The Signal Watch

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

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.

I guess I just didn't care enough about what was happening at some point to care 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 - is a tough question to ask. At some point, it's just the writer/ director being clever. 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 direct 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 kind of knows about every city in the world in every year should be pretty aware of.

But 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 that's a silly thing. No thanks. If you want that, don't be such a drag to watch the first time.

I am sure there are dozens and dozens of sites 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 just wish the movie had actually felt interesting after the first hour. And if it had something to say, 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, while also re-writing what we know from the Donner film and Snyder's film.

But, 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.

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

Director: Arnold Laven

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.

I am not sure why this movie was made, but I do know they have Ruth Roman twice in something approaching underwear and Martha Hyer in a bra, and I am forming a hypothesis

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 sci-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 show (over about 8 hours) 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.

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.