman: The Movie and Superman II. Before our action begins, The Man of Steel heard astronomers found Krypton, or something, and without much pre-amble, jumped into a Kryptonian vessel, got there, found it was - in fact - destroyed, and came home. Cool trip, bro.

The movie serves as a way to reintroduce you to old favorites like Perry, Jimmy, Lois and Lex. It gives us a new not-quite Miss Teschmacher in Posey. And then scary friends Lex made in prison. Lex has hatched a scheme that takes a while to fall into place - but is even grander than his desire to remove Western California from the map, and instead will get him an all-new piece of land.

Meanwhile, Clark is realizing everyone has moved on without him. Well, maybe not Jimmy.

Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) is living with a guy (James Marsden) and shares a child with him, Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu). But Clark remains in love with Lois who he did not say good-bye to before he left - at least as Superman.

Lex launches his plan, which is to launch one of the Kryptonian crystals into the sea, laced with Kryptonite, and grow a new continent which will usurp much of North America's space.

Superman quasi stops him/ picks up the new island and chucks it into space.

The film ends with everything largely unresolved. But, we went on to enjoy a half-dozen more movies and a sprawling DC Universe of movies. Or, what really happened, was some people had a lukewarm reception to a sequel to a movie that was 26 years in the past, had no superhero battles, and made Superman into a kind of a weirdo who seemed super only in powers, but was a bit milquetoasty.

Today, Superman Returns is why I have sympathy now for people who love a bit of media I think is maybe not all that great. At the time of the movie's release, I was bouncing off the walls, so excited for the new movie - and that it so clearly knew the first two Superman feature movies so well. Like me!

And it does. Too well. While also wanting to play fast and loose with its adherence to the original movie when convenient. And at the end of the day, among the issues the movie has is that it leaves massive plot holes and still has the gumption to say "it's a superhero movie, don't worry about it" - something Marvel Studios figured out is the polar opposite of how superhero comics fans operate. And it makes for better storytelling in any genre if you don't have to wonder - wait, when did Richard enter the picture, and who does he think the father is? Did Lois babytrap Richard?

Unless Lois was just wildly popular at the Daily Planet, it seems she'd have been able to narrow down who got her knocked up and was either lying to Richard or that baby took like a year to show up. Honestly, it's absolutely nuts this is the set-up and then there's no conversation about it - no acknowledgement of what Superman left Lois with. This wasn't just a "sorry I ghosted you".

And, I mean, you'd think the guy who stands for "Truth, Justice... all that stuff" would have wanted to tell the woman he was bedding he was planning to bounce. Especially when, let's be honest, Clark isn't just heartbroken here - he's the nerd who is obsessing over the fact the girl he liked is with someone he kind of can't compete with. Richard is accomplished, a pilot, handsome as hell, and possibly happily raising someone else's kid while laying down cover for Lois with Perry. Clark Kent is just a guy she doesn't think about, and Superman leaves for five years without leaving a note.

In 2026, I have no idea what they were thinking. This is actually very bad writing. It makes Lois and Superman look pretty terrible, especially when Lois is clearly still into Superman and Richard has to be supportive of this? You just know the next movie starts with Richard getting crushed by a boulder as the only narrative exit for character that isn't kind of crappy.

And, when it comes to being an action film - as a co-worker opined to me in 2007, to which I had no real retort - "it's just Superman lifting a progressively larger series of objects".

You can guess why Gunn thought it was so important to do a few things with the 2025 Superman, among those finally showing Superman not just in action, allowing him to fight an array of challenges and opponents, from humans in spiffy suits to a physical equal (plus Engineer) to get a baseline for what this even looks like. Moviewise, we've barely tapped into what Superman can do (and credit to Snyder/ Whedon for doing some of this with Justice League. Maybe the only gauge of what he can do happens during the post-resurrection fight.). And lifting things is neat, but... I think in 2006 people were ready to see Metallo, man.

I also get why - if you're not just seeing Superman as a huge metaphor of some sort - why seeing him lift the crystalline mass complete with Kryptonite outgrowths is a problem. It makes no sense when a wee bit took his ass out completely fifteen minutes ago. I get why they did it, and from a poetic standpoint - lovely. But it's a bit confusing, isn't it?

Now, I really enjoy the super-feats shown in Superman Returns. Aside from some great aesthetic choices, seeing Superman save the plane, rescue Metropolis after the earthquake, lift the boat, etc... is all neat stuff. It's actually fantastic - I don't want to undersell this part. Not only is the airplane rescue one of those things that is just visually stunning and emotionally engaging - it's all very on brand with Superman as a firefighter more than a super-cop. He's here to rescue people. And this movie pulls it off with great panache. This is the kind of stuff that I like to see punctuate my Superman stories. (In fact, those of you who think Superman saving people and animals during the Kaiju scene in the new movie was hokey, maybe you don't get Superman? Just saying.)

Is Superman super-stalking Lois? I mean - yeah. Just watch it now and see how they cut the movie. And in the last scene he fully enters her house uninvited and hangs out with her sleeping kid... I mean. Ugh. It just reads so weird now. And it feels like an excuse to use the excellent dialogue from Superman: The Movie again - which seems to be the only point.

This movie is so beholden to the original movies, and what seemed like something I desperately wanted in 2006 now feels like the source of much of the movie's trouble. Neither Singer nor the performers nor the editors pull off the vibe they're trying to get with the movie as newspaper movie - a la His Girl Friday, and you'd think they're not even trying except for Bosworth slipping into MidAtlantic Accent for two or three lines in Perry's office.

But it also meant the scheme they came up with Lex was, again, a land scheme (gotta have a call back). But this plan makes zero sense. First, why would Lex even think the crystals were great for creating a continent sized landmass? The Fortress of Solitude is maybe the size of a shopping mall. Second, why would he think creating the land mass would protect him from a flotilla of US Marines coming in and capturing or killing him? He says he'll have futuristic tech, but he's sitting around smoking a cigar in this movie, not playing with a disintegrator ray. It just doesn't make a lick of sense except he thinks he built a trap to kill Superman - and if he has access to kryptonite, sure feels like there's easier ways to do it. And he launched the scheme before Superman actually came home.

Again, this is just weak writing. And as much as I wanted to forgive it even in 2006, I knew this was a major problem. But was excited about the movie, and so I let it slide, telling myself "Lex just needs more time". But... no. It just doesn't work.

Assuming people understand the connection between Lois and Superman is another hang up from he prior movies, but here it just seems like two people who kinda dated a while back having mixed feelings seeing each other again. Which is a legitimate story, but when it's Superman, bringing in children makes it messy, to say the least. Especially if people don't know Superman turned back time to save the woman he felt finally understood him.

The film *is* beautifully designed. So well, in fact, I think other films including Gunn's could learn something from it. The Daily Planet is such an amazing bit of art deco fantasy architecture, and it looks just right for Superman, full stop.

It's been years since I've watched this movie - and I'm glad I can revisit it and be maybe a bit honest with myself. I was all in on this movie and made it everyone else's problem for a long time. But at some point I came to the realization - you know, if it were a better movie, I'd want to rewatch it more often. And I don't think I've seen it in over a decade now. This is the last time I posted I'd watched it, 2012. And I now disagree with some of what I said back then.

What's wild is that I still think this is light years ahead of the horrendous JJ Abrams script to which McG was attached, and whatever we would have had with Brett Ratner (who was officially named for a while). And I can see why WB thought Snyder - who had done well with 300 and Watchmen - was their guy. And I don't even really blame Snyder for anything that happened - it's like blaming a gorilla for being a gorilla.

Again - I semi-jokingly, but would probably maybe actually do it - proposed a multi-episode series on this movie. There's so much baggage - I couldn't possibly get it all into a post. But maybe one day.

*this is not a site that ironically enjoys Catwoman or is going to give the movie credit, and the revisionist take that this is somehow a feminist critique doesn't hold for me. If it tripped over that along the way, see what you see in it. I'll continue to see this movie as a misfire.

60's Indie Watch: The World's Greatest Sinner (1962)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 26 Apr 2026 15:33:30 +0000

Watched: 04/25/2026

Format: Criterion

Viewing: First

Director: Timothy Carey

I am unclear on the release history of The World's Greatest Sinner (1962). I'm not even sure it ever did more than a screening or two in Los Angeles and then disappeared. I don't know how it hit streaming, winding up (til the end of the month) of the Criterion Channel.

Your mom has probably never heard of Timothy Carey. And maybe you haven't, but if you're the right kind of film nerd, you may have. Carey was a bit of a wild card hanging around the movie scene and getting cast as usually an oddball, and I saw him first in The Killing where he plays a gunman who shoots a horse and still botches the job (it's a phenomenal movie and I highly recommend it).

Well, I guess in the 1960's he got his hands on some money and wrote, directed and produced this movie. And, man, making true low-budget indie movies back in the day was not easy. You had to coast on vibes and ideas. And this has both in spades.

Carey plays an insurance salesman named Clarence Hilliard. He's doing well, managing an office, has a lovely wife and children. He owns a horse and a Great Dane and a house with a yard big enough for a horse.

Narrated (occasionally) by Satan himself, the movie follows as Clarence decides he doesn't believe in any of this bunk, picks up a guitar and becomes a sort of politician/ religious leader. But his new religion is that every man is his own god - he being the goddiest of the gods. And if people are their own god, they're responsible only to themselves. He so believes in the idea, he drops the name Clarence and goes by "God" Hilliard.

He, of course, picks up converts, and makes his money initially by seducing elderly widows, promising to restore their youth and end death (at least by way of old age related maladies). He performs concerts - shaking it like Elvis - with a sort of Latino gospel rock band behind him.

Anyway - it's a whole scene. There's not much like it (but I haven't seen A Face in the Crowd from 1956) and it seems pretty keen on how movements actually do work - with absurd promises from conmen speaking to primal fears.

The movie also has a score by a pre-fame Frank Zappa. Go figure! It's now what the movie is most famous for and why it's watched by some. I will be honest and say I have a massive blind spot re: Zappa, so this impacts me in no real way other than as a bit of trivia.

SPOILERS

I was genuinely surprised at the movie's turn to religiosity in the last ten minutes, but it does narratively make sense. I guess I was surprised Carey veered off into what I think was Catholicism in the last section, and that's fine. It makes for a satisfying ending when anything else might have felt a bit preachy or dark for edginess' sake.

Not sure I'd watch this again, but as a one-off, and at just 80 minutes, it was worth a viewing.

Sci-Fi Watch: Predator - Badlands (2025)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 03:47:46 +0000

Watched: 04/24/2026

Format: Hulu

Viewing: First

Director: Dan Trachtenberg

Well, this was kind of a perfect Friday night movie. And kind of why they invented PG-13.

I kind of love that somehow the legacy of Alien has somehow turned into "yes, but limited-autonomy for superhuman AI beings". I like squicky xenomorphs, too. But they don't exactly carry a story. And whatever merging we now have between Blade Runner, Alien and Predator is not the worst thing in the world. It's allowed for all kinds of paths for exploration.

I'll just say: if you can give me a movie with a humanoid lead, a robot pal and their murderous space-dog - all against alien landscapes and skies? Shit, man. I don't really feel like I need to explore deep themes or what it says about the human condition at that point. This is raw popcorn entertainment. And, somehow along the way, this movie is not incredibly stupid, all while admittedly being more than a bit unironically goofy. Way to thread the needle, movie!

I don't want to oversell it. I probably like Prey a tad more for it's raw intensity and Amber Midthunder showing star power. And for being such a breath of fresh air for a franchise I'd lost interest in a long, long time ago.

But, man, I'll say it. This movie was just fun, and after a long work week, this fit the bill.

I haven't seen much of Elle Fanning as an adult, but what a delight she is.* And credit to Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi for bringing real life to a character while buried entirely within a Predator costume. Guy really brought Dek to life. It seems the performance artist behind Bud - the third of the trio, was Ravi Narayan, and the guy who played approximately 100 copies of himself was Cameron Brown (someone sign this guy up to play Jamie Madrox).

Anyway, if you're feeling like Predator fiction that really expands the culture we've mostly seen implied, I'd recommend this one.

And, yes, of course I got the references to prior films. It was not subtle.

*I just found out they made a movie of the book Galveston, which Fanning appears in. I thought the book was pretty good.

Lawyer Watch: Michael Clayton (2007)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Watched: 04/21/2026

Format: Criterion

Viewing: First

Director: Tony Gilroy

Well, MBell will be happy not just that I finally watched this movie, but that I agree: great movie.

It stars George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson and muh gurl Tilda Swinton.* And that's good, because this is a movie that requires that level of performance so it doesn't just melt into cheap melodrama.

Michael Clayton (2007) is the kind of thriller-for-adults I really need to engage in more. It borders on neo-noir, but doesn't descend enough into the tropes for that, and the movie's focus is elsewhere, even if the lead - the eponymous Michael Clayton (Clooney) sure feels like a noir lead.

This is a legal thriller, which is not something I dislike, but not something I seek out. And part of the wave of socially-minded, evils-of-corporations media that was once a big staple of movies. I'm thinking everything from Erin Brockovich to Thank You For Smoking.

Do they make those anymore?

The movie starts with one of those "grab 'em by the lapels so they *have* to pay attention" bits - that is not a complaint, that's good writing. And it keeps providing those moments - how did we get to this? Where are we going with this?

The crux of the film is that a lead attorney (Tom Wilkinson) from a law firm defending a Monsanto-like corporation goes off his meds and, whilst having a manic episode, decides to support the plaintiffs after performing nude in the parking lot. Michael Clayton is a friend of the attorney and the fixer for the same firm, and he has to figure out what's going on and get Wilkinson back on the ball. While he may be close to hallucinating, Wilkinson remains one of the sharpest attorneys out there and is outmaneuvering everyone, maybe well aware of his state but seeing it as a good. (It is also possible he is smitten a bit by the plaintiff, a naive young woman from Wisconsin played by Merritt Wever).

Meanwhile, Michael Clayton is wrapping up a failed enterprise - he's closing down a bar he opened with his brother and selling it for pieces to try to pay back the loan, which appears to be from some shady characters. And he does not have the scratch on-hand to cover his expenses.

Ie: he has a lot going on.

While there's plenty of plot detail, and all of it key to making sure the story works and the stakes are right - this is one of those movies that you can just sit back and watch performances. George Clooney is dialed in, which is always a pleasure. As the CEO who knows all of this is going very, very badly and why, Swinton manages to walk a razor-thin line and winds up oddly sympathetic for someone who you really know is doing harm. To me, that's @#$%ing amazing from a scripting and performance stand point. This could have been Snidely Whiplash. And is it worth having to say Tom Wilkinson kills it? because you know he does. Sydney Pollack shows up once again as a canny, sensible guy who knows the real score.

The movie is beautifully shot - occurring in what seems like winter in New York - all low-hanging clouds and dampness and does some heavy lifting to convey meaning and intention in a film where people talk, sure, but to get the framing and subtext conveyed.

SPOILERS

In 2026, some of this feels like a lefty fantasy. That cops would get involved with a scandal with a multinational corporation? That anyone would actually care about a company knowingly polluting a population? The movies had moral outrage when the lesson of the 21st Century has been: ha, we actually don't care about any of this. There is no force of collective will that stops people from making dough for shareholders.

And, maybe part of why the movie works is it's not clear Clayton cares specifically about that - but his pal did, and he cares about what happened to his friend.

Anyway - glad I got to it before it left Criterion at the end of the month.

*y'all have no idea what I'd pay to see a Swinton/ Cate Blanchett buddy-cop movie

DC's K.O. Event was, in fact, very dumb

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:03:00 +0000

illustration by Aaron Humby

DC line-wide events are very, very seldom any good. And even if the main titles are worth reading, the ancillary pile-on is almost never worth the effort or cost. At best the events have a decent starting point, but usually by the time you hit the end it's a confused mess of abstractions yelling at each other and forcing some new editorial mandate, and this was the long way around to get to, say, "now Superman *doesn't* wear shorts over his tights".

The last big event I recall feeling particularly worth it or well written and which had a spectacular ending that DC absolutely flubbed, was probably Infinite Crisis or maybe, just maybe, just the Morrison issues of Final Crisis. And I attribute my enthusiasm for those projects now to my general enthusiasm for comics writ-large at the time. I don't know how they'd actually hold up.

I can't say much about Marvel because the last time I bothered with a cross-over was the OG Civil War, which led, within 45 days, into Secret Invasion. And I say this as a comic reader of many years before that moment and an equal number of years on the other side of that moment - Secret Invasion #1 was when I tapped out of Marvel comics as something I followed with any seriousness.

Yes, I was rolling my eyes that we were being told that "oOOOoo! Maybe your favorite character has secretly been a Skrull for 15 years!", essentially making it The Clone Saga on steroids. But, also, I had just put an ungodly amount of money into picking up what I thought was necessary to follow Civil War, and I came out the other side thinking "I really just needed the main series and like three other floppies". But there's no way to know that going in.

Add in the rising cost of comics, and I just tapped out. I haven't picked up any Marvel title with consistency since.

DC, of course, tried our patience with numerous efforts since Final Crisis. Blackest Night was... fine? You really, really only needed to read the main title, but after it was over DC immediately trashed almost everything set up by the series making it moot. On the flipside of "not mattering" - Flashpoint was dumb as hell and then managed to usher in the worst era of DC in my lifetime. On the plus side, I saved a lot of money for a few years there.

I won't list all of DC's events, butfor twenty years they've all basically had one thing in common - they're mostly entirely skippable. For decades, DC just hasn't had the narrative coherence or nuts to make anything matter. Even Infinite Frontier - which sure seemed like it might matter - did not.

But, this was specifically about DC's K.O. event.

This story had build up for months over in the Superman titles and in Justice League. Darkseid! Doomsday as the Time Trapper (a character that has been rebooted and is part of a storyline that's been rebooted so many times no one cares anymore that I wondered why they bothered with this trick)! A Dark Legion!

But, really, this was D.C. wishing they could play Mortal Kombat on the page with absolutely zero consequences. And, look, I get that a lot of people love Street Fighter and a lot of people love Mortal Kombat,. But, I don't know how to tell people this who are on their fourth John Wick movie and still think this is a neat franchise - but it's not exactly gripping storytelling watching characters just punch each other.

It's not even interesting.

Comics are full of what Grant Morrison dubbed "mad ideas". I am fully in support of his decision to have Superman defeat Darkseid with a multiversal note. I am not against Darkseid doing Darkseid things.

But DC K.O. is bad comics. It is the anti-life equation of mad ideas.

It's the kind of comic you can flip through and get the gist and it doesn't matter what anyone is doing or saying. It's just comics-splatter, which is what many event comics turn into, anyway, while trying to fill out that eight-issue count or whatever they decided to sell (DC K.O. was mercifully five issues). But it's basically I guess Scott Snyder playing in the sandbox and having DC characters do truly horrible things to each other, but only after they've all abandoned their actual well-established principles and character and seem to take delight in the carnage.

It's also ugly and garish art with no basic sense of design or style. Which is odd for artists Josh Williamson. Neither illustrative nor cartoonish, it's just scribbly design that looks rushed at best and incompetent at worst. And I've seen this guy work before and he can be very, very good. So I don't get it, unless he either had no time or he just didn't give a shit. The color palette can best be described as "unimaginative". Which, frankly, is the general vibe of the series.

This isn't a story so much as videogame staples thrown onto comics using/ abusing others' work. And I know that makes me sound old and cranky, and fine. I don't care. But don't fool yourself - this is shitty comics. Jack Kirby would be embarrassed to see his ideas used like this. But it's no secret that no one at DC, maybe minus Morrison, has had an idea of how to use the New Gods well in decades. Or really seems to understand the concepts. But this sure isn't it. It's borrowing Kirby (by way of Morrison) and insisting this is edgy, but the edge is "dude, have you played Tekken?"

The New Gods were steeped in the notion that Kirby clearly understood mythologies at a very fundamental level and was trying his hand at creating some for the modern era - not in a "oh, Batman and Superman are modern myths!" way that gets tossed around. Instead, he was telling stories that worked on a primal. primordial level with his tales of New Genesis and Apokolips. There's a reason DC keeps coming back to the Fourth World concept - it's because at it's core it's the most resonant world building concept within the DCU since "space savior arriving on Earth in an interstellar basket" and "revenge-man showing up to keep punching mental patients". Even Wonder Woman kind of struggles against the rich conceptualization of New Gods.

I don't know how much K.O. impacted the stories line-wide. It's impacting Superman titles for a bit, but I suspect it's otherwise being ignored. I wasn't really asked to buy much more than the K.O. event books themselves, and whichever "All Fight" issues I wanted, which was just like one or two with Superman in them. I figured I'd pick up the collections - and I've decided there will be no purchase of any DC K.O. event collections.

But what's depressing is really that this is the best DC thinks it can do right now. Forty years on from Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, we're back to people in tights punching each other, only this time, there's a prize for whomever punches the most. There's a lot in modern comics that makes me embarrassed to be here, but this sort of thing is truly the antithesis of where I thought we were headed 25 years ago with comics, even at the Big 2. We really have turned comics into what my friends who've always been skeptical of my hobby accused them of being - characters just smashing against each other like a two year old got ahold of some action figures.

But I also bet it sold like hotcakes and someone will point to that as proof it was good stuff. And at that cover price and with multiple covers for each issue, what a cash grab.

Hey! Someone wrote a companion piece to my "Alamo Sucks Now" tirade

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 03:56:00 +0000

I very rarely remember which social media interactions wind up in following someone, or how conversations get started that lead to what would have - in the golden age of blogging - led to blog rings. (Remember those? They were neat.)

Anyway, in the past few months I came upon Library DVD Love, and it's been a Substack I get in my email box, and I give it a read.

I'm at the age where I'm mostly just *curious* about what people are saying if they're a reasonable person talking on a topic I care about, be it movies, comics or baseball. And that's because most conversation about any topic on the internet feels like it starts at an 11 and goes up from there. Or, if the writer is going for a drier approach it's so in pedantic or in the weeds, it becomes homework to get through.

Library DVD Love is that nice hit up the third baseline, just on the right side of the chalk. Neither foul nor a pop fly. A straight shot just past the baseman. Maybe I don't always know what the hell this blogger is always talking about (I do not see *that* many movies), or maybe I don't agree, but in der clerb, we all fam.

Anyhoo, I guess he's been reading this site, because he did post about my rant on the change in priorities at Alamo Drafthouse under new CEO/ shit-weasal Michael Kustermann.

Always wild to realized actual humans are reading your writing.

Sunday post: Alamo Drafthouse and phones in theaters by twinsbrewer

Annoying phones in theaters, and a chain that used to care about it.

Read on Substack

By the way, no, I haven't been back. It also seems that the Alamo is now basically selling frozen food?

It sounds like Alamo is actively working to dismantle the culture and make it a place for casuals while still charging premium prices for an "Alamo experience". Which, thanks, no.

Neo-Noir Watch: Gloria (1980)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 19:31:00 +0000

Watched: 04/19/2026

Format: Video on Demand/ YouTube

Viewing: First

Director: John Cassavetes

For some reason the algorithm has been asking me to watch this movie for years.

I'm not really sure why the algo does this, but my YouTube TV will find a movie that it decides it wants to recommend, and then the movie will follow me around. First among these has been Gloria (1980), and because I don't think I've ever seen Gena Rowlands be anything less than great and because Cassavetes' movies are, at minimum, interesting, I wanted to check it out eventually. So, I guess, thanks, data?

On paper, the movie is deceptively simple. An accountant for the mob (Buck Henry) has been skimming (and maybe doing other things) and is found out. Knowing the enforcers are coming, he's trying to leave, but everyone in his family of five is scared and doesn't know what to do - his wife, their two kids and his mother-in-law. All are resorting to their comfort and security measures instead of just getting the f out.

When neighbor Gloria (Gena Rowlands) comes by to return the sugar she borrowed in the middle of all this, they make her take the boy - aged 6 or 7 - back to her apartment. Almost immediately, the mob shows up and kills the rest of the family. Gloria tries to flee the scene with the kid, but the press is outside and snaps her picture with the son.

Turns out, Gloria is tough as nails as she's a former kept-woman/ moll for the mob herself. She actually knows who these guys are. And swiftly finds out they're keeping an eye on all exits from New York, making it a prison she can't escape on plane, train or car.

SPOILERS

What's shocking at first, but then ultimately makes a ton of sense and makes you wonder why everyone doesn't do this in movies with similar set-ups - Gloria just gets a revolver and starts shooting at all of these assholes. Why not? They'll happily shoot her or worse. Maintaining gender or role expectations ain't helping no one.

The first time you see the bit in the movie where you think "oh, she's fucked" and instead whips a revolver out of her purse and starts shooting into the mobsters' car, it feels like a revelation. Like "oh, yeah, our female lead can pull a trigger! She's not just a victim."

It's not cool. It's absolutely not clean. She's just whipping the thing out and blasting away.

Gloria's arc is that she's not actually attached to this kid - she's looking to get rid of him immediately. Not only is she not maternal, but she knows the kid is both the reason she's in trouble and an albatross. And, honestly, the kid himself is not making this easier.

This is Cassavetes who tends to try to capture something real, and when your secondary character is a 6 or 7 year old, that becomes a real challenge. Hollywood loves a moppet that's precocious and cute as a bug. But having just watched my brother's kids pass through those ages - this is 95% more realistic. They only barely grasp anything complex and will start overlaying their anxiety onto everything. They're emotional IEDs. And even when they're mad, they want the comfort of the person they may be mad at.

Curiously, one of the first Raspberry Awards went to Adames, who was a young child, showing the inherent problem with those awards. But also showing how often the Golden Raspberries miss the mark culturally. I mean, it just feels like the committee fundamentally didn't understand Cassavetes' film. Which can happen. But making fun of kids fucking sucks.

I won't get too much into what happened here, but it does sound like Cassavetes knocked out this screenplay with no intention to direct - he was trying to write something commercial that he could sell to a studio, but when they bought it, they insisted he direct.

The movie bears a lot of the natural style of Cassavetes, and feels organic, sometimes to its detriment as Gloria and the kid re-cross territory and you kind of wonder why they don't do things like put on sunglasses and hats and sneak away. I like it. I still think about Killing of a Chinese Bookie, and I don't think I've seen it in a decade.

The good news is, Cassavetes cast his wife Gena Rowlands, who is so good in this, she carries what I think is a fine, but in other hands, likely a mediocre film. She's really fucking good here. She's not someone doing what they think a tough person is like - she just walks and talks and breathes it. When she pulls out that gun and starts shooting, I absolutely bought it. She knows the stakes and the score. And while she's scared, she sees a straight line between what's happening and how to survive.

The late 1970's New York setting is, of course, a cinematic wonderland. For the Youths who don't recall, New York in the 1970's was experiencing what I'll call economic volatility. Which makes for a phenomenal backdrop - as it does in so many 70's movies when we acknowledged the working class in a way that suggested they weren't some exotic other.

The scene toward the end where Gloria faces off against the final boss is terrific stuff. Hats off. Gena Rowlands, you bad ass.

Anyway, recommended. Good stuff.

Con Watch: The Sting (1973)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sun, 19 Apr 2026 14:48:00 +0000

Watched: 04/18/2026

Format: DVD from the Library

Viewing: Second

Director: George Roy Hill

The Sting (1973) reunites the Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid team of Robert Redford, Paul Newman and director George Roy Hill for a 1930's period piece film about a small-time grifter who - when a grift leads to seeing the mob kill a friend - teams up with Paul Newman's veteran conman in order to pull one over on a mob boss played by Robert Shaw.

It's a clockwork script that has a steel-trap ending that's tough to beat. The closest I can point to in structure from movies I was around for is probably the 2001 remake of Ocean's 11.

There's not a ton of character building in the movie, the runtime spent on the execution of the long con - we don't even see the planning, just the Rube Goldberg plan in motion. And that's plenty. Redford gets the most screentime and characterization, but even that isn't exactly a script that makes you wonder how his character grew and changed. What we see of who he really is feels a little thin, but that's not really the point of the film. But Redford's charm and Newman's charisma can pretty much carry anything.

It's a tough one to talk about because I sure don't want to spoil it. But you can count me in on the folks who watched it and had a great time. That said, I do think this sort of thing has been imitated enough that in 2026, you can spot some of the bells and whistles in advance when in 1973, there was more novelty to something this intricate.

Taking place less than 40 years after the time the of the film's story (1936), there's enough of old city locations left that look right that would now need to be CG'd together here 90 years after the story and 53 years after the movie's release. But, the combo of 1930's styling, cars, etc... and new Hollywood cinematography and scripting is pretty great.

Of course all of this is buoyed along by Newman and Redford. Other notables include Charles Durning, Ray Walston, Eileen Brennan, and the father of James Earl Jones - Robert Earl Jones.

If I'm not writing much here, don't take it as a negative - take it as a "hey, there's a chance you're reading this and haven't seen it, so here's an invitation to go watch it". It's a ridiculously fun film.

Disney Watch: The Journey of Natty Gann (1985)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Sat, 18 Apr 2026 15:41:00 +0000

Watched: 04/17/2026

Format: Disney+

Viewing: First (that I can remember)

Director: Jeremy Kagan

The other day I watched a bit from Colbert where he and Patton Oswalt discussed a dog actor named "Jed". The connection was that Jed was the dog from the start of John Carpenter's The Thing, and he was a major character in The Journey of Natty Gann (1985) which stars Oswalt's wife, Meredith Salenger, who was in the movie at age 15.

I've seen The Thing plenty, but had vague memories of seeing The Journey of Natty Gann once, when teachers wheeled in TV's as we prepared for our fifth-grade graduation at Spicewood Elementary in 1986. My memory of *that* is everyone talking while I wanted them to shut up so I could watch the movie. But it was not to be - and I don't think we ever finished it.

Anyway, I *did* remember the movie was not exactly a Pollyanna-type story, but it was well produced and Salenger was good. Plus it had John Cusack, who I knew from comedies at the time.

I will flat out say - they don't make them like this anymore. And, man, do I miss things like pacing and cinematography and an acknowledgement that kids share the world with adults. I also am reminded that part of making movies for families not all cartoons about farting blobs and/ or superheroes was that you could make a movie a period piece and kids would get a general idea of what an era was like. Especially recent history, as the Depression still was in 1986.

The cast on this thing is kind of surprising. Yes, the lead is teen-aged Meredith Salenger, and John Cusack plays a vital role. And Jed.* But her father is played by Ray Wise just two years before he'd appear in RoboCop in a supporting role and then wind up as Leland Palmer forever. All-around star Lainie Kazan** appears, as does Scatman Cruthers. Verna Bloom is in the movie for one minute. And a group of young tramps is led by 70's and 80's star Barry Miller.

The Journey of Natty Gann starts in Chicago in 1935 as the Depression is roaring. Wise is a labor-rights leader who is also out of work. A widower, he's raising his teen daughter to be tough - this isn't any place to not know how to throw a punch.

But on a crucial day, he's offered work in a Washington State lumber camp and can't take Natty, who he can't even find, and his bus leaves at 6:00 PM sharp. Meanwhile, she's out dicking around in Chicago.

Natty tries to get along with Kazan, her landlord, but when Kazan calls authorities to come get her, Natty splits and jumps a train. The rest of the movie is a series of episodic adventures wherein Natty sees America and dodges the adult world - which looks to exploit her, imprison her, and occasionally treat her with rays of kindness. I won't get into each episode because that's the movie. Go watch it.

Along the way, she comes across a dog-fight wherein she meets Wolf (Jed) and frees him, and eventually the two bond, caring for each other on the journey across America.

As a series of incidents, it's strange family fare in 2026. It, in fact, starts with kids sharing a smoke in a toilet stall. Natty is constantly verbally abused, sometimes physically abused - and, yes, they acknowledge the possibility of SA when a young girl is on the open road. And it's clear she's only got herself and Wolf to count on.

The world is both beautiful and dangerous. If I made note of the cinematography before, Dick Bush - a British DP - and director Jeremy Kagan clearly understood the lyricism of the story. A lot needed to be conveyed in visuals that was not going to be spoken in dialog. Natty is exploring the American west, from Chicago to Colorado to Seattle in places still wild and open. Humans live in outposts, and cities are a rarity. Sure, we start in Chicago, but we're soon in mountains and plains, forests and fields.

The story itself is about grit and home being where the heart is. It's a modest goal - just finding one's father (and a father thinking his daughter is dead). As a coming-of-age story it's dumping a teen into the adult world only semi-ready.

Worth noting, because I read and I'm older and this is something apparently The Kids(tm) on Threads seem totally unaware of - in 1935 at age 15, you could easily be getting married off with two kids by 19. What constituted an adult has changed drastically just in my lifetime, jumping from about aged 18 to about 25. And Natty is just on the cusp of that adulthood. It is truly a coming of age tale.

The movie I kept wanting to compare this to was The Black Stallion, a family/ all-ages movie that is so beautifully made it's kind of a shock that so few movies even try for that kind of sweeping nature and understand the child's heart in the world of grown ups and those who know better, and what it means to received kindness as a youth. The story of an animal and a kid. Not to mention the lovely locales and sweeping cinematography.

Well, this movie shares a screenwriter with The Black Stallion. One Jeanne Rosenberg. So, good work, Jeanne!

I do think maybe the movie could have used a joke here or there to lighten the mood from time-to-time, it does have a tendency to feel a bit like it's hitting the same chords over and over. But by and large, for me this was a really solid movie. Salenger kind of shows up as a teen actor who doesn't feel like the product of a system. Her Natty feels buyable and knows to play it close to the vest with big eyes that tell the audience everything.

Anyway, really glad I sung back to rewatch this one. I'd meant to during COVID and just never got around to it. Still on Disney+.

*During COVID I watched a lot of the Animal Watch YouTube channel, which went from all animals, to canines and wolves to very large dogs to Wolfdogs, which are a very real thing, and with which the host is deeply preoccupied. And so I knew what Jed was on first sight seeing him again.

**and reportedly Jack Kirby's inspiration for Big Barda

Superman Day is April 18th

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 18:03:00 +0000

Saturday April 18th is Superman Day!

I'll be honest and say "I do not really think this is for me". Because at League HQ, every day is Superman Day. Something Jamie just has to live with.

Superman Day is a promotion for people with an interest in Superman where DC and Warner Bros make available some neat things like comics, t-shirts and more.

You can find those things at your Local Comic Shoppe. Or hit up the DC Shop.

With Supergirl coming to theaters this summer, of course it's a promotion not just for Super comics - the day is also a promo for the forthcoming movie.

Look, I love me some Superman - and I hope you figure out how to enjoy the day. But I also am kind of aware it's not exactly a holiday. It would be nice if DC figured out how to do something aside from just sell some things with an extra stamp on the cover.

Mostly it feels like they're saying "buy a thing" while they alert 99% of the world nothing special is happening for them locally. Amazing this is the best WB can do. Even a plastic Superman ring for the kids would be something.

Spaceballs Sequel En Route

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 12:33:00 +0000

Spaceballs is getting a sequel - 40 years later.

In late June 1987, I went to the Showplace 6 with a pal or two for a weekday matinee of Spaceballs. And by the time Spaceball 1 finished passing by the camera, I was laughing so hard I was crying. And I think it let up sometime about a week later when I quit saying "Lonestaaaaar...!" to myself. And "because 'good' is dumb."

Since, it's probably my most-watched Mel Brooks movie alongside Blazing Saddles. I mean, I was twelve. I loved Star Wars and silliness.

Everyone in the cast was on fire during that movie. It made me a fan of Bill Pullman and Daphne Zuniga, I already thought John Candy and Rick Moranis were two of the funniest people on Earth, and it gave me respect for Joan Rivers, George Wyner and Mel Brooks. Heck, it's the first time I ever saw generally-all-around-good-idea Brenda Strong.

In college, I got a Sharpie and wrote "Mr. Radar" on my "Mr. Coffee" individual coffee pot. And, for my birthday Freshman year, we rented Spaceballs and watched it in the dorms.

It's just one of the greats in my book, and quotes from it fill my head as much as any other Mel Brooks movie. "They've gone to plaid...!" is something I'll still say in my head when someone whips past me on the freeway. When waiting for things to finish, I still whisper "come on, Schwartz...!"

Mel Brooks is 99 and has retained everything. How involved he is with this new version, I don't know. He's involved, though. Imagine having a career so long a movie you made in the 1980's is getting a sequel with the very grown child of one of the original stars. Yeah, Lewis Pullman is in this.

Will it be good? I am sure. Is it a little sad we've lost John Candy and Joan Rivers in the interim? Absolutely. But I think we can still have a great movie with new characters. And, hey, we have so many more Star Wars movies and TV shows to spoof. Plus 40 more years of other sci-fi.

how *you* doin', Princess Vespa?

It's for the best Spaceballs didn't suffer the fate of so many 80's comedies that tried for sequels at the time - it was always diminishing returns. But I'm glad we can take a new swing.

And, hey, if I can have Zuniga *and* Rick Moranis back? That's a very good thing.

Disney Watch: Zootopia 2 (2025)

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 04:32:00 +0000

Watched: 04/16/2026

Format: Disney+

Viewing: First

Director: Jared Bush/ Byron Howard

I'm on record as a Zootopia stan. I watched it initially on a plane to Helsinki and lost my mind when we landed and it cut off the last ten minutes and I couldn't watch the end til I got back home a week later. I loved the ideas and characters, the world they built and the imagination and thinking that went into the jokes. And, I liked the character arcs for Judy and Nick and how they played off of each other. Good stuff.

Do I want to see the Zootopia-land in Shanghai? Yes. Yes, I do.

So, I wanted to see Zootopia 2 in the theater, and my messed up foot of this fall and a series of unfortunate events meant I did not see it on the big screen as Walt intended.

First - they got back a lot of the cast from the original, in some cases just for cameos or small scenes. Ginnifer Goodwin returns as Judy Hopps and Jason Bateman as Nick Wilde. But also Idris Elba as Chief Bogo and Shakira as Gazelle. And a few others, too.

Second, the animation and design looks at the first movie and says "hold my beer". It's just a visual treat in every scene. I'm inclined to watch it again just to look at it, look for gags, see the depth of the picture in a lot of scenes. They pass through land after land, and sometimes in a tube at hyperspeed, which is amazing in itself.

There are new characters, like Ke Huy Quan as Gary De'Snake, Andy Samberg as Pawbert Lynxley and Fortune Feimster as Nibbles Maplestick.

Unfortunately, this movie is a mess.

It feels like there were two or three versions of this movie in competition, and something got stitched together that kind of hand-waves at a complete story. But it's also clear they either cut a lot of the movie or had competing goals or something. And given Disney's approach, I think they're counting too much on making a movie before the script is good and locked down. The result was a third act that felt like a bit of a mess where whole sequences happen and characters said things that tied to nothing. Characters had moments of revelation that felt oddly unearned and were maybe even confusing.

The core problem of the movie is that Judy and Nick are trying to decide if they're good partners. Which is kind of an odd question to even ask after the prior movie. And the unspoken thing is that it is both romantic and not romantic feelings these characters have and they exist at the same time. It is Schroedinger's emotional state.

And a lot of the problem with the movie is also that we could tell a neat, cute story in the first movie about animals all being civilized in Zootopia (unless juiced by the mayor), but they were still animals. This movie is walking along a one-inch beam 80 feet up and trying to not talk about whether or not a rabbit and fox have romantic feelings and so they force it into a deeply emotional friendship. Which I'm not sure the movie earns. It just feels like Judy ignoring rational thinking at every turn(and it inevitably paying off, because movie) and refusing to listen to her partner or engage with him in a meaningful way.

I won't even get into how the movie worries more about snake venom rather than the fact snakes eat rabbits. And really, really doesn't want for you to think about that at all, because if you do - what the hell *are* all the carnivores eating?

Anyway - I can let that last one slide. I guess.

But, yeah, they went all in on the beaver character, Nibbles Maplestick, who wasn't particularly funny, and did nothing with her set up as a conspiracy theorist and was maybe a poor man's Alex Jones? Which is a weird character to make a friend (Alex Jones has no friends).

The movie also leans into some curious stuff that could have real world analogs about displaced peoples, villainizes populations and diasporas that the movie kinda wants to talk about but obviously Disney would never allow it in a 1000 years. And while you can point to current events it might mirror, like when people assumed Superman was about specific conflicts - nope. That shit is just happeneing all the time, somewhere.

I don't know. It just felt like stunt casting famous voices (kids love David Strathairn) and what happens when you mandate a sequel for 2025 Q4 instead of working that story until it works.

I didn't hate it, I laughed really hard at a few gags, but it's not a patch on the original.

Godzilla Minus Zero Teaser Trailer

noreply@blogger.com (The League) — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 03:41:00 +0000

Godzilla Minus Zero - First Look Teaser Trailer is GO!!!

that's muh boi

No idea what the story is, but so glad to see our heroes from Godzilla Minus One return. I very much like these characters and am happy to spend more time with them.

Coming out in November. Plan accordingly.