Grease (1978) and High School Musical (2006)

 

Grease

I'm not sure it would ever feel like summer without a film like Greece on the big screen. For a Nostalgia junkie like me, seeing John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John sing and dance across the picnic tables and bleachers at Rydell High, is just the ticket to enjoying an afternoon in the theater on a bright summer day.

As usual it continues to amaze me how the many more adult references in the song lyrics and story moments get pushed into the subtext. This allows families to enjoy the movie in spite of the references to heavy petting, oral sex, and assorted deviant behaviors. Most of that gets lost between the songs which are bouncy and fun, and even when they slow down are more about teenage angst than just doing it.

We lost Olivia Newton John a few years ago, and watching this film it's easy to remember how great she was, in spite of being cast outside of the age range for the character. She had a purity of voice, and a general innocent demeanor, which sold as a high school senior, in spite of the fact that she was nearly 30. The split screen duet near the beginning of the film, “Summer Loving”, was so cleverly choreographed and shot, that it feels almost as if Travolta and Newton-John were actually singing together.

The higher energy “Greased Lightning” sequence glosses over some crude references, with energy and visuals that distract from some of the language and implications. I know there's still families out there that share this film with their pre-adolescent children, and don't worry about the subtext because nobody's going to see it with all of the dazzling pretty things moving on the screen. Let's face it, it's just fun.

High School Musical

At the Paramount Summer Classic Film Series, “Grease” was paired with the Disney Channel Original film, “High School Musical”. I know I saw this when it was first shown on the Disney Channel, my kids watched it and I spent some time watching it with them, but I remembered almost nothing about the movie. Apparently I'm alone however, because the State Theater, where all the films are being screened this summer because the Paramount is under renovation, was filled with fans of this teenage film. You could hear them singing along with some of the songs and there were several adults, in their 30s, who were cheering and wooing at moments that they clearly recalled from their youth. The fact that some of it seemed coordinated, amused me to no end. I'm afraid I got more laughs from the audience's reaction to the film than from anything that happened on screen.

There's nothing wrong with High School Musical, it's just that to me, pairing it with this '70s film with two major Stars and a long history of nostalgia, it just doesn't match up. Probably just an old man's perspective on the thing, obviously the younger adults were pretty happy to be in a movie theater seeing something that they saw screening on their cable channels 20 to 25 years ago. 

I did appreciate the choreography of the basketball dancing scenes, I thought that the cheerleaders and players all did a fantastic job in working it out. But for me there wasn't any song that stood out, any line that I would be quoting for years and years, and the comedic references just don't have the same resonance.

Still I had a good time, and seeing both of the films in a double feature, on a Sunday afternoon evening in the summer, seemed like a good way to enjoy the season.

The Untouchables (1987) -2026 Re-Visit

 

This will be a perfunctory entry since I've written about seeing the film three times in the last 3 years. This is the fourth year in a row that we've had an opportunity to see The Untouchables on the big screen, like several other films that I love. I never miss an opportunity to see these movies in a theater with an audience. So much of this film works so well because it is designed as a crowd pleaser. The combination of the cast, the director and the screenwriter pretty much ensures that the movie is going to be solid.

Famously this was Sean Connery's Academy award-winning performance, and every time I watch the movie I remember why. He's great in this film. Connery however is not the only one who is terrific, Robert De Niro chews the scenery as Al Capone, Kevin Costner is in the process of turning himself into a movie star with this film, and Charles Martin Smith steals every scene that he is in. It really is a delightful film if you can use the word delightful to describe a gangster film featuring a variety of murders. In addition to the scene stealing Smith, Billy Drago plays Frank Nitty as a stone cold zombie murderer that everybody will be happy to see take a dive off the roof.

Obviously inspired by true events and just as obviously plotted by a screenwriter who needed to tell a story without being true to those events, David Mamet gives us a diverting buddy cop movie, with over the top bad guys, and a clever plot, that doesn't quite hit the ending but at that point nobody cares. Ennio Morricone, delivers one of his best scores for an American-made film. 

I appreciate the fact that the high living gangsters could all afford Armani suits. The period detail when it comes to the automobiles is also quite excellent, and the production design of Eliot Ness's home and the hotel rooms that Al Capone occupies is exquisite. 

There are three fantastic action set pieces that illustrate mastery of the cinema. DePalma stages a western style raid on the border between Canada and the US, with Mounties and gangsters on either side of a bridge. All of our four protagonists get an opportunity to shine in this sequence. The most famous scene in the movie, inspired by the “Battleship Potemkin”, is the shootout on the stairs of the train station. The tension builds with the woman trying to move her luggage and pram up the staircase as Eliot Ness looks on watching for his targets. DePalma goes into slow motion for the actual shootout, and that allows us to see how it all comes together brilliantly. Elliott Ness’s command to Stone" take him", lets us know that the evolution of the crime fighter is complete. We get one last great piece with Ness chasing Frank Nitty up to the courthouse roof finally, apprehending him and then the dispensing Justice with a great quip that evokes a horrifying laugh.

Let's face it, this movie is just terrific.

Spider-Man Brad New Day (2026) 2

 

We are well past the point where any of my opinions are going to matter on a film like this. I am completely aware that my suggestions will be superfluous, after all the movie has already made over a billion dollars and it's part of a long-standing franchise that is going to continue regardless of what I think. Nevertheless I consider it my responsibility to let people know what I thought of a movie that I saw in the theater, and I'm happy to say that I generally enjoyed the heck out of this movie. It's not quite as fun filled with the fan service that we got in the last Spider-Man film 5 years ago, but it is plenty entertaining and doesn't screw up our main characters too much.

Tom Holland may however be growing out of the role since he is much less boyish than he was when he first appeared on the scene as Spiderman in “ Captain America Civil Wars" more than a decade ago. The plot does have him growing older however, so it's not as if the filmmakers are denying the existence of time, but rather they're just trying to minimize it. 

You can get a recap of the plot from a number of other sources, let's just say that the film picks up pretty much where it needed to after the whole planet has been wiped with the memory of Peter Parker. Peter himself of course. still has his memories, which is what is torturing him a bit, because he still loves MJ and misses his best friend Ned. Having made the decision not to reconnect with them at the end of the film last time, he's had to go it on his own. There's a great sequence at the beginning of the film that reminded me of a similar sequence in “Fantastic Four First Steps”, where we see a quick montage of Spider-Man defeating a variety of his comic villains. On the Lambcast my friend Jeanette used the term “cold open villain”, to describe the secondary nature of these characters. They exist just long enough to demonstrate Spider-Man skill but they aren't worthy of an entire film. 

The lone police detective that Spider-Man has connected with, forming a relationship similar to that between Batman and Commissioner Gordon, is professionally effective but emotionally empty. This means Peter is spending a lot of time wallowing in his existential crisis. He watches Instagram posts from Ned about the lives of he and MJ as they go through MIT without him. It's only the presence of a new supervillain, a mysterious psychic, who LeapFrogs from person to person, that causes Peter to try to reconnect with his old friends.

Meanwhile Spider-Man  is also undergoing some changes as a result of his isolation. Apparently the spider DNA that is coursing through his body is following an evolutionary pattern for spiders who do end up in a solitary existence. The changes frightened Peter and move him to try to consult with somebody else who is fighting the DNA in their own body. It's not really a spoiler to tell you that this person is Dr Bruce Banner, since the character is featured in most of the promotional material for this movie.

Bruce has sound advice but it comes with a warning and as usual, Peter can't really listen to a warning, he dives right into trying to make a solution that will work. As it turns out the solution would also potentially stop the new super threat that the psychic presents. In case you haven't guessed it, that solution is a double-edged sword which may in fact hurt Peter, and can definitely be weaponized by the Department of Damage Control, the agency that is under attack from the psychic, and which has been responsible for cleaning up after alien and enhanced human confrontations. 

There are two very emotional scenes in the film, each of which is worth talking about a little bit. Peter gets two chances to confront the situation between him and MJ, one turns out to be a ruse, and the other is a quite affecting moment between the two actors on the screen. The filmmakers do a nice job confronting the situation that Peter has put himself in in relationship to MJ.  They don't have an easy answer, but they do seem to have an honest one. And if you have any romance in your heart for their relationship, it may provoke a moment where you choke up.

Even more emotional however, the clever way Peter tries to resolve the issue with our mysterious psychic. It involves a memory of a conversation that he had with his deceased aunt. Marisa Tomei returns as Aunt May and what might have been flashbacks but are really extended visions in Peter's head. The conversation that Aunt May has with the Peter possessed psychic, is likely to invoke some tears in those of us who are pretty sentimental.

As it turns out, there are other characters from the MCU that show up in the film as well. One is there for a bit of comic relief and for some narrative, but mostly just to remind us that the Avengers is still a thing. The other MCU character is providing a transition to a new set of possibilities in the Marvel Universe. Those comic book fans who know the history of the rights dispersal of MCU characters, will be salivating at the chance to maybe reconnect some formally disconnected Heroes.

There's a lot more to talk about here, and if you want to hear more from me, you can visit the Lambcast episode that I have shared, where Jeanette Ward and I spent an hour debriefing each other on our opinions and theories.

Spider-Man Brand New Day (2026)

 

For now, the Podcast is going to be my post on this film. 

Snake Eyes (1998)

 

I've said it in the past and I'll say it again now, for a period of 20 years Brian DePalma was my favorite film director. I saw all of his movies and thought they were great, even the ones that flopped at the box office. If you were ever in the mood you can visit my post on the 1984 film “Body Double" and see how I'm willing to commit to DePalma, even at his most lured and financially disappointing point.

“Snake Eyes” probably marks the beginning of the end of my DePalma era. The films that came after hardly seemed interesting, and never drew my attention in the same way. This 1998 film, with an over-the-top Nicolas Cage, and a fabulously understated Gary Sinise, shows the director's talents at staging, framing, and editing a film in a way that few others have managed to succeed at. Structurally the screenplay starts well past the real start of the story, nowadays that's fairly typical, but in 1998 it was pure DePalma.

The vast majority of the film takes place on a single night at a prize fight in Atlantic City. The former Resort town transitioned into a casino based economy, which struggles to survive while also trying to mimic Vegas. Nick Cage plays Rick Santoro, a corrupt local detective who's old friend is a naval Commander in charge of security for the visiting Secretary of Defense. Of course the string of unrelated events creates a confluence of narrative around the assassination of the secretary. The heavyweight fighter, a mysterious blonde, a local newscaster, and some low-life bookies, all are connected to Santoro and the investigation of this crime.  Everyone in attendance at the prize fight is a suspect so they are all contained inside of the Arena and the adjoining Casino. This sets up a cat and mouse scenario with Santoro trying to figure out what happened, who to trust, and of course most importantly, whether to take a payoff.

The film is full of long single shot takes, a well-known characteristic of Brian DePalma films. There are also interesting angles, shot from above, clearly inspired by the Alfred Hitchcock films that DePalma has always mined for ideas. The movie feels kinetic without ever losing its coherence. It's terrific to watch, with 90s style, and an indie attitude, in spite of its big budget and stars. It's a different kind of dirt then you'd find under the fingernails of a Tarantino film, but the styles are very similar and equally compelling on the screen.

As always, there's a conspiracy, and the principles have difficulty containing the situation when Detective Santoro becomes the fly in the ointment. Whether or not Rick is supposed to be high on cocaine, he certainly conveys such a personality. Cage has the ebullient voice, grandiose hand and arm gestures, and bug-eyed smirks, which characterize some of his most memorable characters. Gary Sinise looks great in his Naval dress uniform, but it doesn't take long for us to suss out that there is something not quite right there.

After this film was originally released it showed up regularly on pay channels that we subscribed to on our Dish TV satellite. It felt like it was on a regular rotation at the house, and my kids who were still too young to really be seeing this kind of stuff, watched it anyways, and fell in love with both Gary Sinise and Nicholas Cage. So when a chance to see this film on the big screen showed up, inevitably we were going to go and I'm so glad we did. 

This movie is wild, well shot, and a little complex. It is also vastly entertaining. I probably haven't seen it for 15 years, and I can't really understand why. The truth is I'll probably be watching it again in the next few days, because it's just that addicting. It reminds me in every shot why I loved De Palma of the 70s, 80s and 90s.

Strangers on a Train (1951)

 

Years ago I said it but I don't remember exactly who I said it to. Steven Spielberg learned all he knows about building an action scene by watching Hitchcock's “Strangers on a Train”. The movie is a slow burn with a lot of exposition but the climax is filled with the dramatic carousel chase that ends up being both humorous and truly frightening simultaneously. Hitchcock mixes close-ups with master shots and movement, along with editing to make the scene really sing. It's exactly the kind of thing that Spielberg has done in Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, and the Lost World.

This 1951 Thriller begins Hitchcock's most epic period of filmmaking.  The black and white cinematography was nominated for an Academy Award and it's almost impossible for me to believe but the truly psychotic Bruno played by Robert Walker was not nominated. Those of you not familiar with the story, it involves a chance meeting between a privileged, spoiled sociopath, and a tennis star that he admires. Bruno has an interesting theory, that the perfect way to commit a murder would be by trading murders with somebody else. That way  you could establish an alibi and there would be no way to trace back who the killer of your victim who would have no motive.. 

Farley Granger plays Guy Haynes. who has a deep resentment to the wife that he thinks he's about to divorce, but who turns out to be manipulating him simply to keep him paying for her lifestyle in spite of her infidelities. He does lash out at her in one scene but it's not murderous, it's simply frustration. Bruno however insists on carrying out his part of the plan, and once he has committed an atrocity, expects Guy to reciprocate. Guy, who is afraid of being implicated in the murder of his wife, tries to avoid Bruno and stay out of his way. But like a gracious Terminator, Walker keeps coming back into the scene. At times convivial, at other times psychotically out of control.

In a continuation of Hitchcock's habit of focusing on the wrong man, Guy looks like he could be implicated in the crime by some evidence that Bruno has kept. It's a little complicated, but the woman that Guy wants to marry, helps him plan an opportunity to catch Bruno in the act of planting evidence, thus freeing himself from the threat of a false prosecution. The tension in the third act all starts with a tennis match that needs to finish as quickly as possible. Every serve and every long volley, builds up the tension as we wonder whether or not Guy will be able to intercept Bruno in time.

Along the way in the film there are some fantastic shots, typical of Hitchcock's cleverness in framing the story. One of the most Eerie visual moments involves watching a murderer approach his victim in the lens of a pair of eyeglasses. Later in the film, there is another moment where Bruno, when demonstrating to some Society ladies,  the ease with which a person could take a life, while having a rather Twisted discussion about murder at a cocktail party, loses control and begins to  relive his moment and actually starts to strangle one of the elderly women.

Of course the plot is a little exaggerated, and there are some things that the police probably wouldn't be doing in the way we see it being done on screen. Nevertheless the story holds up and we want Guy to exonerate himself and Bruno to be punished. Since this film was made in the 1950s by an established director with a major Studio you can probably guess that it all turns out all right.

I first watched this film back in the 1980s on one of my cable channels and became fascinated with it. I've seen it several times since but always on television . It was great getting a chance to go down to the State Theater and see it on the big screen. I was a little surprised at how jovial some of the audience members were about the threats presented by the antagonist, as if they were not serious and were only comically created. I, on the other hand , watch the way an audience might have back in 1951. Horrified by the suggestion and terrified by the circumstances. But most of all ultimately thrilled by the Mastery of Alfred Hitchcock.

Modern Times (1936)

 

It's always great to see a Charlie Chaplin film but it's especially so when you get a chance to see it on the big screen. “Modern Times” isn't strictly a silent film, but there is so little dialogue that it might as well be. It contains some of the well-known visual gags of Chaplin's career. The story includes his insertion into a large manufacturing tool, and the moments when he's fed automatically by a machine designed to speed up the workplace lunch break.

The story is very episodic, and that tends to be a feature of silent films, but nevertheless it is still engaging and the presence of Paulette Goddard adds the romantic element that this type of film needs. The production design on this film is on a level equivalent to the performance of the star / director himself. The famous conveyor belt job requires the substantial movement of men, machinery, and equipment, in a sequence that requires expert timing. Today all of this would be accomplished with AI and computer graphics. To see this accomplished back in the 1930s with just human endeavor is pretty awesome.

There's plenty to laugh at in the movie, but they're also a couple of spots where your heartstrings will be tugged. There's a sequence on roller skates that is pretty phenomenal, and hysterical at the same time. I kick myself every time I see a silent film, because I, like a lot of other  people, hesitate to commit to those movies. The truth is I haven't been disappointed in a single one that I've seen, so let's make the effort to get out there more often. Charlie Chaplin was a hero of the movie industry, and everybody should see those films. 

The Odyssey (2026)

 

At this point there's probably little that I could say about the Odyssey that would change your mind one way or the other. I have seen the most diverse opinions on this film that I can think of in the last 5 years or so. On the Lambcast we had one or two people who were enthusiastic, one person who is moderately positive on the film and one person who outright thought it was terrible. These are generally well informed people and so the wide variety of opinions seems to suggest that a lot of what influences people about this movie has less to do with the filmmaking and everything to do with personal perspective.

Myself I was only vaguely familiar with the story of Odysseus and his journey back from the Trojan War. I must have watched an earlier version somewhere because so much of the story is familiar, and I doubt that that is simply because I remembered it from my sophomore year in high school. My point of view is probably strongly influenced by the fact that I respect Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker and I have been enthusiastic about every other film that he's made so far in his career. I can't say that the Odyssey is his best film, I'm not even sure it's his most ambitious, but it does have a broader scope than most of his other movies and has a lot of those elements of a travelog that makes historical epics seem so interesting.

I'll start with what I think is the best thought out segment of the movie, and that's the insertion of the Greek soldiers inside the walls of Troy through the subterfuge of a gift horse statue. Even people who have never read The Odyssey or unfamiliar with its companion piece The Iliad, are likely to know the story of the Trojan Horse in which a small platoon of Greek soldiers hides inside a massive figure of a horse left for the Trojans as a gift by seemingly departing Greek troops. Once inside the walls of Troy the soldiers come out, open the gates and let in the host of Greek soldiers who have returned to the city under the cover of a moonless night. The horse in this movie looks like something the Trojans would actually want to have in their Temple to commemorate the end of the war. It's actually a sculpted wooden figure assembled from the Timbers of the ships that the Greeks left in pieces on the shores of the Trojan Empire. It doesn't look like a creaky piece of junk furniture but rather a statue put together by artisans that looks beautiful and has been polished to a degree that it will reflect the sunlight or the moonlight. The thing that makes Nolan's telling of the story so much better is that we see inside the horse as Odysseus and his fellow Warriors struggle not to drown in the high tide, crush one another as they await their chance to strike, and try to remain silent when the horse is being moved or probed with swords. The Trojans are portrayed as being much less naive and simply not as thorough as they might have been. The trick is accomplished but it requires the pack of soldiers to endure close quarters with human waste, no real supplies, and only a hope that their trick will work.

One of the ways the Greeks try to ensure that the trick is accepted as a gift is by leaving a soldier behind to explain the purpose to the Trojans when they discover the statue. Sinon has not been told what the figure is, and dies for having the audacity to have remained behind to tell the tale. Here is one of the points of disagreement that we had in our discussion on the film: this Soldier is played by the transgendered actor / actress Elliott / Ellen Page. One of the guests on the show said that it was the best performance in the film, but Paige looks like a hundred pounds of nothing in comparison to the other soldiers / actors in the scenes. The bravery that is conveyed on the screen has more to do with the willingness of somebody of that stature to appear in this role when they are dwarfed by the other performers on the screen. Nolan has loyalty to his cast of actors, and having used Page before seems to have felt obligated to cast the performer in the film in spite of the obvious misplacement.

In my mind the best performance was by Robert Pattinson, playing Antonius, the lead suitor of Odysseus's wife Penelope. He is an unctuous , condescending youth who takes advantage of Zeus's law about courtesy and treatment of strangers. He along with dozens of other suitors treat Odysseus' home as their own while mocking the son of their host, in order to provoke a fight that would justify their own violence. I'm not sure how the structure of the original Odyssey works but here we continuously move back and forth between the Journey of Odysseus and his men and the travails of his family. 

In the adventure where Odysseus and his men are captured by the Cyclops, we are denied the dialogue that is featured in the original story. This Cyclops is portrayed as nearly silent, speaking only near the end of the episode when the sailors and soldiers are making good their escape. The visualization of the single eye makes it look more like this is a birth defect rather than a creature who evolved with a single eye. I found that a little distracting, although the image is creative and frankly quite disturbing. It is however not as disturbing as the episode when Circe the witch on her own private island, turns Odysseus's troop into a herd of pigs. This was visually the most creative moment in the movie, and the one most likely to give you nightmares. Samantha Morton plays Circe and she is a sympathetic figure in spite of her malevolent acts toward the soldiers.

Calypso is represented on screen by Charlize Theron, who is largely wasted providing exposition but not much more. Matt Damon plays our central figure Odysseus, who doubts his own heroism and as presented seems much less the leader than has been seen in previous versions of the story. Still he is a stalwart presence and he has several emotional scenes that have the appropriate impact on the story and the audience. Again for context, people on the podcast seem to dismiss his performance, but I'm willing to bet that he'll be nominated and maybe even be the favorite for the Oscars next year.

Tom Holland plays the son of Odysseus and Penelope, and at first he appears to be feckless, but as the story goes on his performance gets more authentic. John Leguizamo is the wise herdsman left by Odysseus in charge of the livestock,  and 20 years later nearly blind, is another standout in a supporting role. Maybe it's just the fact that he cares for the dog that is holding on to its life and in the hopes of his master's return, that makes him an incredibly sympathetic character.  The fact that Antonias kicks the dog, reinforces the notion that we should hate him. Anne Hathaway is very sympathetic as Penelope who has to convey her distraught in concealment while seeming to be strong on the outside.

The film is 3 hours long but I never felt its length and that's another testament to the work of Christopher Nolan. The movie is spectacularly shot in IMAX and I saw a presentation on an IMAX screen as well as a 70 mm screening. It's clear that the film wants to be a contemporary epic like Lawrence of Arabia. However great it looks though, it never reaches the emotional depths of that 1960s Epic, and although I think there is a very good theme about the morality of how we treat our enemies, it never leaves the same impression that a film like Lawrence did

Young Washington (2026)

 

As far as I'm concerned they're not enough movies about the American Revolution.  This is one of the greatest moments in history, a point when the American people chose to stand up and change the world. To go along with my frustration about a shortage of films about the revolution let me also say that they're not enough films about The Hero of the American Revolution who later became our first president. Young Washington is a film about this great American before he was an American. And frankly before he became great. Washington had several setbacks in his life, and everybody who thinks he was a privileged white guy doesn't know enough about the nature of the world in the 18th century.

This story takes place 20 years before the American Revolution. It is in fact an evolution story about The Man Who Would lead this nation into Independence. First however he had to discover his own flaws and weaknesses so that the later story would be a success. Young Washington focuses on a two year period when George served British forces in the French and Indian Wars , and carried out his duties valiantly but also made major mistakes that produced failures in his military commands.

There is plenty of excitement in the recreated battles that are depicted on the screen in this film. It's interesting to see how different Warfare was in the time period, and to see the seeds of Washington's future campaigns being planted two decades before fruition. The story is not exclusively about his military experiences but it also covers some of the striving social climbing that he was attempting and for which the social structures of the time cemented his opinion of the British system. 

The film was done on a smaller budget, and it was made by a director who has had success with more specific audiences. The fact that the movie works so well is a tribute to not just the actors but the Craftsmen and on-site technicians who always make a movie work. When you add a director who is competent and increasingly skilled in working under budgetary limitations , it is immensely satisfying to see a film like this succeed.

Admittedly the movie is not as polished as a major Blockbuster coming from a studio that had cash to burn, but the look of the movie matches up any of those things that a studio might have come up with, and I think it is edited in a way that does Justice to the facts of the tale but also the entertainment value of a film. John Erwin directed two earlier films that I did see and I enjoyed quite well,”Jesus Revolution”, about the Revival movement of the 1970s, and” American Underdog", a biopic of the great quarterback Kurt Warner. This is a much more complex movie, and he acquits himself admirably as far as I'm concerned.

William Franklyn-Miller, is the star of the film as the eager young Washington seeks his place in the world. I think this is his biggest role outside of a couple of Television Productions that he's been involved with, and it's a good introduction for me. He plays Washington, an earnest, striving, and intelligent man who has been placed in an inferior position because of his family's Birthright and the location of his family fortune. He was destined to be an outsider from the very beginning. 

Three actors playing different characters in this film all reinforce the need for Washington to break out of this traditional social hierarchy. Kelsey Grammer plays a local family patriarch who becomes something of a Patron to the young Washington. Sir Ben Kingsley, represents the bureaucratic English Empire, who stumble on the acquisition of this talented young man, but also become the source of his failures. And Andy Serkis, plays The General that young Washington serves in his most distinguished military Enterprise on the field of battle, and who for a moment Grace's Washington with the respect he deserves. 

If this picture had been made in the 1930s or 40s, it would fit in well with the biographical films of the era. Since however it is 2026, most film critics would be expecting some sort of deconstruction or reinvention of this historic character. Edwin and his fellow filmmakers stick to the facts, tell the story clearly and make it interesting.  If you care about Fidelity to history, you won't mind the absence of a comedy sidekick, smart ass anachronistic dialogue, or revisionist approach to the American story. Maybe it helps to be a patriot to admire this movie, but I think that people who see this movie are more likely to become Patriots, that's good by me.

Evil Dead Burn (2026)

 

For almost 40 years I've been a fan of the Evil Dead series. The Original Trilogy featuring Bruce Campbell is the most entertaining horror mixed with comedy films that I have seen and that includes “Shaun of the Dead” . I was also a big fan of the reboot in 2012 that took the Grim story of demon possession to a straightforward horror film without the presence of our heroic character Ash.

This film and its predecessor however go a long way toward making me question whether or not I should be seeing any future Evil Dead films. In addition to lacking very much humor, “Evil Dead Rise” and this film, “Evil Dead Burn” lack characters that you care much about and the films  go over the top in ways that suggest that there isn't any good storytelling available to the filmmakers.

The technical aspects of this film are solid. The makeup effects and the various and sundry deaths and injuries are rendered in all too believable detail. So the incompetence of this movie has nothing to do with the technical abilities of the filmmakers but with their storytelling skills. This movie wants you to try and remember that there is a narrative structure but it mostly ignores that so that we just get from point to point to wallow in the most graphic and unpleasant visual images you'll probably see on the screen this year.  It's bad enough to have a body whose face gets smashed in, but then to have another character forced to shove their face into the smashed in face of the Dead character, well it's just unnecessary. This movie is full of the unnecessary gross flourishes that the filmmaker seems to believe  would make a horror film fun. They are wrong, this was not fun, it did not horrify me so much as gross me out. You could probably accomplish the same effect by filming somebody taking a dump, looking up through a glass table that they're pooping on. 

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

This time instead of an apartment building or a cabin in the woods we have a decrepit old mansion that the living are occupying as the dead try to take over. Frankly the biggest problem that I have with this film is that I forgot so much of what happened. I've been guilty of posting the last few entries about a movie days or even weeks after seeing that film. What happened here in this movie did not benefit from that pause but rather clarified for me how dull and boring the story really was. 

I didn't hate this movie, but I didn't love it either and from the point of view of the Evil Dead series, that seems to be a pretty important failure. Sam Rami and Bruce Campbell were both executive producers on this movie. , but they seem to have had very little creative input and somebody should have told the writers and the director that action needs to move a little quicker to have more zip to it

The Death of Robin Hood (2026)

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Toy Story 5 (2026)

 

Disclosure Day (2026)

 

007 Video Essay Project-#2 From Russia With Love

 

A second slice of pie for the 007 fans out there. 

Masters of the Universe (2026)

 For this film I am simply going to post the illustrated podcast from the LAMBcast. I worked on it for several days, through computer glitches and household upturns, and I’m proud of the result and too tired to write a review as well.

Pressure (2026)

 

What started out as a boutique experience at the movies for us turned into one of the most compelling films of the year. We saw this film while we were in New York City for a wedding, and it was a last-minute choice on our part because it was playing at an AMC theater and we have the A-list pass so it just seemed like a fun idea to go to a movie in the Big Apple. This is a relatively small film about one of the biggest events of the last century: the invasion of Europe by Allied Forces to defeat the Nazis. The plot revolves around one of the smallest details imaginable but one that is crucial to the events that take place.  This is a movie about a weather forecast.

Brendan Fraser returns to the screen as General Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme commander of Allied Forces in World War II. He and the Brain Trust of the allies are planning the invasion of Normandy for time and secrecy. I thought Frasier's performance was very effective and probably close to the way Eisenhower must have felt at the time. Although I'm reasonably well first in the history of the war I was not particularly aware of the drive run failure that Eisenhower took responsibility for when Friendly Fire killed a number of Allied troops. The uncertainty of War is thus introduced as a key element of the story here. The general is looking to replace his own doubts with confidence in data that he doesn't really understand. The inability to trust your own decision making and look for other information that's going to help you to choose is what makes this movie compelling. 

Andrew Scott plays Captain James Stagg, a meteorologist for the British army who is trusted implicitly by Churchill but whose brittle demeanor and prickly personality alienates him from his Allied meteorologist and the chain of command that ends with Eisenhower.  Everybody who has read about World War II will have some understanding about the timing of the invasion. Operation Overlord had to be delayed because of a storm, it turns out however that the storm was not really well predicted and that the English meteorologist who had a better understanding of the North Atlantic weather patterns was the one Authority the military should be relying on. It's always interesting to me when an historical event that people know the outcome of can be presented with some suspense in spite of the fact that we know how things ended up.

The title pressure refers not only to the weather pattern but to the choices that were faced by General Eisenhower and by Captain stag. Ike is looking for certainty where none is possible, but the meteorologist working for the Americans wants to provide that certainty. The British captain, on the other hand, recognizes that such certainty is not possible when it comes to the weather of the North Atlantic. That does not however mean there is no confidence in his predictions. His perceived arrogance combined with his prickly manner, make it difficult for others to trust him in spite of his wisdom.

This is a modestly budgeted film that features a lot of talking and rooms filled with data sheets and War plans. The setting is the headquarters of the American expeditionary Force, a beautiful estate that seems like the perfect setting for observing the weather. There are a few battle sequences that concern The Invasion much of that however gravel footage. There are a few second unit set pieces to illustrate how the weather affected the invasion, but this remains for the most part a suspense film based on the conflicts between men who are all under a high degree of stress.

I have a weakness for films that move me emotionally. That's really why I go to the movies, to feel something. Sure there are times when those emotions are manipulated and if it is done in a heavy-handed way it could create a little bit of resistance to the film. That is not what is happening in this movie. The true nature of the cause is enough to inspire us. The drama between the two men at the heart of the story is compelling enough to keep us glued to the screen. The performances seem honest enough to make our emotional reactions feel sincere. More than 80 years after the events depicted in the film I can still feel a sense of pride in the men and women who made such a significant difference in the world. Thank goodness they could sustain themselves through the pressure.

The Mandolorian and Grogu (2026)

 

A Star Wars movie used to bring out huge crowds enthusiastic acolytes in an energy level that would be hard to match. Those days are long gone primarily because the movie going experience is changed so much in the last 50 years. Next year we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the original Star Wars, which had the cultural impact of the nuclear bomb on Hollywood and the youth culture. This new Star Wars film The Mandalorian and Grogu, it certainly not going to have that kind of impact. This is an adaptation of an IP created for the Disney Channel after it acquired the Star Wars property.

The Mandalorian has been a successful streaming series for Disney Plus, and in many ways it recreates some of the emotional touchstones of the original franchise. There are characters that we get a chance to know and care about although frankly the emotional depth of those characters is less than it should be. The benefit however is that we are a little more invested in what happens and are not just there for the spectacle, although frankly the spectacle is pretty spectacular.

Mandalorian and Grogu is a standalone feature enjoyed by anyone with a passing familiarity to the Star Wars universe. You do not have to be particularly invested in the three seasons of the show before you see this film. If you've seen any of the other Star Wars movies then you are relatively well prepared for what comes here. Like the original film which has subsequently been dubbed A New Hope, the Mandalorian and Grogu is a straightforward Western plot setting outer space. We know who the good guys are we can identify the bad guys, and there are a lot of other characters who show up that we can enjoy regardless of which side they end up on. 

There is a three act structure in the film; they really seem to focus on three story arcs that probably would have been episodes of the TV series. The cold open, extends the sequence long enough to have probably covered three episodes before we move on to the main villains of the season. The second act introduces key characters that are going to be in play for the rest of the film, and we get some good set pieces that take advantage of new technologies. In a call back to the original Star Wars there is a gladiator style contest that looks like it is a real world version of the game that R2D2 and Chewbacca play on the Millennium Falcon in Star Wars. Only in this instance do we have life-sized creatures facing off against each other and our heroes. And later turns into a chase with these creatures in the film Noir environment but the movie seems to be emulating. If you took Bob Hoskins out of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and dropped him into Blade Runner you would have the second act of this film, as the Mandalorian is in Pursuit of a gangster who is also part of a revived Galactic Empire movement. 

When that section of the film ends we get reconnected to the true big bads of the film, the evil twins who were brother and sister to Jabba the Hutt. A lot like Han Solo the Mandalorian ends up disfavored by the huts and captured to be tortured and killed. It is up to Grogu to manufacture I'll rescue and that takes up the last third of the film. There's nothing wrong with the three story arcs, but it does make it feel as if this is a condensed version of a 9 or 10 hour series of episodes.

There are plenty of other callbacks in the film both to the original Star Wars franchise into cross-pollinating Disney Plus Star Wars series. People who are fans of those series will probably be excited to see some of the characters that show up but folks who haven't seen all of those other shows will not be too confused by what's taking place. It's safe to see this film without having completed all of your homework. I was not on the episode of the Lambcast where we covered this movie. But my fellow Lambs expressed the same sorts of feelings I had about the movie! It is generally delightful, a little derivative, and maybe not as well structured as it could be, but you don't care because you're having a good time watching a Star Wars movie, and it's fun.

Moulin Rouge (2001) Revisit Paramount Summer Classic Film Series

 

I've actually seen the musical theater presentation of Moulin Rouge more frequently in the last couple of years than I have the film.  So it was a real treat to get a screening as part of the Paramount summer classic film festival. This was our first return to the Paramount Theater for the summer season, and of course it will be a brief return because the theater is closing down for 11 months for renovation. Screenings will continue next door at the State Theater, which will be pursuing renovations after the Paramount is done.

There is a cacophony of sounds in Moulin Rouge, times can be overwhelming. There are however other moments of quiet Melody that said a tone of romance very effectively. The juxtaposition of these two styles can be jarring at times, which probably accounts for the fact that not everybody cares much for this film. I on the other hand appreciate the effort to do something authentically different well at the same time appealing to an audience with familiar songs and music.

The tone of the film is occasionally comic, but usually it is overwhelmingly sincere in spite of its simplistic supposedly bohemian themes. Nicole Kidman was at the Apex of her beauty when this film was made. Not that she doesn't continue to be a lovely presence on screen, but this was a moment in time when her appearance could almost be described as created by artificial intelligence. Stunningly, she also has a very nice voice and conveys power and emotion with the songs that she sings. The Old Chestnut that Marilyn Monroe made famous, Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend, is used continuously throughout the film to reflect the amoral attitudes of the gold diggers who populate the chorus in the film. We are however supposed to sympathize with them because after all they are exploited by others who are well off. To me the pretentious themes of the Bohemians feels like a long-term joke, that is playing out again a century after the events depicted in this film.

Ewan McGregor also has a naturally developed singing voice that carries a lot of the narrative of this jukebox Musical. He also is a handsome spectacle that would be enticing to that part of the audience drawn to a vibrant young man. For me the most fun in the movie is trying to discern which song is having its chorus or verse edited into The Continuous stream of exposition in the form of music. Those of you who know me will understand how I was delighted when a kiss song appears in the film.  Director Baz Luhrmann has consistently found innovative ways to make movies look different. There is some criticism of his style because although his movies look different from other people's films, they sometimes seem reminiscent of his own. Since he isn't producing films on a yearly basis I don't find that problematic.

In addition to the music the visuals of the film combine practical stage sets with miniatures and traditional optic effects to make the movie look spectacular( spectacular). Sometimes there's sepia-toned filters, occasionally soft focus camera work, and frequently there is dynamic use of light to make the screen come alive. All of it is accentuated by bright colors, particularly Reds, which hold our attention and stimulate our emotions.  

Is salt on our auditory senses can be overwhelming, which might make the movie Something of a chore for some moviegoers. Accounts for the reason I've not seen the film much since it opened 25 years ago. We first acquired the DVD of the film the year it was in theaters and my kids watched it frequently for the next couple of years, but they moved on to other movies and by 05, we were done with this for the most part. In the last couple of years however, my youngest daughter has become a theater kid, and on one of our trips to New York City, we saw Moulin Rouge with the original leads of the stage Musical reprising their roles. Just last year Broadway Austin presented the touring version of the musical here at the Bass Concert Hall, and we attended that as well.

The nostalgia that comes from watching a movie that was so distinctive 25 years ago and to which my children were devoted for a period of time was one of the main reasons I enjoyed are screening this last month. The movie is still a technical Marvel in an artistic gamble that I think pays off, but I will admit that it will not be something I rush out to see again. I need to catch my breath.