Tag Archives: Movies

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 13, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Hamnet (2025)

My immediate reaction to this film was to put it in the context of the award competing films for the year. It is of course a simple hyperbole to say that if “One Battle After Another” wins the Best picture award over this movie, I will burn Hollywood to the ground. This movie is so much more thoughtful, artful and well performed that it should be in it’s own category, to which the Paul Thomas Anderson movie is never given admission. I already said I did not care for that other movie in my review back in September, this film gives me another chance to diss that movie by making the unfavorable comparison.

Enough though of the movie I did not care for, let me sing the praises of this movie which I admire immensely. “Hamnet” tells us a two love stories and does so through a tragedy. Much like a Shakespearean work, the touching personal story of love is filtered through an event of tragic proportions. The screenplay divides the progress of the story into distinct acts, but they are not labeled that way in the film. Director Chloé Zhao, uses a simple black screen to transition from one segment to another, a technique that may seem alien to hyperkinetic films of this era, but one that keeps the focus on the characters and the story and not on the visual style of the director. There are plenty of other opportunities for Zhao to leave an impression elsewhere.

The first third of the film slowly introduces us to the two characters that form the center of the story. Paul Mescal plays William Shakespeare, who will one day be recognized as one of the most influential geniuses in history. The other is Agnes Hathaway, historically referred to as Anne and pronounced in the film as Annis. In a performance that defies the concept of  mere acting, Jesse Buckley inhabits this fierce woman, a healer from a woodsman background, who oozes supernatural maternal abilities and a romantic essence that far exceeds mere physical beauty.  I have been a fan of this actress since I saw her in “Wild Rose”, and although I have not cared much for some of the subsequent films she has appeared in, my qualms were never about her work. Here, she elevates the brilliant screenplay with a earthy personality and a strength of character that will live in you memory for a long time. That’s right, the spouse of the greatest playwright in history, is the character you will care the most about. That is not to diminish the performance of Mescal, who is also excellent, but to recognize that the character and the actress in this film are the core of the story. 

The love story between these two characters takes up the opening segments of the film. The second love story is the adoration that they have for their children and the love that the children have for them and one another. In spite of Will’s need to be in London for his profession, he maintains a strong relationship with the family he has left at home. That regular separation however becomes a keystone moment i the story when personal tragedy strikes. Will and Agnes are estranged by the bitterness that follows and the recrimination she bestows on him for his inability to be with them always. It is the hurtful expression of that failing that motivates the most well known and prolific plays, the tragedy of “Hamlet”. 

As usual, I don’t want to give too much away, but the two main characters have different coping mechanisms when facing death. Agnes has a naturalistic view of the afterlife that is not based in religion per say but in the folklore that she subscribes to.  There is a beautiful scene where the family commemorates the passing of her beloved hawk, a pet she has cared for over many years. That approach fails her when faced with an even larger loss. It is Shakespeare who finds a way for the two of them to remember their cherished loved one, in a way that keeps the promise that Agnes made to him. 

The story plays out slowly, with character details taking up more time than plot incidents. This is a film that is the antithesis of  action films these days, but also comedies and dramas. We have to understand the people in the story for the events to have their full weight. The methodical buildup of family relations, the measured pace of the life they lead, and the lingering moments of beauty in the film are not things that you will encounter very often in contemporary movies. Much to the detriment of the movie going experience. 

For more about this film, watch for this weeks episode of the LAMBcast.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

December 5, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Zootopia 2 (2025)

I barely remembered the original “Zootopia” film from 2016. That is nine years ago, a long time for a sequel, and for a group of kids, forever. Imagine you saw this when you were eight, and loved it. Now imagine you are seventeen and a new edition is coming out. Do you think kids in their late teens are going to relate to the movie the same way they did nearly a decade earlier? I doubt it. So how is this going to work? It’s simple, Make the film completely independent of what happened in the first movie, and that’s what Disney has done. 

The original film had pretentions of social relevance, using animals as allegories for human prejudice. If there were a Disney film that you could point to with a social justice agenda, “Zootopia” would be it.  In “Zootopia 2” however, almost all of that intersectional thought has been put into one minor basket, and the film is now replete with animal puns, takeoffs on memes and references to other movies, almost all of which provoke a chuckle without an inkling of Social Justice. This is a buddy cop movie with fur.

The original characters of Judy the rabbit and Nick the fox, are back, and now they are partners in the police department of Zootopia. They are treated as rookies and the accomplishments they made in the first film are memory holed by the other cops so that the new partners can be belittled, and shunted to the side on important police actions. Judy of course is never going to be side lined and Nick is never going to be perturbed by anything. They are the usual mis match of Type A and Gen Z. A new plot crops up and of course, the duo are destined to get involved. It feels surprisingly like a Lethal Weapon film, only without the bloody violence. A ton of secondary characters weave in and out of the story, providing comic relief and plot points along the way. The fact that the new Mayor is the opposite of  a mare, is a joke that will probably be missed, but with Patrick Warburton supplying the voice of the equine executive, who cares? he almost steals every scene he is in with his mane. 

The convoluted plot is really just an excuse to run our heroes through a series of fun chases through the different parts of Zootopia, so that we can get in jokes about as many species as possible. The aversion to reptiles is as close as the movie comes to making any social comment, and the snake images are fun when we get to the climate control McGuffin that powers the plot. Ginnifer Goodwin and Jason Bateman are holding onto the original character voices and doing as much as a voice actor can to bring life to the animated critters. 

The movie is good looking, and the music is fun, but if does feel long for a film directed at kids. There is actually more stuff that the adults will appreciate. My very young grand niece and nephew were a little antsy halfway through the film, but their Mom and Dad seemed to be engaged. It is a solid film, but I don’t expect to remember it any better tahn the first film, regardless of how much money it makes.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 21, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

The Running Man (2025)

The sense of relief I will have when this review gets posted is hard to explain. I have been as many as seven films behind in my goal to post on all my theatrical experiences. In addition to the number of films, there is the time delay from when I saw the movie to when a post finally went up, three weeks has been the longest I have ever fallen behind but now I am past that. This movie I saw two nights ago, and it will complete my most recent backlog of posts.

“The Running Man” was originally adapted for Arnold Schwarzenegger back in the 1980s. It was a pretty cheesy film, even for the times, but on a recent revisit, I thought it was much better than I remembered. The costumed killers that pursue Ben Richards were laughable, but they were fun. The themes of media manipulation and totalitarian control were however very nicely presented, and at least in the former, very prescient. This new version trods the same path, but with less wit and more complications than the original version had. It is however, still a lot of fun.

I have been a fan of Edgar Wright as a director for a while, the “Cornetto Trilogy” is a go to whenever I want to be entertained. I was disappointed when he walked away from “Ant-Man”, but I can still see the influence that he had on that film. I am a little surprised to say that the new version of the “Running Man” while certainly quite good, does not feel particularly like a Wright film. There are some particularly good stunt sequences in the film, but I did not find them as manically amusing as the chases in “Baby Driver” or the combat in “Scott Pilgrim”. They felt for the most part as if they could have been created by any of the talented action directors that churn out so many other films. My sense of heightened enjoyment was muted as a result.

Of the advantages that Wright’s film has over it’s predecessor, I would say the acting and the effects are the things that make this movie something you should see. I think Glen Powell is a solid actor, but his part here is too straight for the humor I was hoping for. Colman Domingo however leans into his role as the Network Host who can hype up an audience, bend the truth to stir emotions, and take what he is given and turn it into ratings. It was clear he was enjoying the part. The same can also be said for the most part for Josh Brolin, who as the network head with all the power, is venal, manipulative and gleeful while being so. Powell is not a weak link, his role is just not as strong during the chase sequences as it was in the first act of the film. 

The scale of the chase is vastly broader in this version of the story, and that helps quite a bit in making the film feel fresh. The special effects and video surveillance elements of the story are even stronger. While it does go over the top in the plane sequence in the third act, it was easy to believe a lot of the process of the chase in the main part of the film. The vehicles, weapons and media all project a near future that is believable.  The A.I. part of the story is to me, the most frightening element of the themes. Someone else can manipulate your persona with some technological wizardry. Unfortunately, that sort of technology is mostly available now and it is easily accessible. I see posts on Facebook that look like they could be Network Promos from this film. Reality is the victim in both the fiction of this story and in the contemporary world.

Because it lacks the outlandish characters of the 1980s film, this movie does not stand out from a bunch of other sci fi action films that have proliferated in the past couple of years. They are fine, but lack enough uniqueness to make them essential. This film is solid but you will find lots of films in the same milieu without even looking hard. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 21, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Nuremberg (2025)

This was a film I had almost no expectations for, after hearing nearly nothing about it. There was a paid trailer in a pre show movie presentation at another film, and that was the first time I was aware of it’s existence. The world has changed in massive ways when the presence of two Academy Award winning actors, in the same film, working with one another in most of the critical scenes, is not something the media is writing about, publicity is not building up, and the stars are not being showcased in countless venues. I am happy to say however, that I made the trek to the theater to see this, and I was very impressed with the screenplay and performances.

To begin with, the trials at Nuremberg are put into a different context than one might assume. Justice Robert Jackson of the U.S. Supreme Court is a key figure in creating a framework for holding these trials in the first place. International rules of conduct did not exist, leaving a void when it came to justifying the punishments that the Nazi regime so clearly deserved. Michael Shannon gives us an intellectual legal scholar who is quiet, moral, and in some ways just over his head. Shannon gives Jackson dignity but also shows his willingness to manipulate the circumstances to fit his frame of reference. He is portrayed as a character who strives for justice, but gets stranded by the limitations his side created. The best moments of Shannon’s performance are in his cross examination of Hermann Goring. His confident expression and attitude evaporate as he is flummoxed by Goring on the stand. While he is largely successful in confronting the number two Nazi, there is just enough ambiguity in the evidence to allow Goring to weasel his way out of accepting responsibility, and the look of defeat that Shannon puts on Jacksons face, is just at the right level. Richard Grant gets to save the day and the face of Jackson by following up with relevant questions that show Goring’s duplicity. The relief on Shannon’s face is discernable. 

Rami Malek plays the psychologist Douglas Kelly, who is assigned to evaluate the prisoners and try to ensure their participation in the process by keeping them from killing themselves. He is able to convey earnestness and subterfuge very effectively on his angular face. The doctor is creating a friendly relationship with the most loathsome man on the planet, in order to protect the allies’ integrity in the process. While he never seems to fall into the trap of sympathizing with the monster, he does avoid becoming the monster himself by treating his patient as a human being, a tough accomplishment.  Dr. Kelly has some mixed motives because this opportunity might give him a chance to write a book which could secure a legacy in the field of psychology. Malek’s role is the volatile part in the screenplay. He rants at the mistakes he sees the command making, he jousts with his patient both seriously and playfully, and he succumbs to emotions when dealing with Goring’s family.

When I say the elephant in the room is Russel Crowe’s performance as Hermann Goring, I could understand why someone would think I was fat shaming him. I have joked on my podcast a few times, that Crowe as a movie star makes my own visage much easier to accept. He looks like me not like Maximus or Jim Braddock. The fact that Goring was corpulent is a part of the story, as his health  is a plot point. Crowe manages to suggest some vigor still in spite of playing the obese Reichsmarschall. Goring was described by Kelly as a narcissist, which was certainly true, and Crowe portrays him as an extremely confident and self assured antagonist. He is not leaning into a preening cock of the walk display of superiority, but rather an intellectual  skilled at gamesmanship, who is potentially going to sew doubt in the validity of the premise of the trials in the first place. There is never any doubt he would be executed, but what it would mean, depends on him being revealed as the indifferent monster he was. Crowe gives his best performance in a decade, showing us a man who has convinced himself that he has done no wrong, in spite of being responsible for the murder of millions.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention the solid work of Leo Woodall who plays the Sargent who is translator and ultimately confidant to Dr. Kelly. Justice Jackson’s words give us the legal grounds for what transpired, but Sgt. Triest, as a Jewish German refugee, in the U.S. Army, provides the moral foundation that the audience will relate to. His quiet fury and desire for vengeance on one of the accused in particular, certainly seems justified, and his temperate decision at the end of the story, speaks volumes about the quality of the American’s engaged in this precedent setting trial. 

This was a thoroughly engaging film, with some intellectual heft and some fantastic performances. In earlier times, it would easily have been an awards contender and be named as one of the best films of the year. The standards by which movies are judged has shifted in the last few years, and it is likely that because the targets of this morality play are so easily already identified, the weight of it’s value will be diminished. That is too bad. I however, am not compelled to adhere to a “correct” thinking standard, I I will just say, this is an excellent film, and your time spent with it will be worth twice that of some of the current awards contenders. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 13, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

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.

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.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 8, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

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. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 6, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

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. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 6, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

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. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

November 6, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

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. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 24, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

1 Comment

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 Movie 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.