Halloween (1978) and The Fog (1980) Panic at the Paramount Presented by Robert Rodriguez

 

As hard as it is for me to believe, I do not have a post on the original John Carpenter Halloween from 1978. I have seen this movie almost every year for twenty years at least, and I guess I never had the chance to go back and see it on the big screen until now. It seems like there must have been a Fathom Event Screening, but I looked on the site here and found nothing. So thank you Paramount Theater for giving me this opportunity.

Although not the first "slasher" horror film, that title must belong to "Psycho", John Carpenter's Halloween defined the genre in the late 70s and for the last fifty years has been the template for all the subsequent slasher films around. Obviously, the title "Halloween" helps make this a perennial, something it most certainly not have achieved under the original title "The Babysitter Murders". So much care was taken to set up the characters who are being stalked, it is different that almost all the subsequent films which make the victims into nearly nameless notches on the knife, axe, chainsaw of the killers in later films. The three main girls are introduced and each gets some moments to be a real teenager, before they become the target.  Laurie, Annie and Lynda are average girls, with love lives that vary from the raucous to the non-existent. In the end it is Laurie, the virginal Jamie Leigh Curtis who survives and is remembered, but Annie had a well developed suspense scene in the film that is just as effective as the climax moments, at drawing a scared response from the audience.

Donald Pleasance is a little crazed as Dr. Loomis, although from what he knows, it is perfectly understandable. His sense of urgency does carry the pacing of the film in some of the spots where the killer is not on screen or actively pursuing he girls. I was a little nonplussed at the reaction of some of the audience at the screening. They seemed unable to adjust their post modern sensibilities to the late seventies context. They have seen scream too many times to know that the reason that meta narrative exists at all is that the original films took place. I felt a little like Randy at the party, I know the rules and why they existed in 1978, but no one else seemed to care. They did still appreciate the film, but I could not understand why they laughed at some of the moments in the film that are frightening or serious. 

Anyway, I found the movie to be continuously compelling, and well shot, utilizing locations in Southern California that I grew up in as Haddonfield, Illinois. Michael Myers becomes an iconic masked killer and there is a long line of slashers that followed in his wake. 

Director Robert Rodriguez was presenting the film with a surprise second feature, which was only revealed at the screening. It turned out he was planning a Carpenter double feature, by including Carpenter's next Theatrical Feature "The Fog"   

I saw "The Fog" in it's original release and I have always liked the movie. It is a ghost story, told as a ghost tory with malevolent forces returning to wreak vengeance on the descendants of those who wronged them.

Richard Kirkham · Robert Rodriguez Introduces The Fog

I like the fact that not everyone who gets murdered by the ghosts, deserves their fate. After all, furious spirits from beyond the grave are not always reasonable. This film puts Jamie Leigh Curtis in the story, but she is not really the star. If there is a featured performer it is the then wife of the director, Adrienne Barbeau. She plays the evening DJ at the local radio station and her studio is at a high point in the seaside community, so she can see the dangerous fog coming off the ocean, and she directs people to flee when it is clear that the fog contains the ghosts that have returned for their justice. 

Jamie Leigh's Mom, Janet Leigh, is also in the picture, a nice bit of stunt casting but not one that was essential. Carpenter made running from the weather much more thrilling than Shyamalan did in "The Happening". It is a lot scarier to have the fog manifest as dead sailors bent on killing, than leaves blowing in the wind.

I can's say it all makes sense, but I like the fact that Tom Atkins gets played as a sex symbol and John Houseman tells a scary story to kids on the beach. All in all it was a ton of fun.

An American Werewolf in London (1981) Panic at the Paramount

 

The "Panic! at the Paramount" series this year has featured several special presentations that required an additional admission fee past our membership subscription. That has been perfectly reasonable given the quality of the programming. This presentation of the John Landis classic, featured a Q and A after the movie with the film's star David Naughton, who turned out to be quite the raconteur.  He told us a number of funny stories about the production and working with the special effects make-up of Rick Baker

This is another of the great 1980s horror films that initiated the practice of mixing humor in with the frights. Landis was the right guy to do this having a great background in comedy, having made both "Animal House" and "the Blues Brothers". This film came out the summer I was working as a delivery driver for a photo supply company in Los Angeles.  One of the places I delivered to, printed movie posters, and I just could not manage to snag one for this movie from the stacks of them I had to walk by when making a delivery to the printing company. 

Jack and David are two college students, traveling through Europe on a summer excursion. They end up in a remote part of England, walking through a rural area, that is populated by a community living with a secret that casts fear over them. They are not particularly friendly natives and the boys are sent packing into the dark with a warning to stick to the road and stay off the moors. The humor had already started with the kibbitzing between the two young men, but it get more intensely humorous when they realize they have wandered off the road and they hear a howling animal near them. The tone shifts suddenly, and a horrifying bloody attack ensues. That is the pattern for the rest of the movie. A moment of levity is suddenly dashed by some horror, or a moment of terror becomes a joke in the hands of the actors and director. 

Rick Baker famously won the first Academy Award for the new make-up category, for the combination of prosthetics, puppetry and hair and make-up moments. The scene where David's hand extends as it becomes a paw was shot one time. Landis called cut and print and was ready to go to the next shot, but Baker had spent months getting the effect ready and was not prepared to be done so quickly. As Naughton told it, Landis looked at Baker and asked, "Does it do something else" and the flummoxed make up master had to say no, and Landis simply said, "Let's move on then."

The use of pop tunes that evoked the moon was another early innovation. Tons of movies use "needle drops" these days, but in 1981, most films relied on original music for their cues. I can't say that "America Werewolf in London" was the first to use them, but it is the earliest film I can remember that used previous record hits for the distinct purpose of highlighting a scene in the movie. Other films may have used popular songs as background, but this movie was using them as punchlines and energy points.

It might be fair to classify the movie as a romance as well as a horror-comedy. The lovely Jenny Agutter plays the nurse who takes a special interest in David after he is discharged from the hospital. Their love affair is a touching counter-point to the horror story that David is living through. His friend Jack makes frequent appearances in the film, after his character has died, and there are great visual jokes that go along with some gruesome imagery. This is another example of how gallows humor is injected into the story.

I have heard it said that the 1980s were the golden age of horror films. I think that may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but having experienced "Re-Animator", Fright Night", "The Fog" and this movie, all in the last month, I might be convinced. 

 

Fright Night (1985) Re-Visit

 

Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of it's release, is one of my favorite horror films from the 1980s, "Fright Night". This suburban take on vampire lore has all the elements that made the 80s horror films so much fun. There is nudity, blood, great practical effects, and a sense of humor that fit the times so well. It also has a couple of iconic performances from veteran actors, who are utilized perfectly in this film. This is one of the great ones for you horror fans, so sit back and read while I gush about how great this movie is. 

Charlie Brewster is a high school kid, navigating his hormones, struggling with his grades and hung up on a lot of the geeky things that any horror movie fan might care for. He lives with his mother in a nice suburb in an older two story house. His bedroom happens to face the vacant house next door, and as you can imagine, he starts noticing things there that are disturbing. Like a lot of kids in the 70s and 80s, he is a fan of a late night movie show that features horror films, many of them from the 1950s. This fact plays a part because his girlfriend thinks that he is conflating what he sees on the TV with what is happening next door, the arrival of a vampire.

The mundane neighborhood feels like the perfect place for a vampire to hang out, and this vampire is the exquisitely disguised Jerry Dandridge. He looks like a night club lothario, speaks as if he is a cultured antiques dealer and he has an interesting cover that explains some of his activities. Well before it became a cable TV phenomena, Jerry and his familiar Billy Cole, flip houses. So there is always material coming in and out, and the windows might be covered for lighting reasons. They do however fail to cover the upstairs bedroom windows, and that is where Charlie witnesses one of Jerry's meals being consumed. 

How does a normal kid, convince anyone to listen to him when he cries vampire. The murders in the town point to Jerry from Charlie's perspective, and when he goes to the police and tries to get them involved, suddenly Jerry is as aware of Charlie as Charlie is aware of him. The battle of wills and the vampire strategies make up the bulk of the plot, aided by two terrific secondary characters. Charlie has a oddball friend, nicknamed "Evil Ed" who provides Charlie with advice about resisting a vampire. Ed is played by Stephen Geoffreys, who was born to play a young Jack Nicolson, if ever they needed an actor for a flashback sequence. His gleeful laugh and haughty distain for Charlie's story make the plot more interesting.

The character of horror nerd Ed is not the only source of assistance that Charlie seeks out, and this is where the best element in the film comes in to play. Charlie contacts Peter Vincent, the washed up horror movie actor, who hosts the local "Fright Night" movie show. Vincent is played by the late Roddy McDowall. McDowall had more than 250 acting credits to his name, including the Academy Award winning "How Green Was My Valley" and "Lassie Come Home" as well as four of the five original "Planet of the Apes" movies. This was the juiciest  part he ever had, a craven coward when faced with a real vampire, his fearless vampire hunter from the movies is exposed. McDowall hams up the actor part of the script, but also delivers some real pathos to the character. Peter is forced to become what he has only pretended to be in the past. Watching him grow a spine when faced with the consequences of his lack of faith, is one of the great moments of acting in the film. I will continue to insist that he should have been recognized with supporting actor awards for this movie, but of course horror films get overlooked all the time by prestige organizations.

Opposite Peter Vincent is our vampire, played by Chris Sarandon. A vampire named "Jerry" is just the kind of twist that is needed to make the genre fresh for the era. Sarandon follows the script impeccably, presenting Jerry as innocuous at times, and threatening in other moments. He has the slick confidence that a would be Don Juan would portray to the world, all the time he casually munches on an apple , he really is licking his lips with his piercing eyes. He moves casually up and down the stairs and laughs off the challenges of the humans trying to end him. He has tender scenes with both Amy and Ed, suggesting a deeper emotional core than just the need to feed. His performance is the equal of his counterpart, and one of the  most memorable vampires in movies you are likely to meet. 

Finally, I need to say something about the effects and make-up. This is a movie that was made at the height of practical effects, before CGI rendered real on camera props and make-up less important. When Jerry transforms into his vampire shape, it is repulsive and frightening. There is a jump scare moment with a transformed Evil Ed, that is heart wrenching in spite of the plot point he was engaged in. The transformation of Amy is one of the most startling horror images I can remember from that decade. All of those moments will make you long for the artists of that era, and resent the coders that have taken over their roles. I highly recommend this film to everyone. 

Good Boy (2025)

 

Here is another of the best films of the year, that I am getting to, way past the time I saw it. "Good Boy" is a horror film with a relatively brief running time, but it will deliver the suspense, shocks and dread that you crave with these kinds of movies, and it will give you a real hero to root for in 
Indy" the terrific star of the movie, and the title character. In case you still don't know, "Indy" is a dog and the film story is told through his point of view. Dog lovers should be entranced with this film and relieved but a bit sad at the resolution. I don't want to give any spoilers, but be assured, you will be ok as an animal lover when this is all done.

Our lead actor, is the pet of the director, and has not been trained as an actor. "Indy" is reacting to the elements of the story, but the actor Indy is sometimes just being a dog, who is being closely watched by his human companion, so that editing and normal dog behavior can be crafted into s scary story that features a dog. I am all for the praise that the dog is receiving for his performance, but the talk of an Academy Award nomination should probably belong to the editing team as much as our canine leading man. 

The movie is a haunted house type story, although there are moments of possession and human perfidity. Todd is the human featured in the film, but we barely see his face in any of the shots. At first I believed the character was a recovering drug addict, but as the movie goes on, it becomes apparent that Todd is suffering from cancer, and it is effecting his personality and behaviors. There is as a result some ambiguity as to whether some of the events are supernatural or merely the ramification of Todd's declining health. Indy knows there is something wrong, and he is loyal to a fault. Any dog owner who has instantly regretted snapping at their dog in a moment of stress, knows how wonderful it is that our pets can forget a momentary detour from our usual path. 

Indy wants to do the right thing, but as a dog, he can't understand some of the things he sees, and that we see through his eyes. There are moments of horror that reflect some violence, but the movie is really about the horror of losing touch with your humanity. There are a couple of good jump scares, and there really is a supernatural element to the movie, but while dread is the feeling that envelops the story, it is really just sadness that forms the climax.

The lack of dialogue and exposition will be challenging to some viewers, but anyone who has loved a dog will want to stay invested in Indy's journey. The hair on the back of your neck will stand up a couple of times, and there may seem to be jeopardy to the dog, but in the end  this is the story of a good boy, who struggles in his animal brain, to make sense of the world he finds himself in with his human companion. This movie is a triumph and deserves the accolades it is receiving. 

Roofman (2025)

 

The fact that it has taken me more than three weeks to post on this film, should not in any way be seen as a fault in the movie. From my perspective, this is one of the best films I have seen this year and it has a strong chance of making my end of the year list. I have simply been busy and lackadaisical in following through on my promise to post on everything I see in a theater. This movie might not be on any screen near you, but it should be available for streaming soon and it will be worthy your money to do so.

"Roofman" is based on the true story of a burglar/robber, who despite being a criminal and threatening people, seems to also have been a person with a good heart and brain. The fact that we can sympathize with the character, in spite of his criminal activity is a combination of the real person the story is based on, and the script/performance supplied by the movie. Everyone likes an underdog, and the character of Jeff, played by Channing Tatum, gives us that underdog in a very appealing package. He is a family man, struggling with the inability to hold a job that would take care of his family. He is smart enough to figure out a low risk criminal career, but of course gets caught. He is also smart enough to figure out a way to escape, but he has not figured out what to do once he has, He is all tactics without strategy. 

Tatum has grown into a very appealing actor and this role is probably his career best performance so far. He hits the right notes of desperation in the opening act, as Jeff falls into a life of crime. His victims, who are not the ones financially responsible, all seem to feel he was a decent guy, in spite of being held up. He is polite, apologetic, and considerate of the employees that he encounters. In he second act of the film, he meets and bonds with a woman, who is unaware of his status as a fugitive, and she sees his good qualities and falls in love with that guy. Kirsten Dunst plays the friendly employee of the Toy R Us store that Jeff is hiding out in, and her sincerity and open nature are infectious. I personally think this is a career best performance as well. Dunst and Tatum have great on screen chemistry, which makes the outlandish but true story attractive to us as viewers.

There are a few parts of the movie plot that seem to be manufactured to get the characters into a coherent story. Jeff is hiding out for six months because he has to wait on his fixer buddy to get back from an overseas job. He also has to commit another crime, to be able to pay for the escape plan he is getting from this mysterious compatriot. That one last job brings together the two lives he has been leading, which is of course the climax of the film, so maybe it feels a little inevitable. What I did like is the fidelity of the story to the real events. They don't manufacture a resolution to make us happy, they just spin the outcome to make it feel less sad. 

The film is sold as a comedy, and while there are comedic moments, that is not really an accurate description of the movie. This is a romantic drama with a real life criminal background, which is doomed from the start. The fact that it is ultimately a downer is overcome by the bright relationship between the two leads. Peter Dinklage provides an antagonist that diverts us from the fact that Jeff is the criminal. Dinklage can do both the comedic and the a-hole parts well and he does both of those in this film. My friend Howard and I talked about this film for a special episode of the LAMBcast, when that gets posted, I will share the podcast here with you so you can listen if interested. 

Kiss of the Spider Woman (2025)

 

I will tell you up front, especially if you are new to this site, I love musicals. The form is not as popular as it once was, but the ones that manage to make it to the screen are usually going to get some attention from me, even if I have reservations about the subject or director. Hell, if Ari Aster or Robert Eggers did a musical, I'd bother to see it. Fortunately, I don't have those reservations about this particular film. I generally trust Bill Condon as a director and, although I never read the original novel, I am a big fan of the 1985 film that was based on it. William Hurt won the Academy Award for his performance as Luis Molina, and the film played the story straight as a political drama, with tragic outcomes. 

When the story was converted to a Broadway Musical, I was frankly confused. I could not quite imagine how this bleak story of two prisoners in a South American hellhole, would work as fodder for tourists visiting New York City. Even with the fantasy sequences extended, it seemed like a longshot at best. I never saw the musical version, which was quite successful, until now. It works really well as a film, and I would be interested in seeing a stage production so I could compare the way they transition between the two worlds presented in the story. 

There will be some comparisons here to the 1985 film, since that is my original experience. I actually purchased a Laser Disc copy in the last year because I did not own it in any other form, and the cover art is really nice. I rewatched the film and confirmed my impression from 1985, this was one of the best films of the year. So now it comes time to see the musical version in a screen format, and I have to say I was nicely impressed. The tone is a little old fashioned, but that's ok, so am I. 

There are three things that are important to talk about here, the music sequences, the original story premise and the performances. The thing that I liked the most about the musical sequences is that they remind me of the dance numbers and songs from the 30s and 40s era films that inspired them. The camerawork is not ostentatious, it is just clever enough to give us some interesting views of the action taking place. For the most part, the scenes are shown in full screen shots with very limited edits. I'm not an expert, but I would be willing to believe that some of them were done in single takes from start to finish 9if not, then a nod to the editors who made it appear seamless). The settings are often elaborate in the way a musical from bygone times would be. There are extravagant costumes, interesting backgrounds, and colors that pop every time we go to the musical fantasies. Unlike some contemporary music, you could actually follow a melody in most of the songs. This was not a Sondheim tonal fest, but a throwback to films like "Cabaret" or "Chicago". I wasn't humming the tunes as I left the theater, but I could if I listened to them a little more. 

Bill Condon has stayed true to the political story, but there is one significant change. Molina, the persecuted homosexual that is cellmates with Valentin, the political prisoner, is revealed much earlier in the story as an informer for the warden. That limited my ability to build the requisite sympathy for the character for a lot longer time than in the 1985 film. The prison sequences are fairly grueling, and I was happy there there was no dance number to accompany the food poisoning diarrhea scene. The story is also set more clearly in the Argentina of the 1970s. The timing of events in Argentina are closely tied to the ending of the musical, where they were not as important in the 85 film. 

A Crappy Poster Does Not Help

There are several changes in the story of the old film that Molina is recounting from his memory. Those allow the fantasy character played by Jennifer Lopez, much more of a role than Sonia Braga got. Lopez continues to be beautiful on screen and her singing performance is very good, with eight or so songs to perform, including the climax title song. She has the most impressive of the musical elements in the film. Her two costars, get something that the two stars of the 1985 movie don't get, they have dual roles not only as the prisoners but as characters in the fantasy of the movie "Kiss of the Spider Woman" as Molina is telling it. Diego Luna has the heavier role in the musical sequences as the romantic interest of the star Ingrid Luna (Lopez). Tonatiuh, the actor playing Molina, has the stronger role in the prison scenes. Both of the men are quite good in the jail set scenes. Tonatiuh plays Molina with less obvious femininity than Hurt did, and the more subdued reading of the character might be better for the story, but it will probably not sustain the attention that Hurt's performance did. This may be a case where the authentic casting works against the need for the audience to suspend it's disbelief.

So, the movie is old fashioned, put together professionally, does right by it's socially important political story and the music scenes all work. So why is this film going nowhere fast with audiences? I guess it is just a different world. This movie could have been platform released thirty years ago, starting in prestige locations and then getting a wider release as interest grew. That is not the world we live in anymore, and the success of the movie suffers for it. If you can find it on the big screen, go for it, but my guess is that it will be PPV this week and streaming on a service next month. Too bad, because it would bring back some old fashioned glamour to a movie going experience. 

Tron Ares (2025)

 

Did we need another "Tron" movie? I don't really think so, but need is not the motivation here, rather it is want. The audience is not the group that wants another "Tron" film, it is the studio, which is trying to create a franchise that they can rely on every few years, but just because you want something, doesn't mean you are going to get it. The box office for this film is not as big a disaster as for other Disney films this year, but it is unlikely to encourage a return to this universe, at least until the next time the house of the mouse is desperately looking for IPs to develop, fruitlessly again.

You might think after these mostly negative comments about the strategy of the film, that it wasn't very good. That's wrong. "Tron Ares" is a handsomely mounted science fiction/fantasy/adventure that looks spectacular on the big screen and justifies s a visit to your local IMAX or XD cinema. I did not see this in 3D but it is one of the few films that I can say I wish I had. There are some visual sequences and action scenes that would have popped dramatically with that extra visual element added. 

I only saw "Tron Legacy" one time in a theater, that was fifteen years ago and before I was writing on the blog on new films. I seem to remember enjoying it well enough, but I'm not sure I left wanting to see more. Sort of like the way I felt about the original "Tron" from 1983. It was innovative in look, but was soon surpassed as the technology got better and was being used more impressively in other films. The only thing that seemed to link the two movies was Jeff Bridges character. Guess what, that's an even more tenuous link tin this film. Bridges returns as a digital ghost in the movie for a couple of minutes, that's it. Jared Leto is the star of the film, and in a twist, he starts out one way, but morphs into something different by the end of the movie. I think he has the requisite charisma for the character, but it is not enough to sustain the film just on it's own. That's why there are so many high tech chase moments and digital destruction on the screen. 

The story turns out to be a pretty straight forward action narrative. The good guys have something the bad guys want to steal, and there is an attempt to retrieve it or destroy it. Chases and life threatening situations occur for human characters, and the digital AI characters simply reproduce and keep chasing. All the energy went into the look of the film rather than the script. Which as I said is not a bad thing, if all you want is an action movie with a cool look. That was enough for me, but it probably won't be enough for everyone and everyone is needed if you are going to keep making these films.

I suggest, you enjoy your snack, and the great soundtrack provided by Nine Inch Nails. The movie will be on streaming soon, but it will not be as hypnotic at home as it is in a theater setting. Entertaining but non-essential. 

Re-Animator (1985) Panic at the Paramount/Alamo Draft House

 

Having fallen even further behind on my posts, this entry will be a little different. I actually saw "Re-Animator" twice in the week of these screenings, and one of those screening was a special presentation with guests at the Paramount Theater here in Austin. To get the complete discussion of the film which was also the MOTM selection for the LAMBcast, I am including a link to the podcast here. 

"Re-Animator" is one of the jewels of 1980s horror gore films. Theater director Stuart Gordon makes a seamless transition to films with a cast of soon to be iconic horror actors, including the great Jeffrey Combs as Dr. Herbert West. His arched brows, deadpan face and monomaniacal voice, are the perfect combination for this science fiction horror story that mixes the Frankenstein mythos with the Zombie aesthetic. 

Combs appeared with co-star Barbara Crampton, to talk about the movie with the hostess from Austin's own Hyperreel Fanclub. 

The late actor David Gale, steals the movie every time his disembodied head appears on screen. It is both horrifying and hysterical. There is a sequence featuring some nudity and a very explicit sex act being performed by a talking head, so be careful about showing this movie to anyone under age, it is adult fare. The violence and bloodletting should have warned you of that early on. 

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) Paramount Screening

 

I basically quoted the above teaser trailer to a couple of guys sitting behind me at the recent screening of "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". I overheard them asking each other, "What are the first and second encounters?" That I could remember the answer from way back in this 1977 trailer is a credit to my long term memory, now if only I could remember the three things I was going to pick up at the market, I'd be in much better shape.

This was a last minute commitment we made. Some other social engagement fell out, and we are Paramount Movie Pass holders, so this was available to us without an extra charge. It was a 70mm screening of  a newly struck print of the film, and the Austin audience was among the first to see this print. 

I wrote about the film after a screening eight years ago, and I will stand by my comments from that time here..   Every time I see this film, I am more impressed by what it accomplishes. The screening at the Paramount allowed me to be immersed in the sounds of the film very effectively. The opening musical note, sustained and then the jump to a loud retort was perfectly timed to the visual jump opening that the movie comes in with. The roar of the winds in Mexico as the survey team is arriving to discover the lost squadron of WWII planes is a terrific use of sound. The same can be said of the sequence in India, where the throngs of thousands are replicating the humming musical notes that came from the sky. The payoff of the thousands of hands simultaneously  pointing towards the heavens was perfect and another indicator of the brilliance of writer/director Steven Spielberg. That this is the film that followed his masterpiece "Jaws", cements his place in the hierarchy of film giants. 

Of course If we are going to spend time talking about the sound of the film, we can't ignore the score from the legendary John Williams. The five note motif is so deeply intertwined with the story of the film, that as I said before, Williams could easily have earned a screenwriting credit for the movie. The editing of the lights and the music in the final scene is one of those times where music can completely replace dialogue and you still understand what is going on. 

I discovered that I did not have a CE3K shirt to wear down to the presentation. So I substituted a shirt that has a secret connection to the film. Those of you who know, will appreciate the joke, and those of you who are confused need to watch both movies. So many cultural references depend on understanding the timing of the events, and this is one of those. The 007 movie came out two years after "Close Encounters".

I have to admit that I get frustrated sometimes with young people who have no sense of film history. Amanda told me that when she mentioned that she was going to the screening, her co-workers had never heard of the movie. Yes it is forty-eight years old, but they all know "Star Wars" and have at least heard of "the Godfather". I'm just amazed that this classic from director Steven Spielberg is not imprinted on our collective memory as deeply as I think it should be. I'm probably just a grumpy old guy, but when they discover this film for themselves, I will be seen as a prophet. 

Spinal Tap II: The End Continues

 

Apparently not everybody treasures Spinal Tap the way I do. "Spinal Tap 2:The End Continues” should have had a nice moderate run at the box office and been beloved by fans of the band. Instead it's a neglected pebble on the beach, kicked out of the way by people who should be embracing it and ignored by the people who created it except for the four main stars, who are doing their best to try and sell the film in the face of public indifference.

Spinal Tap is a fictional band, but the music is real and the performances are live. Famously the structure of these movies is the framework that existed before the movie started but most of the material that fills it in is improvised by the stars themselves. Harry Shearer, Michael McKean and Christopher Guest are joined by Rob Reiner returning as his fictional director Marty de Bergey. They all improvise and kibitz their way through a reunion concert that is filled with intrigue, and the usual antics of narcissistic rock artists.

The 41 years that have passed since the original film, have seen changes in the music industry, and the way films are made and marketed. Those changes must have been significant enough to render this film impotent in the face of the new World Order. I say that because I completely enjoyed this movie, and I laughed a lot. The only thing that I thought was missing were new original songs that might match up to the brilliance of the original soundtrack album. To compensate we get Cameo appearances by some big rock stars who sing some of the Spinal Tap Originals. Paul McCartney comes in during rehearsals and with his quiet respectful comments, he manages to antagonize David St, Hubbins. A perfect example of Rockstar megalomania gone to the extreme.

A much longer insertion into the story is Elton John, who not only appears in the rehearsal stages but shows up for the performance of the climactic song of Spinal Taps reunion concert, “Stonehenge”. Fans of the original will be anticipating disaster and they won't be disappointed, although it's an exact reversal of what happened in the first film. In between these appearances we had a series of drummers who rejected the idea of joining Tap for a one-off performance, which is understandable given the history of Spinal Tap drummers.

I talked about this movie a couple of weeks ago with some of the other Lambs on the LAMBcast, one of whom enjoyed it almost as much as I did, and the other found a few things to be entertained by but he was not as nostalgic as we were for the return of Tap. I guess his attitude reflects the modern world more than my own. It's a complete shame to me that this movie managed to have such a minuscule box office weekend, and some other crap is going to pull in more simply because it fits into a genre that is popular in September. Oh well it's a fine line between clever and stupid, the stars and director of this film fall on the clever side of the line, the audience falls on the other.

The Long Walk (2025)

 

I am a little tempted to let the trailer speak for itself. The vast majority of what is great about this movie is contained in this set up and concept. Stephen King came up with the idea when he was 19, and the youth of the cast and the premise show how a young man's mind can work when it gets a good idea. The close of the trailer "There's no finish line" is pretty great at setting up the sense of dred a film like this calls for. But, in spite of the fact that it is a King story, and that there is an overall sense of doom, the movie is less a horror film than an existential mediation on friendship, with a lot of death thrown in.

Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson are the leads. Hoffman, who was great in "Licorice Pizza", plays the outgoing avuncular young man who signs up for this brutal contest, with a hidden agenda. While he is friendly with everyone, he does keep his deepest thoughts to himself. Jonsson, who was the best thing about "Alien Romulus", is equally friendly, and more forthcoming about his motivations. As a much more surface level character at first, he reveals greater complexity the longer they are on the road. The friendship that grows between Ray and Peter is at the heart of the film. How much of our hidden selves are we willing to disclose to another human being, when they may very well be the last person we ever talk to? 

There is a whole cadre of other character types, some heroic, some nefarious but all with a sense of desperation on them that may be off putting to some audiences. The other thing that may be a problem is that the film is a nearly two hour walk and talk. Literally ninety percent of the film is watching the kids walk down a road. You may not want the episodes of brutality that accompany each contestants fate, but it is a welcome change in perspective when they arrive. 

Conversation, if it is interesting, can be a perfectly entertaining acceptable form of film making, although it is a rare audience that will be patient enough for a movie where people just talk. As these boys walk the long march of death, they argue, joke, bond, reminisce, and otherwise find ways of moving forward. The idea of sleepwalking is brushed by quickly, so there may be legitimate questions about how this long trek works. There are some times when it is clear that King is attempting some sort of allegory about totalitarian societies. These mostly go nowhere and the flashbacks to earlier events do not feel as organic as they might. 

Two performances that will draw your sympathy and deserve a bit of notice are from Ben Wang and Judy Greer. Wang plays Hank, one of the contestants. He is incredibly confident and cocky, but otherwise appealing enough to become part of the core group of walkers. His desperation near the end of his screen time is a thing that will provoke pain and pity. Greer plays Ray's Mother, the only parent we get to see since she lives in the state where the walk is taking place. Her two brief scenes connect the audience to the reality of the contest, much more than the other crowds or spectators that the walk draws.

Be forewarned that one of the most gruesome scenes in the film, involves a bodily function that is not normally engaged in while walking. The vividness of the moment and it's unpleasant outcome will turn your stomach more than the fascism theme that is presented by Mark Hamill as the Major, who oversees the event. The film is quite thoughtful, but it is not as deep and meaningful about the world it takes place in, rather it plows the field of friendship and sacrifice, which all of us can understand. 

The Conjuring: Last Rites (2025)

 

I have fallen three weeks behind on a couple of films, and my guilt is finally catching up with me, I need to get these done, so I will start with a pretty simple one. There are nine films in this universe of horror movies, but only three that focus on the Warrens as they try to help families deal with supernatural and evil hauntings. The original "The Conjuring" was one of my favorite films of 2013. I have seen some of the other films, but none of them has kept me as engaged as the original and the follow up . These have been the solid kinds of horror films that I always enjoy. The new and apparently final film in this specific series is for the most part effective and does the things you want a horror film to do.

There has been chatter among the LAMB community, about the slighting of the Smurl Family story in focusing on the Warrens in this film. I completely understand from an individual perspective, but since this is the third film in the direct line, and the Warrens are the tissue that connect the stories, I did not resent this refocus as much as some of my friends did. It is true, that the events in the house in Pennsylvania could have been to focus of the movie, but I have not read the stories and background on all of these cases, so I don't know how sturdy the framework of the original experience would be in supporting a two hour feature. I also think that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson have been troopers over the last dozen years, and it seems fair to give the characters they have given life to, a bit stronger part as a conclusion to their story.

You will find the requisite number of jump scares, moments of dread and special effects, that make up an accomplished horror film. This is not an indie movie, making due with a limited budget and a far out concept. "Last Rites" is a studio film, done with the resources needed to sell this as a major motion picture, but also directed with enough professional panache to feel like you are getting something that is not just formula. Director Michael Chavez might easily have fallen into that trap, as he did with a couple of the other films in the universe, neither of which has a great reputation. The convoluted story suggests some screen writing patchwork, but Chavez manages to get it to hang together, in spite of the bifurcated story structure.

It is not as if there are big surprises in store for you. This is not a twist based story. This is a character narrative with a haunting as the background. Because the Warrens are portrayed at the start and the ends of their careers as paranormal investigators, they are played by two sets of actors. The flashback cast looks solid enough to pass for younger versions of the leads, so that is a plus. Wilson and Farmiga both seem to relish these roles enough to put in some energy into what they are doing.  All of the other characters are solid but do not get much time to develop personalities that would make them compelling. The dad in the family will be defined by his jump scare moments, and the Warrens daughter will mostly be the puppet of the evil spirit. The young future son-in law has some screen charisma, so that helps as well.

From an audience perspective, this movie delivers what brings people to the theaters. Their sphincters will tighten for long periods, they will be grossed out or shocked a couple of times, and there are two solid jump scares to make you scream. It may not be perfect, or particularly original, but it is extremely competent technically, and the script issues will not matter in the long run. Have fun holding you popcorn and squirming in your seat.

 

One Battle After Another (2025)

 

It is pretty clear that I am going to be on the opposite side of the canyon on this film. The echoes from the other side are likely to drown out my dissent, but I am used to that. In the past I have been on the minority side of "The Wolf of Wall Street", The Shape of Water", "Hereditary" and a half dozen more.  Being the lone voice of objection does not mean I am wrong, but it does mean that people I respect will be looking at my opinion askance, and wondering what is wrong with me. So let me provide a brief rationale before going into the specifics. 

Most of the time, I am a story guy. I care about the plot and want it to pull me in so I can connect with the characters and travel with them on their journey. Sometimes I can let a tone/attitude carry me, but that is a delicate task that requires truly hitting on something compelling. Another thing about me is that I like a rooting interest. There does not always have to be a hero, but I want someone in the film that I care enough about to hope they come out on top. I have enjoyed plenty of movies with anti-heroes, including Hannibal Lecter, Freddy Kruger and gangster pictures galore (Martin Scorsese provides plenty of these). Finally, I have some ethical/moral values that pop up from time to time. I may feel guilty about enjoying people die in the "Final Destination" films, but if the path there is interesting, I will live with the guilt.

"One Battle After Another" left me cold most of the time, angry in a few spots, and bored far more often than I ever expected to feel in a movie from Paul Thomas Anderson. I have seen seven of his previous nine films and two of those, "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia" would easily make a top 100 list if I were doing one. That said, "One Battle after Another" is the first film from Anderson that I have loathed. It never is consistent in it's tone, there is not a very interesting story, and the cartoon characters that are on the screen make Dirk Diggler seem like an intellectual. 

This movie contains enough provocative material to fuel the nightmares of both left wing nutjobs and their right wing counterparts. It seems at times to champion the unfettered immigration of one group of people into the country, and makes some of the presumptuous claims of intersectional narcissists the starting point for a conversation on the issue. When people on the right worry about forces that are trying to destroy the culture here, this would be the movie to feed their paranoia. Benicio Del Toro as a benevolent human trafficker has plenty of charm, but the comic book attitude he strides through the film with, does not work as the comedy that I think it was intended as. Meanwhile, for the people on the left, there is a deep state white supremacy group, not made up of drooling hillbillies and Nazi fascists but rather polite bigots who have meetings in secret board rooms and eat pancakes when they are offered. Anderson has constructed a group of facile racists, who look like and act like everyday people, except for their murderous commitment to racial purity. It is only at the end of the film that we get the usual trope of the shirtless, bearded gunman, drinking beer on the porch while a person of mixed heritage is handcuffed to a bench. Like I said, there is something for everyone in the political spectrum to see as the enemy and to feel mocked by as well.

Early trailers suggested this might be a comedy, but if that was Anderson's intent, he forgot to bring the funny. The scene where DiCaprio's character corrects his daughter on the metaphor of cards versus dice, is cut to a joke in the trailer, but in the film it just lays flat. It is another annoying point that "Bob" is making, which is too spot on to be clever. Leonardo DiCaprio playing a burnout is hardly new material. The stoner humor here is undercut by the character's recognition of what he has done to himself. Is it supposed to be amusing or pathetic? Anderson bounces between both tones without much grace.  I will say the the scenes of him trying to clear a phone call without being able to recall the passwords, were one of the few times in the film that I could relate to his character. 

Speaking of characters, let me say the thing out loud that will probably get me the most criticized. There were plenty of characters that I wanted to see killed, pretty early on. By the end of the film, I was not sure that there was anyone left that I was glad had survived to the conclusion. Perfidia, Lockjaw and Jungle Pussy were characters that I wished into the cornfield ten minutes into the film. Only one of those characters got the onscreen death I was hoping for, but at least it happened twice (for no apparent reason). 

Anderson is usually a compelling storyteller, but there was nothing compelling about this story. It pretends to be about something and then it throws in a sexual kink for no particular reason. Sean Penn plays a malevolent character who has one distinct character feature, he can make himself get a hard on when he sees Perfidia. Otherwise, he is a Snidely Whiplash caricature who is hateful to both sides in the story. His slathering delivery of lines in his confrontation with Willa, the daughter of Bob ( or so we are lead to believe at first), is a hash of emotional overkill. He is better when he plays the fabulist who is a victim to a "semen demon" as he tries to finish off his interview to join the "Christmas Adventurers Club", which has the one consistent joke of the members greeting each other with a ridiculous salutation meant to mock right wing Christmas conspiracy nuts. 

The best visualized scene is an escape made by Willa as she is pursued by two other cars across the deserts of California. The smartest thing anyone in the three hours of the movie run time does, takes place when Willa takes advantage of the road terrain that she is being pursued on. Anderson has the camera following the action as if from the front seat of a car, speeding up and down the bumps in a desert road. It is the only time that any of the many chase scenes in the film feels immediate and tense. There are a thousand other movies that have done this stuff more effectively and entertainingly (Crank/The Italian Job/Silent Night/28 Days/Weeks/Years) Anderson does not seem to be an action director, at least not by the evidence of this snooze fest. 

I was happy to see nuns handcuffed and on their knees. What does that tell you about the quality of the characters in the movie? The vicious sex pervert who is a revolutionary nut, also murders people and gets away with it by ratting out her compadres and then taking a powder on the authorities. Her burnout husband has been living guilt free of the numerous bombing that took place, and unlike Bill Ayers, has medicated himself to the point of incoherence. Frankly, the timing of this film is also a little problematic, given the recent attack on an ICE detention center in Dallas. This movie may be cursed. The positive notices that the film is receiving are largely projections of people's political opinions. This may win a bunch of awards, but it will not come close to being popular with a wide audience, in-spite of the presence of DiCaprio. 

That's my opinion, but I could be wrong. (No, I'm not) 

Him (2025)

 

I should have known from the trailer that I was not going to be a fan of this film. Everything in the movie is the antitheses of what football fans care about in the game. This film takes the fever dream rantings of a person like Colin Kaepernick, and turns them into an incoherent horror film that lacks any narrative and ignores the majority of the aspects of the game. It attempts to send a message about obsessive devotion to the game, through a vaguely supernatural Faustian myth. Although it succeeded at creating a tense atmosphere for the first half of the film, it undercuts those moments repeatedly by the usual trope of it being a dream sequence or hallucination. When the end of the film comes up, I wanted to laugh at the whole thing, and dismiss the elements of the movie that might have made it worth watching to start with.

So in fairness, let me say that the two stars, Marlon Wayans and Tyriq Withers are excellent. Withers is Cameron Cade, a college quarterback, getting ready to transition to the pros. Early on we see his childish hero worship of the game and it's leading star, nurtured and mirrored by his father, who has passed on. It is never explicitly stated, but there is an implication that his father was killed in action while serving as a Marine. The background stereotypes of a nurturing mother, passed over brother and clinging agent, would be eyerolling if they were any larger part of the film. Everything outside of the scenario that makes up the main part of the story, is simply filler for the main event. Cam has the talent and skills needed to supplant his hero as the new hope of the Saviors, his favorite team, that is until a moment that could be the set up for a much better movie but is wasted on this.

 Isaiah White is the reigning G.O.A.T. of the football league in the film. White has won the league championship eight times and has a cult of worshippers. Cam could have been one of those fans if he did not have the enthusiasm of his youth and the drive of his father behind him. Marlon Wayans is the quarterback that seems to have recovered from a devastating injury, but at what price?  Isaiah is intense and takes Cam into his home training facility, to help him recover the edge that he seems to have lost from the earlier incident. Wayans plays the intensity with humor at times, and with ferocious antagonism at other points. Is he a mentor, a competitor or a predator? This was a good dramatic performance from an actor who is usually known for his comedic roles. His physique is also a key player in the movie, being pushed in Cam's face as a standard to measure himself by.

The training field, recovery rooms and therapy locations, all feel real but they are set in a building constructed to look like a vaginal opening to enter, and then a series of fallopian tube hallways to navigate. The house feels like it was hewn from the stone that it sets on rather than being constructed on that isolated location. The lighting in every area except the field is mood lighting with a heavy accent on dark shadows. Earlier in the film, there was a similar sort of lighting on the practice field where Cam encounters the starting point of the strange journey. 

That's it for the things to recommend the film (with the exception of s spinning football). The story that exists in this world is unfocused and relies on ambiguity to such a degree that you will feel as lost as Cam does on occasion. I have seen plenty of horror films that rely an ambiguity as part of the storytelling. From the 1970s, two films fit that mode perfectly, "Phantasm" and "The Brotherhood of Satan". Ultimately, the lack of clarity in those films is cleared up by the way the stories play out. "Him" feels no need to clarify what is going on, in fact it doubles down on the murkiness of what is happening with a climax that contains things that would fit easily into the first parts of those old movies. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo about gladiators and earning your spot rather than buying it with a sacrifice that gets you there. Cam is supposed to spend a week with Isaiah, and for some reason, the film is structured with a label for each day. Unfortunately, the labels have nothing to do with what unfolds during the day. It feels like an attempt to dress the events in some profundity that is just not there. 

The last horror film that I laughed at, not for it's intend humor but for it's stupidity, was "Us", a Jordan Peele film. Peele produced this movie, so maybe his sensibilities are occasionally suspect. I loved "Get Out" and "Nope", but there is a flaw in the reasoning of the producer here.  Zack Akers,Skip Bronkie, and Justin Tipping are the credited screenwriters, so they are to blame for most of the boring story line that builds no tension and tries to let the production design do all the heavy lifting. Tipping is the director so he gets credit for the look of the film but also the blame for it's lack of energy. Mood itself is not enough to create something interesting. 

I suppose this film might appeal to critics of football as a sport. The violent nature of the game and the risk of injury are lampooned with a sneer that will put off most people who care about the game. The satanic plantation mentality of the writers will also please those who see a game that is so economically successful, that it must be run by the devil. The owner of the team could play Lucifer in a Faustian story if this film were clearer on what it is saying. The closer we got to the end of the movie, the less I cared about the outcome. That is not the sign of a well written script. You will read about this film again on this site when I put together a list of the worst films of the year. There have been plenty of dogs in theaters in 2025, this one may be the biggest in the kennel. 

Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (2003/2004) Robert Rodriguez Presents Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

When it was announced over twenty years ago, that "Kill Bill" would be split into two parts, it was a disappointment to me. I was perfectly fine with a four plus hour epic from Quentin Tarantino. Fortunately, sounder heads were in charge of marketing in the early 2000s and the choice to divide the picture makes perfect sense. There is a clear demarcation point between the two films and audiences were not really as tolerant of long films as I might have been. Tarantino himself suggested that there were various ways that the film could be presented, but he was firm that it was all one big complete story. So to finish off the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series, our local hero Robert Rodriguez, collaborator and friend of Quentin Tarantino, presented the whole bloody saga for us, with a introduction to each film. 

The house was packed with 1200 attendees and the crowd was raucous, maybe not "RRR" raucous, but still very lively

 

The first volume of "Kill Bill" has the most stylized elements of the story. After the brutal fight in a suburban home, that ends with an invitation to a child to seek vengeance when she gets older, we get more context about why this bloody tale of revenge is being told. There is a significant anime sequence that gives us an origin story of O-Ren, the first on the target list but the second one we see in the movie. First we got the killing of Vernita Green, including a breakfast cereal gunfight. Then we get the Bride's story of recovery and setting out on the path of revenge. There is a lot of grim humor in the story, which is characteristic of Tarantino, and all the people who insist that he has a foot fetish will find plenty of ammunition for that charge. As usual, Quentin is playing with his time line.

Audiences who had not been regular consumers of Eastern Martial Arts movies were about to get an extended lesson in how to do it. I reject to concept of cultural appropriation, I think everyone is entitled to use artistic styles that they are comfortable with. I am just surprised that there were not more charges of appropriation against Tarantino because he makes himself at home in a crime drama with samurai warriors that feels like it was created in Tokyo or Hong Kong. 

The Chapter labeled "Showdown at the House of Blue Leaves" is one of the most spectacular action sequences you will ever encounter. The colors are vivid, the music is a mix of pop and rock songs filtered through a nightclub vibe that is based in Japanese tropes. The overwhelming number of the "Crazy 88" that fall to the Bride's sword is preposterous but somehow we can accept it because Uma Thurman sells determination and skill with an amazing physical performance. When she finally faces off against Lucy Liu in the snow covered courtyard, it is an amazing visual conception. 

Richard Kirkham · Kill Bill Vol. 1 Intro Robert Rodriguez

This second introduction was full of information that I was not aware of before, and it was presented with the same cheerful demeanor that Rodriguez has always shown at these events. 

"Kill Bill Vol. 2" is more grounded than the first film. The stylized sets and musical segments are toned down in favor of a gritty environment. If the first fil was filled with the martial arts fantasies of the 1970s, the second film is set in the grimy styles of 70s grindhouse fare. Michael Madsen is not a glamourous killer looking at his art collection between assignments, he is a guilt ridden alcoholic working as a drone at the sleaziest and most disgusting strip bar imaginable, and living in a trailer in the middle of nowhere. Unlike the first film, there is not a lot of variety in the locations in which Beatrice Kiddo gets her revenge on Bud and Elle Driver. Daryl Hannah shows up in Bud's dilapidated domicile, and the epic sword fight we might have expected gets truncated to a gruesome joke, a little aqueous humor, a nice visual punch.

Along the way we did get a montage of training under the tutelage of Pai Mei, a lesson in pimp business practices by Bill's surrogate father, and a lecture on comic book personas from Bill himself, all of which are entertaining to some degree or other. 

Richard Kirkham · Kill Bill Vol. 2 Introduction Robert Rodriguez

If you listen to the second introduction, you will get a nice story about the two credit sequences, including a surprise about the song.

Jaws (1975) 50th Anniversary Re-Release

 

Ok, I admit, I might have an addiction. It is not a problem however, since it never interferes with my life and it only enhances it. If I can see this movie on the big screen in a theater, I will do so, and conveniently, in celebration of it's 50th anniversary, it was widely re-released and I took advantage of the opportunity in all three of the subscription services I am enrolled in.

First up was an Cinemark showing on the first day of the re-release. It was a great presentation in a straight forward theater.

On Sunday, we went to a 3-D Screening at the AMC Theater, it was mid-day on a Sunday, and we were there with maybe five other people.

Finally, I went by myself at the Alamo Drafthouse, also for a mid-day screening, and Mondays are a lonely time at a movie theater in the middle of the day. Still I loved it. You can find plenty of Jaws Content on the site. Come on in the water.

Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) 50 Year Anniversary Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

It's hard to believe that it was 50 years ago that The Rocky Horror Picture Show landed in our laps. I have to admit I did not see it in that first year much to my chagrin. My friend Dan however had seen it and he recommended it to me, so when it started playing on the midnight circuits I was happy to join in the frivolity. In fact for the next 3 years, The Rocky Horror Picture Show took up a residence at midnight on any weekend that I wasn't traveling to a debate tournament.

So it's a pleasure to say I'm still here and still seeing Rocky Horror at least on an annual basis, because the Paramount Theater here in Austin knows it's community. I didn't dress up this year because we were coming from another screening, and normally my cosplay is very slight, just a t-shirt and a lab coat. So I didn't look much like the unconventional conventioneers, but I sang and danced in my seat as much as anyone and had a terrific time once more doing the Time Warp.

It's getting close to the closing of the summer classic film series, and that makes me a little sad but fortunately seeing this movie overcomes most of that. It's nice that I didn't have to stay up till midnight to see the movie, I suspect that a lot of the people in the audience for this movie are used to having an early bird dinner and being in bed by 9: 00.

Well prepare the transit beam, will be heading into the fall season soon and summer will be a memory. Damn it Janet I'll miss you.