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.

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. 

The premise of the film is that somebody in a family vaguely connected to the original Professor who discovered the Book of the Dead has uncovered a weapon that can in fact destroy the deadites. So the Monstrous dead are attempting to find the weapon and destroy it so they can continue to take over the rest of the world and turn it into the hellscape that the deadites want. 

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

The Death of Robin Hood (2026)

 

I'm going to be completely honest with you. The first 40 minutes of this movie are some of the most brutal and violent moments I've seen on a movie screen this year. And that says a lot because this movie year has been filled with a lot of violent films. The violence in this film is not framed as like you might find in the low rent Tarantino knock off. It is endemic to the times and the character that we are seeing presented on the screen, it is not stylized or elegant, it is graceless and unpleasant to watch.

Robin Hood is a character that I have followed since I first saw the Errol Flynn movie back in the 1970s. There are several versions of the legend that have come about in the meantime and almost all of them have been faithful to the idea that Robin Hood is largely a heroic figure who sometimes acts in ways that are unconventional and maybe even not very praiseworthy. None of those other films however have come out and tried to reinvent Robin Hood as an amoral murderer who's happy to Slit your throat over a few tuppence.

Hugh Jackman is a producer on this film and I'm sure he had a big part in getting it made and choosing to play the lead, I'm just not exactly sure why he would choose to do so. I sound pretty down on the film and in large part that's accurate. In the long run there is some merit to the take that is being presented here. The era in which Robin Hood was supposed to have lived probably was a brutal one, principles are not always followed closely and people would make up their own rules as it was convenient for them. There's an attempt to make this a Redemptive Arc but it doesn't really go very far and I found the resolution less than satisfying. 

If you're looking for a movie with a grim vision of the world, and a hero that you want to sympathize with but can't then this is the movie for you. It's competently put together, and very well made by a director that I have admired in the past, but I would warn you away from this, if you have any doubts about these kinds of reimagining, because this one was completely unnecessary and largely unpleasant.

Singin' in the Rain-Revisit (Paramount Summer Classic Film Series)

 

This is the last full film I saw at the Paramount Theater before it closed.  For the next 11 months it's going to undergo renovation and hopefully be restored to even greater Beauty. It's hard to imagine a more fitting closure then seeing the greatest musical of all time one more time on the big screen.

I love singing in the rain, I can't understand people who don't like musicals, and I'm especially suspicious of anybody who doesn't love this musical. This film has everything, is in hysterical comedy, with terrific dancing and singing numbers, set in the Golden Age of Hollywood, dealing with some of the real problems that came with the Advent of sound, and it stars the great Gene Kelly.

There are so many iconic numbers in this film, that I'm not sure I could get to the mall and it doesn't paragraphs. So I'll just remind everybody the gene Kelly's dancing in the rain, will probably the most visually iconic, is certainly not the only memorable musical sequence in the film. Donald O'Connor steals the movie for 5 minutes with his routine make him laugh. Debbie Reynolds, takes the lead on good morning, and  Cyd Charice doesn't sing she just dances like an angel Moving On A Cloud along with her partner Gene Kelly. 

Of course the biggest thief in the film is Jean Hagen, who plays the movie star with a voice to die for, I'm sorry I meant to voice to die from. Silent screen Stars sometimes didn't make the transition to the talkies for a reason. Instead of making this a tragedy however, Gene Kelly and co-director Stanley donen turn this into a farce. And what a lovely time we all get to have as a result. 

Good luck and for a short time farewell to the Paramount Theater, You Are My Lucky Star.

Raiders of the Lost Ark-Revisit (Paramount Summer Classic Film Series)

 

As Indy himself said, it's not the years it's the miles. Although 45 years does seem like a long time and that's how long it's been since the first Indiana Jones Adventure stormed onto our screens and blew away the movie houses and their audiences.

We're not going to go into depth on this particular post, there are plenty of other entries on the blog then look at the particulars of the film. I'm just happy to see it once again on the big screen and in particular at the Paramount Theater during the summer classic film series. The Paramount Theater is about to close for a year for renovation and remodeling so I have one final week to enjoy the beautiful old theater and then a whole 11 months to wait to get to enjoy the restoration.

I'm not sure there's a better way to go out than with the screening of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. The theater was packed this evening, and I was flying solo, Amanda haven't gone to a conference.  Believe me at the first crack of the whip I was set to enjoy the evening, I wish I had my old Indiana Jones fedora, it either shrink or my head got too big and I lost it long ago. I did have on the right shirt for the evening though and I got a couple of comments about that.

Don't let any may tell you that there's a plot hole that makes Indiana Jones completely irrelevant to the outcome of the film. First of all that short-sighted, the point of the film is to enjoy the adventure, and without Indiana Jones there would be no Adventure. As for solving the puzzle, there are actually two or three spots where Indiana Jones presence is necessary for the plot to proceed. Those nitpickers who are trying to tell you otherwise should just mind their own business.

Seeing Raiders on the big screen immediately invites me to revisit the rest of the films in the series. Although the world is full of people who hate the fourth movie, I'm not one of them. It may be the least of the Indiana Jones films but it's still a heck of a good time. Indiana Jones and the dial of Destiny, the fifth film in the franchise, and the only one not directed by Steven Spielberg, is also quite good, but let's face it the first and the third are the best in the series. So maybe for Father's Day I'll catch up with Last Crusade, but until then I'm just going to enjoy the memory of Indiana Jones swinging out to the biplane, punching Nazis in the face, and falling in love with Marion all over again.

Toy Story 5 (2026)

 

Disclosure Day (2026)