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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
