For now, the Podcast is going to be my post on this film.
Saturday, August 8, 2026
Snake Eyes (1998)
I've said it in the past and I'll say it again now, for a period of 20 years Brian DePalma was my favorite film director. I saw all of his movies and thought they were great, even the ones that flopped at the box office. If you were ever in the mood you can visit my post on the 1984 film “Body Double" and see how I'm willing to commit to DePalma, even at his most lured and financially disappointing point.
“Snake Eyes” probably marks the beginning of the end of my DePalma era. The films that came after hardly seemed interesting, and never drew my attention in the same way. This 1998 film, with an over-the-top Nicolas Cage, and a fabulously understated Gary Sinise, shows the director's talents at staging, framing, and editing a film in a way that few others have managed to succeed at. Structurally the screenplay starts well past the real start of the story, nowadays that's fairly typical, but in 1998 it was pure DePalma.
The vast majority of the film takes place on a single night at a prize fight in Atlantic City. The former Resort town transitioned into a casino based economy, which struggles to survive while also trying to mimic Vegas. Nick Cage plays Rick Santoro, a corrupt local detective who's old friend is a naval Commander in charge of security for the visiting Secretary of Defense. Of course the string of unrelated events creates a confluence of narrative around the assassination of the secretary. The heavyweight fighter, a mysterious blonde, a local newscaster, and some low-life bookies, all are connected to Santoro and the investigation of this crime. Everyone in attendance at the prize fight is a suspect so they are all contained inside of the Arena and the adjoining Casino. This sets up a cat and mouse scenario with Santoro trying to figure out what happened, who to trust, and of course most importantly, whether to take a payoff.
The film is full of long single shot takes, a well-known characteristic of Brian DePalma films. There are also interesting angles, shot from above, clearly inspired by the Alfred Hitchcock films that DePalma has always mined for ideas. The movie feels kinetic without ever losing its coherence. It's terrific to watch, with 90s style, and an indie attitude, in spite of its big budget and stars. It's a different kind of dirt then you'd find under the fingernails of a Tarantino film, but the styles are very similar and equally compelling on the screen.
After this film was originally released it showed up regularly on pay channels that we subscribed to on our Dish TV satellite. It felt like it was on a regular rotation at the house, and my kids who were still too young to really be seeing this kind of stuff, watched it anyways, and fell in love with both Gary Sinise and Nicholas Cage. So when a chance to see this film on the big screen showed up, inevitably we were going to go and I'm so glad we did.
This movie is wild, well shot, and a little complex. It is also vastly entertaining. I probably haven't seen it for 15 years, and I can't really understand why. The truth is I'll probably be watching it again in the next few days, because it's just that addicting. It reminds me in every shot why I loved De Palma of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
Strangers on a Train (1951)
Years ago I said it but I don't remember exactly who I said it to. Steven Spielberg learned all he knows about building an action scene by watching Hitchcock's “Strangers on a Train”. The movie is a slow burn with a lot of exposition but the climax is filled with the dramatic carousel chase that ends up being both humorous and truly frightening simultaneously. Hitchcock mixes close-ups with master shots and movement, along with editing to make the scene really sing. It's exactly the kind of thing that Spielberg has done in Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, and the Lost World.
This 1951 Thriller begins Hitchcock's most epic period of filmmaking. The black and white cinematography was nominated for an Academy Award and it's almost impossible for me to believe but the truly psychotic Bruno played by Robert Walker was not nominated. Those of you not familiar with the story, it involves a chance meeting between a privileged, spoiled sociopath, and a tennis star that he admires. Bruno has an interesting theory, that the perfect way to commit a murder would be by trading murders with somebody else. That way you could establish an alibi and there would be no way to trace back who the killer of your victim who would have no motive..
Farley Granger plays Guy Haynes. who has a deep resentment to the wife that he thinks he's about to divorce, but who turns out to be manipulating him simply to keep him paying for her lifestyle in spite of her infidelities. He does lash out at her in one scene but it's not murderous, it's simply frustration. Bruno however insists on carrying out his part of the plan, and once he has committed an atrocity, expects Guy to reciprocate. Guy, who is afraid of being implicated in the murder of his wife, tries to avoid Bruno and stay out of his way. But like a gracious Terminator, Walker keeps coming back into the scene. At times convivial, at other times psychotically out of control.
In a continuation of Hitchcock's habit of focusing on the wrong man, Guy looks like he could be implicated in the crime by some evidence that Bruno has kept. It's a little complicated, but the woman that Guy wants to marry, helps him plan an opportunity to catch Bruno in the act of planting evidence, thus freeing himself from the threat of a false prosecution. The tension in the third act all starts with a tennis match that needs to finish as quickly as possible. Every serve and every long volley, builds up the tension as we wonder whether or not Guy will be able to intercept Bruno in time.
Of course the plot is a little exaggerated, and there are some things that the police probably wouldn't be doing in the way we see it being done on screen. Nevertheless the story holds up and we want Guy to exonerate himself and Bruno to be punished. Since this film was made in the 1950s by an established director with a major Studio you can probably guess that it all turns out all right.
I first watched this film back in the 1980s on one of my cable channels and became fascinated with it. I've seen it several times since but always on television . It was great getting a chance to go down to the State Theater and see it on the big screen. I was a little surprised at how jovial some of the audience members were about the threats presented by the antagonist, as if they were not serious and were only comically created. I, on the other hand , watch the way an audience might have back in 1951. Horrified by the suggestion and terrified by the circumstances. But most of all ultimately thrilled by the Mastery of Alfred Hitchcock.
Modern Times (1936)
It's always great to see a Charlie Chaplin film but it's especially so when you get a chance to see it on the big screen. “Modern Times” isn't strictly a silent film, but there is so little dialogue that it might as well be. It contains some of the well-known visual gags of Chaplin's career. The story includes his insertion into a large manufacturing tool, and the moments when he's fed automatically by a machine designed to speed up the workplace lunch break.
There's plenty to laugh at in the movie, but they're also a couple of spots where your heartstrings will be tugged. There's a sequence on roller skates that is pretty phenomenal, and hysterical at the same time. I kick myself every time I see a silent film, because I, like a lot of other people, hesitate to commit to those movies. The truth is I haven't been disappointed in a single one that I've seen, so let's make the effort to get out there more often. Charlie Chaplin was a hero of the movie industry, and everybody should see those films.
Thursday, August 6, 2026
The Odyssey (2026)
At this point there's probably little that I could say about the Odyssey that would change your mind one way or the other. I have seen the most diverse opinions on this film that I can think of in the last 5 years or so. On the Lambcast we had one or two people who were enthusiastic, one person who is moderately positive on the film and one person who outright thought it was terrible. These are generally well informed people and so the wide variety of opinions seems to suggest that a lot of what influences people about this movie has less to do with the filmmaking and everything to do with personal perspective.
Myself I was only vaguely familiar with the story of Odysseus and his journey back from the Trojan War. I must have watched an earlier version somewhere because so much of the story is familiar, and I doubt that that is simply because I remembered it from my sophomore year in high school. My point of view is probably strongly influenced by the fact that I respect Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker and I have been enthusiastic about every other film that he's made so far in his career. I can't say that the Odyssey is his best film, I'm not even sure it's his most ambitious, but it does have a broader scope than most of his other movies and has a lot of those elements of a travelog that makes historical epics seem so interesting.
I'll start with what I think is the best thought out segment of the movie, and that's the insertion of the Greek soldiers inside the walls of Troy through the subterfuge of a gift horse statue. Even people who have never read The Odyssey or unfamiliar with its companion piece The Iliad, are likely to know the story of the Trojan Horse in which a small platoon of Greek soldiers hides inside a massive figure of a horse left for the Trojans as a gift by seemingly departing Greek troops. Once inside the walls of Troy the soldiers come out, open the gates and let in the host of Greek soldiers who have returned to the city under the cover of a moonless night. The horse in this movie looks like something the Trojans would actually want to have in their Temple to commemorate the end of the war. It's actually a sculpted wooden figure assembled from the Timbers of the ships that the Greeks left in pieces on the shores of the Trojan Empire. It doesn't look like a creaky piece of junk furniture but rather a statue put together by artisans that looks beautiful and has been polished to a degree that it will reflect the sunlight or the moonlight. The thing that makes Nolan's telling of the story so much better is that we see inside the horse as Odysseus and his fellow Warriors struggle not to drown in the high tide, crush one another as they await their chance to strike, and try to remain silent when the horse is being moved or probed with swords. The Trojans are portrayed as being much less naive and simply not as thorough as they might have been. The trick is accomplished but it requires the pack of soldiers to endure close quarters with human waste, no real supplies, and only a hope that their trick will work.
One of the ways the Greeks try to ensure that the trick is accepted as a gift is by leaving a soldier behind to explain the purpose to the Trojans when they discover the statue. Sinon has not been told what the figure is, and dies for having the audacity to have remained behind to tell the tale. Here is one of the points of disagreement that we had in our discussion on the film: this Soldier is played by the transgendered actor / actress Elliott / Ellen Page. One of the guests on the show said that it was the best performance in the film, but Paige looks like a hundred pounds of nothing in comparison to the other soldiers / actors in the scenes. The bravery that is conveyed on the screen has more to do with the willingness of somebody of that stature to appear in this role when they are dwarfed by the other performers on the screen. Nolan has loyalty to his cast of actors, and having used Page before seems to have felt obligated to cast the performer in the film in spite of the obvious misplacement.
In my mind the best performance was by Robert Pattinson, playing Antonius, the lead suitor of Odysseus's wife Penelope. He is an unctuous , condescending youth who takes advantage of Zeus's law about courtesy and treatment of strangers. He along with dozens of other suitors treat Odysseus' home as their own while mocking the son of their host, in order to provoke a fight that would justify their own violence. I'm not sure how the structure of the original Odyssey works but here we continuously move back and forth between the Journey of Odysseus and his men and the travails of his family.
In the adventure where Odysseus and his men are captured by the Cyclops, we are denied the dialogue that is featured in the original story. This Cyclops is portrayed as nearly silent, speaking only near the end of the episode when the sailors and soldiers are making good their escape. The visualization of the single eye makes it look more like this is a birth defect rather than a creature who evolved with a single eye. I found that a little distracting, although the image is creative and frankly quite disturbing. It is however not as disturbing as the episode when Circe the witch on her own private island, turns Odysseus's troop into a herd of pigs. This was visually the most creative moment in the movie, and the one most likely to give you nightmares. Samantha Morton plays Circe and she is a sympathetic figure in spite of her malevolent acts toward the soldiers.
Calypso is represented on screen by Charlize Theron, who is largely wasted providing exposition but not much more. Matt Damon plays our central figure Odysseus, who doubts his own heroism and as presented seems much less the leader than has been seen in previous versions of the story. Still he is a stalwart presence and he has several emotional scenes that have the appropriate impact on the story and the audience. Again for context, people on the podcast seem to dismiss his performance, but I'm willing to bet that he'll be nominated and maybe even be the favorite for the Oscars next year.
Tom Holland plays the son of Odysseus and Penelope, and at first he appears to be feckless, but as the story goes on his performance gets more authentic. John Leguizamo is the wise herdsman left by Odysseus in charge of the livestock, and 20 years later nearly blind, is another standout in a supporting role. Maybe it's just the fact that he cares for the dog that is holding on to its life and in the hopes of his master's return, that makes him an incredibly sympathetic character. The fact that Antonias kicks the dog, reinforces the notion that we should hate him. Anne Hathaway is very sympathetic as Penelope who has to convey her distraught in concealment while seeming to be strong on the outside.
The film is 3 hours long but I never felt its length and that's another testament to the work of Christopher Nolan. The movie is spectacularly shot in IMAX and I saw a presentation on an IMAX screen as well as a 70 mm screening. It's clear that the film wants to be a contemporary epic like Lawrence of Arabia. However great it looks though, it never reaches the emotional depths of that 1960s Epic, and although I think there is a very good theme about the morality of how we treat our enemies, it never leaves the same impression that a film like Lawrence did
Tuesday, August 4, 2026
Young Washington (2026)
As far as I'm concerned they're not enough movies about the American Revolution. This is one of the greatest moments in history, a point when the American people chose to stand up and change the world. To go along with my frustration about a shortage of films about the revolution let me also say that they're not enough films about The Hero of the American Revolution who later became our first president. Young Washington is a film about this great American before he was an American. And frankly before he became great. Washington had several setbacks in his life, and everybody who thinks he was a privileged white guy doesn't know enough about the nature of the world in the 18th century.
This story takes place 20 years before the American Revolution. It is in fact an evolution story about The Man Who Would lead this nation into Independence. First however he had to discover his own flaws and weaknesses so that the later story would be a success. Young Washington focuses on a two year period when George served British forces in the French and Indian Wars , and carried out his duties valiantly but also made major mistakes that produced failures in his military commands.
There is plenty of excitement in the recreated battles that are depicted on the screen in this film. It's interesting to see how different Warfare was in the time period, and to see the seeds of Washington's future campaigns being planted two decades before fruition. The story is not exclusively about his military experiences but it also covers some of the striving social climbing that he was attempting and for which the social structures of the time cemented his opinion of the British system.
The film was done on a smaller budget, and it was made by a director who has had success with more specific audiences. The fact that the movie works so well is a tribute to not just the actors but the Craftsmen and on-site technicians who always make a movie work. When you add a director who is competent and increasingly skilled in working under budgetary limitations , it is immensely satisfying to see a film like this succeed.
Admittedly the movie is not as polished as a major Blockbuster coming from a studio that had cash to burn, but the look of the movie matches up any of those things that a studio might have come up with, and I think it is edited in a way that does Justice to the facts of the tale but also the entertainment value of a film. John Erwin directed two earlier films that I did see and I enjoyed quite well,”Jesus Revolution”, about the Revival movement of the 1970s, and” American Underdog", a biopic of the great quarterback Kurt Warner. This is a much more complex movie, and he acquits himself admirably as far as I'm concerned.
William Franklyn-Miller, is the star of the film as the eager young Washington seeks his place in the world. I think this is his biggest role outside of a couple of Television Productions that he's been involved with, and it's a good introduction for me. He plays Washington, an earnest, striving, and intelligent man who has been placed in an inferior position because of his family's Birthright and the location of his family fortune. He was destined to be an outsider from the very beginning. 
Three actors playing different characters in this film all reinforce the need for Washington to break out of this traditional social hierarchy. Kelsey Grammer plays a local family patriarch who becomes something of a Patron to the young Washington. Sir Ben Kingsley, represents the bureaucratic English Empire, who stumble on the acquisition of this talented young man, but also become the source of his failures. And Andy Serkis, plays The General that young Washington serves in his most distinguished military Enterprise on the field of battle, and who for a moment Grace's Washington with the respect he deserves.
If this picture had been made in the 1930s or 40s, it would fit in well with the biographical films of the era. Since however it is 2026, most film critics would be expecting some sort of deconstruction or reinvention of this historic character. Edwin and his fellow filmmakers stick to the facts, tell the story clearly and make it interesting. If you care about Fidelity to history, you won't mind the absence of a comedy sidekick, smart ass anachronistic dialogue, or revisionist approach to the American story. Maybe it helps to be a patriot to admire this movie, but I think that people who see this movie are more likely to become Patriots, that's good by me.
Saturday, August 1, 2026
Evil Dead Burn (2026)
For almost 40 years I've been a fan of the Evil Dead series. The Original Trilogy featuring Bruce Campbell is the most entertaining horror mixed with comedy films that I have seen and that includes “Shaun of the Dead” . I was also a big fan of the reboot in 2012 that took the Grim story of demon possession to a straightforward horror film without the presence of our heroic character Ash.
This film and its predecessor however go a long way toward making me question whether or not I should be seeing any future Evil Dead films. In addition to lacking very much humor, “Evil Dead Rise” and this film, “Evil Dead Burn” lack characters that you care much about and the films go over the top in ways that suggest that there isn't any good storytelling available to the filmmakers.
The technical aspects of this film are solid. The makeup effects and the various and sundry deaths and injuries are rendered in all too believable detail. So the incompetence of this movie has nothing to do with the technical abilities of the filmmakers but with their storytelling skills. This movie wants you to try and remember that there is a narrative structure but it mostly ignores that so that we just get from point to point to wallow in the most graphic and unpleasant visual images you'll probably see on the screen this year. It's bad enough to have a body whose face gets smashed in, but then to have another character forced to shove their face into the smashed in face of the Dead character, well it's just unnecessary. This movie is full of the unnecessary gross flourishes that the filmmaker seems to believe would make a horror film fun. They are wrong, this was not fun, it did not horrify me so much as gross me out. You could probably accomplish the same effect by filming somebody taking a dump, looking up through a glass table that they're pooping on.
This time instead of an apartment building or a cabin in the woods we have a decrepit old mansion that the living are occupying as the dead try to take over. Frankly the biggest problem that I have with this film is that I forgot so much of what happened. I've been guilty of posting the last few entries about a movie days or even weeks after seeing that film. What happened here in this movie did not benefit from that pause but rather clarified for me how dull and boring the story really was.
I didn't hate this movie, but I didn't love it either and from the point of view of the Evil Dead series, that seems to be a pretty important failure. Sam Rami and Bruce Campbell were both executive producers on this movie. , but they seem to have had very little creative input and somebody should have told the writers and the director that action needs to move a little quicker to have more zip to it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)