Change Your Image
view_and_review
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Tiger Shark (1932)
Gratitude is not Love
"Tiger Shark" is a romance, so let me get the lame part out of the way first: there's a love triangle-the tried and true crutch of the lazy writer.
Mike Mascarenhas (Edward G. Robinson) was the skipper of a tuna boat based in San Diego. He was a braggart and a liar, but he was a good natured braggart and liar. In fact, he was a good guy all around. He lost his hand to a shark saving his friend and shipmate, Pipes (Richard Arlen), from said shark.
But Mike couldn't save his crewmate Manuel (William Ricciardi). Manuel fell in the shark infested waters and became shark food. He left behind a daughter named Quita (Zita Johann) that Mike began checking in on and taking care of.
Eventually he asked Quita to marry him. Quita told him she didn't love him, but that she'd still marry him out of gratitude. If I've learned anything from 1930's movies, it's that marrying out of gratitude is no bueno. She will find love later and then be in misery.
And that's what happened. When she laid eyes on Pipes, and he laid eyes on her, you could see the connection. You could see the predestined problems coming a mile away. In no time they were in love with each other which made Quita, like soooooo many women in love with someone other than their husband, a tortured woman. Oh the agony of being married to one man while loving another, especially when she doesn't want to hurt the man she's married to. No woman should have to suffer so, but it happens to millions of women worldwide every year. Women everywhere, with their soft hearts and susceptibility to falling in love, fall in love with multiple men and find themselves trapped. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
In Hollywood they have ways out of such situations. There's the yield. That's when one of the two persons yields to the other out of consideration of the one they both love. There's the exposure. If one of the two persons happens to be ignoble, then he/she is exposed. And then there's the removal. One of the two persons is removed from the triangle, usually by death, but sometimes by other things such as a prison sentence.
"Tiger Shark" was a two category solution of the love triangle. Mike was bitten by a shark when he fell into the water. When he was pulled onto the boat he was critically injured. He then yielded and conceded his wife Quita to Pipes (presumably because he was dying). He then died immediately after. In that sense there was a yield as well as a death. The yield was to allay the guilt of Quita and Pipes for falling in love with each other. The death was to ensure that Mike was completely out of the picture without the messy issue of divorce and all that. Quita and Pipes could then live happily ever after.
Free on YouTube.
The Night of June 13 (1932)
The 'Burbs
"The Night of June 13" was a bit different as a murder mystery because there was no murder. There was a suicide, however. It was a suicide that should've been an open and shut case, which is why the movie irked me so much.
John Curry's wife, Elna (Adrianne Allen), committed suicide because she thought her husband was cheating on her. She left a suicide note so there'd be no question as to her reasoning. When her husband, John (Clive Brook), found her lying on the kitchen floor with a gun by her hand, he grabbed the gun to--I suppose--verify she used the gun on herself (I'm both asking and making a statement).? The moment he grabbed the gun I thought, "Well you just made yourself the number one suspect."
He followed that up by burning her suicide note because... I guess because it mentioned the other woman, Trudie Morrow (Lila Lee), which he was NOT having an affair with. Once I saw the one-two combo of grabbing the gun and burning the note I knew it was assured that he'd be charged with his wife's murder.
His trial should've gone well because he wasn't even at home when Elna killed herself, but his trial happened to be the perfect storm of neighborly lying and deceit. The witnesses who could alibi him weren't at the trial to alibi him, and the witnesses who were at the trial all lied for one self-centered reason or another. It was truly frustrating to watch; not because the witnesses lied, but because of why they lied. They were such petty reasons AND their lies could've been easily doctored to mirror the truth without being 100% true.
"Are these adults?" is the thought that kept running through my head. I guess the movie was more of a critique of the average suburban neighborhood where everyone's got secrets but puts up a pretense of holier than thou. I could see that element, but it was so hackneyed and sophomoric that it was hard to like.
As far as the acting, it was fine. Clive Brook is always good IMO. Lila Lee brought her A game, as did Mary Boland and even Adrianne Allen. Frances Dee was serviceable, Charles Ruggles was OK, while Gene Raymond is always a stiff to me. I think he relied on his looks because I have yet to see a movie in which he impressed, and this is the tenth movie I've seen him in. All in all, acting wasn't the issue. The issue was the script. It failed to deliver.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
The Devil Is Driving (1932)
Forgettable
"The Devil is Driving" is one of those movies you forget the instant it's over. There was nothing special or unique about it.
A guy named Gabby Denton (Edmund Lowe) went to work for his brother-in-law, Beef Evans (James Gleason). Beef ran a garage and he was subletting part of it to a gangster named Jenkins (Alan Dinehart). Jenkins used the garage to strip down stolen vehicles. Gabby was firmly against the idea. Beef had his reservations, but the money was too good to pass up.
Things got tense in there when a pair of gangsters hit Beef's son, Buddy (Dickie Moore), as they were racing to get a vehicle into the garage. Why a four-year-old was crossing a busy New York street on a toy car is beyond me. Even if he did have the assistance of a crossing guard, a busy New York street is not a playplace for kids.
This is probably where I get the lecture from old heads talking about how my generation is soft.
The movie ran rather predictably, especially with the love story. Gabby swore he was done with dames because they only left him broke. That was a telltale sign that he was going to hook up with some standard screen-beauty.
A woman named Silver (Wynne Gibson) filled that part. She was thrown into the movie for no other reason than to be the romantic interest. The two of them were thrust together so haphazardly and awkwardly.
He met her at the scene of an accident. He was dispatched to go out and tow her car. They had an adversarial beginning, but that's also a typical first encounter for eventual lovebirds. As much as they were butting heads, and as much of an ass as Gabby was being, within ten minutes Silver liked him. There was no segue or pleasant words exchanged, she simply changed her mood.
Then, a few scenes later, she requested him to bring her keys up to her apartment when he dropped off her repaired vehicle. She practically threw herself at him in spite of his indifferent and childish behavior. Before he left her apartment the two were in love.
Of course, she played a significant role in helping him later, but God forbid she be in the movie to help the protagonist withOUT being his sweetheart as well. It's like the two things are wholly incongruous and incompatible.
Like I said, "The Devil Is Driving" is a forgettable movie. It's worth watching if you're a fan of Edmund Lowe, but not for anything more than that.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Symphony of Six Million (1932)
Great Story, Bad Acting and Soundtrack
"Symphony of Six Million" would've been a good movie but for the stage acting and the overbearing musical score. It was essentially about staying true to your roots, which is always appreciated, but it wasn't executed well.
The main character was Dr. Felix Klauber (Ricardo Cortez), a New York doctor from Jewish immigrant parents. He was happy serving the people at the local clinic for peanuts until his brother, Magnus Klauber (Noel Madison), convinced their mom, Hannah (Anna Appel), that Felix needed to move out of the ghetto and serve the wealthy folks for a nice payday. It was strange how engrossed and concerned Magnus was about Felix. It was as if Felix's success was his own success.
Hannah convinced her son Felix to leave the ghetto and make a name for himself. Because of his love and deference towards his mother, he did just that--leaving behind the kids of the clinic and his sweetheart, Jessice (Irene Dunne).
I normally like Ricardo Cortez, but it was clear to me he was acting under some bad direction. Perhaps they all were. Their words and actions looked too deliberate and scripted, which is not what a movie should be going for.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Silver Dollar (1932)
Horace A.W. Tabor
"Silver Dollar" seemed so close to a biopic I had to look it up to see if Yates Martin (played by Edward G. Robinson) was a real person. It turns out that "Silver Dollar" was based upon the life of H. A. W. Tabor, known to his Colorado associates as Haw Tabor.
Yates Martin was a foolish man who lucked into money in "Silver Dollar." He spent money wantonly in order to be popular, much to the chagrin of his smarter, more fiscally conservative wife, Sarah Martin (Aline MacMahon). Yates was so greedy for wealth and attention that it made him a sucker. He chased one mine after another based upon the spurious words of random prospectors. It was Sarah who convinced him to open a store to cater to the prospectors as opposed to him chasing mines himself, but he couldn't even do that right. He was extending credit to EVERYONE, which made him well-liked, but broke. There was one pair of prospectors whom he waived their tab entirely in exchange for a third of what they mined. It was a dumb deal that just so happened to pan out.
Yates went on chasing wealth and fame until he chased another dame named Lily Owens (Bebe Daniels). Truthfully, she was pursuing him and she knew just what to say to get him. She stroked his ego so expertly that he left his wife and married Lily. It was just one more moronic move of the many he'd made, but don't let anyone tell you that every rich person is smart. Even idiots make money sometimes.
As much as I like Edward G. Robinson, I hated his character. He was such a clout chaser that I couldn't respect him. Then, when he left his very good and faithful wife for a shinier object who found him on the mountain top after Sarah made the climb with him, I really disliked him. Having said that, because the movie so mirrored what can be found on historycolorado,org, I can't be too mad. They faithfully followed the available information on H. A. W. Tabor, too bad he wasn't more likable.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Stage Mother (1933)
Spot On
Kitty Lorraine (Alice Brady) was one of those parents that drives their children to be something they may or may not want to be. Kitty was in the entertainment biz so she wanted her daughter, Shirley (Maureen O'Sullivan), to be in the entertainment biz. As a result, she dominated her life. She made every decision for her and had her whole life mapped out. She would live vicariously through her daughter, and she was indicative of millions of other parents out there.
We tend to hear about the sports parents, or the stage parents because their children become famous and let the world know about their upbringing. We don't hear about those sports parents or stage parents whose children never made it big. We also don't hear about the doctor parents, lawyer parents, or other career parents who drive their children just as hard.
Shirley didn't have a normal childhood, and what's worse is that when she became a young adult, she was just as attached to her mother as when she was a child. It's like once the parents get their hooks into their children they never let them go.
I thought "Stage Mother" was spot on. The movie focused on lost love due to mothering which was following with the sentiments of that era. If a (s)mother(er) was going to make her daughter miss out on anything back then it would be love, not another career or simply being happy. Shirley's happiness had to be directly attributable to the man she fell in love with and it would've been sacreligious to think her happiness came from some other source.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Golden Harvest (1933)
Farmers v. Bankers
"Golden Harvest" is a movie that pits the farmers against the bankers, the growers against the speculators, Grove Street against Wall Street. It attempted to show how one man's losses could be another man's gains by showing how men in the market could get rich by farmers starving.
A man from a farm family named Chris Martin (Chester Morris) left the family business to become a city slicker. He didn't fancy farm life and he wanted out. He went to Chicago where he tried his hand at investing and became successful. His knowledge of wheat farming helped him in correctly speculating when to buy or sell stocks in wheat.
Meanwhile, his family and other farmers were back home losing their shirts. The price of wheat was coming down so low the farmers couldn't even afford their mortgages.
It was an interesting Cliff Notes version of how farms and the markets have a symbiotic relationship with the businessmen having an outsized amount of power. Chris's brother, Walt (Richard Arlen), seemed to think that he (Chris) could do a lot more for the price of wheat than what was realistic. I think Chris was more symbolic as one man playing the role of investor as though he was representative of many investors. One investor is not going to be able to move market prices unless his name is Warren Buffet.
The funny thing about "Golden Harvest" is that in a way it is anti-capitalism, which I think was a strong sentiment among the common man during the Depression. In a purely capitalistic society, every farmer without significant solvency would be eaten up by banks and creditors, but in the end the government stepped in to prevent small-time farmers from getting crushed by men in the markets who could keep the price of wheat sufficiently suppressed.
I thought the ending of "Golden Harvest" was a lot more realistic and in line with what would have to happen. Chris, almost like Arthur Rothschild did in "The House of Rothschild," tried to hold up the price of wheat by buying when everyone else was selling. It was akin to falling on his sword for the poor farmers. However, unlike Arthur Rothschild, Chris went belly up. He was one man versus the entire market.
I appreciated the realism with such a move. He was bound to go bankrupt trying to prop up the price of wheat, but it made the sacrifice all the greater. "Golden Harvest" captured just one aspect of the farmer's struggle, but it made so much sense. Sure, the movie could've been better, but I think Chester Morris made it worthwhile.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Blood Money (1933)
Needs More Development
I think the term "blood money" takes on a different meaning depending upon the usage and the user. It could mean that the money literally has blood on it, in that someone was killed for it. It could be figurative blood money, in that people died for someone to earn it. Where I work we refer to blood money as money that someone worked extreme hours to earn when it wasn't necessary for them to do it. A person who works a lot of overtime to the degree he's never home because he's always at work.
Bill Bailey (George Bancroft) had the "blood money" in the movie "Blood Money." He was a bail bondsman who got his bonds in the form of deeds from poor old ladies, cash from crooks, and whatever other form of payment he could get. He had one foot in the criminal world and one foot in the straight world. He dealt with many criminals and kept their secrets which made him a valuable friend to the underworld, but also a dangerous loose end should he go straight.
He had a woman named Ruby Darling (Judith Anderson) who loved him completely, and whom he had a lot of respect for even if he didn't love her the same amount. His life would change when Elaine Talbart (Frances Dee), a spoiled rich girl looking for excitement, came into his place of business after being arrested for stealing. He was mesmerized by her and couldn't think of anyone else. As for Elaine, she was just looking for a thrill.
Elaine was strange and an enemy to all feminists. Her ideal man was one who was her "master." One who would give her a "good thrashing." As she said, "I'd follow him around like a dog on a leash."
Bill was hoping to be that man. And he was that man until someone more sinister than him came along. When she laid eyes on Ruby's brother, Drury Darling (Chick Chandler), a known bank robber, she practically wet herself with excitement. She dropped Bill like a bad habit and picked up with Drury.
Women were fickle creatures back then. They had no loyalty, and even if they did, they'd still hurt the man they love if he angered her enough.
Take Ruby for instance. Ruby was as loyal as they come, but she turned on Bill when he ticked her off. It could be said that she turned on Bill because he betrayed her, but it all started with him dumping her for Elaine. The last straw was when Bill gave Drury up to the cops. Ruby thought he did it because Drury took Elaine from him, but the truth was he thought Drury bilked him out of $50,000 and left him holding some useless bonds.
What really happened was that Drury gave Elaine a simple task and she didn't follow his instructions. She was supposed to give Bill the $50,000 in bonds and destroy the useless registered bonds. Instead she gave Bill the registered bonds and kept the $50,000 in bonds thinking that she was doing a good thing. Her reasoning?
"I knew dad would cut me off, and we can't live without money," she explained to Drury who was now in police custody.
SMACK!!!
Drury slapped the taste outta her mouth for being so stupid. They didn't show it, but I'm sure she liked it. It was right in line with what she wanted from her ideal man.
The information Elaine gave Drury was of the utmost importance. Drury had incorrectly told his sister that Bill double-crossed him after he gave him the usable bonds. Elaine's story proved that Bill didn't double-cross him, but that a dumb dame had disobeyed him which caused a real big mess.
Now, Ruby had to stop the ball she had set in motion. She thought Bill had betrayed her family and sicked the underworld on him, but she wound up a toy she couldn't stop. The fight between the crime syndicates and Bill had gotten too big, which showed, again, that women were fickle creatures given to their emotions.
She let the boys loose on Bill without considering the potential fallout of her actions. She claimed she didn't want Bill hurt, but had she taken a full minute to think about what she was doing, she could've come to the logical conclusion that Bill could very well get hurt. She was dealing with killers and cutthroats, and she wasn't their boss. They respected her, sure, but they didn't answer to her. So, to give them the greenlight to bury Bill, but not hurt Bill, was to create a war that was going to quickly get out of her hands.
One of the biggest problems with "Blood Money" is that it was rushed and underdeveloped. The characters were flat, which hurt the overall story. I think "Blood Money" is a good story that needs more development.
Viewable on Max.
The Mouthpiece (1932)
Lawyering is Theater
It seems that William Powell and Warren William were the go-to men for playing attorney roles in the early-30's. Warren William even played the first version of Perry Mason.
In "Mouthpiece" Warren William played Vincent 'Vince' Day, a prosecutor turned defense attorney. He gave up prosecution when he accidentally sent an innocent man to the chair.
He opted to defend the guilty and wealthy aka gangsters. They needed good lawyers and they paid well. He would use every shady trick he could to get his clients off. He realized that juries wanted theater and he was going to give it to them.
Vince was also a picture of hedonism. He cheated in court, took money from gangsters, and made love to every girl he met.
One such woman was a barely legal young woman who worked for him named Celia Farraday (Sidney Fox). Celia was a bad typist, but once he saw her, he overlooked her poor skills in hopes that she could provide him with something else (wink wink). She was engaged to a young man named Johnny (William Janney), but Vince didn't care about that.
Now we come to my obligatory rant about the relationship between men and women on screen back then.
Vincent Day was putting all the moves on little Celia Farraday. Celia, due to her innocence and ignorance, couldn't see what was going on until Vince was into step four of his five step love making plan.
Step 1: He requested her to come to his home, at night, to deliver some important documents.
Step 2: He then requested her to sit and have a cocktail.
Step 3: He requested her to get comfortable.
Step 4: He began cozying up to her trying to seduce her.
We all know what step five would've been had Celia not put the kibosh on the whole thing. It turns out that Celia was not only in love with her fiance, but she was a decent girl. That was rare. Even if a girl was decent and/or in love, she'd still fall for a charming rich man.
My thoughts were, "This is good. Even though you were naive enough to go through with steps one through four, at least you were smart enough and strong enough to stop the proceedings before allowing Vince to enact step five."
Not to be totally thwarted, Vince did sneak in a kiss; or should I say he forcefully kissed Celia. I've seen this routine many times before. The rules dictate that Celia be indignant about the kiss, whether she wanted the kiss or not. If she wanted the kiss, she'd pull away and act shy, thereby signifying she wasn't that type of girl. If she didn't want the kiss, she'd pull away and either slap him or say some harsh words. However! By no means should she leave the man feeling bad about what he did. Even if she slaps him, she must follow up the slap with some form of apology--so long as he looks apologetic. If he has a confident, unapologetic look, then she can continue being indignant until he feels some type of shame, at which point she also eases up on her indignance.
In this case Celia didn't slap her boss and STILL she was the apologetic one, which was new on me. I was totally unprepared for her to apologize, and boy did it make me sick.
"Listen Mr. Davis," she began. "I want you to understand something. I hadn't meant to give you any reason to treat me like this," she explained. Either she recognized that going to her boss's home at night, taking off her jacket, and drinking his liquor was a sign that she was interested in him, or she believed that her existing gave Vince reason to believe she was interested in him.
"Oh come now," Vince butted in.
"Oh wait, please. I'm not angry. I guess it was my fault. I suppose lots of girls would consider themselves lucky to have you want them like that. I guess I must be old fashioned or something, but I don't feel that way. I never will," Celia explained.
There was so much wrong with her apology; from the why, to the how, and all the circumstances surrounding the why and the how.
Here it is, this young girl from a little country town has to apologize to an older predatory man from the big city for her tempting him when all she did was follow his orders. She had never given him the impression that she was into him, yet Vince took the liberty of believing that she was based upon a game he set up--the game of ordering his young impressionable employee to do things that older, savvier women would only have done if they were into him.
Vince's reaction to Celia's rejection was a bit unexpected. I figured he'd take the L and move on to the next woman, but it seemed he was stuck on Celia. Even though it was unexpected, it wasn't surprising. Another thing about wealthy men and women, they want what they can't have, and the more difficult it is to get, the more they want it. Celia was a principled young virgin, Vince wanted her in the worst way.
Depending upon how mean the boss wanted to be or how principled a woman was, this episode could've spelled the end of her employment. He may have fired her for not giving him the goods, or she may have quit to get away from such a lecher. Unfortunately, for MANY women, especially during the Depression, they had to give in to their bosses' demands just to put food on the table. Celia wasn't quite in that situation because she expected to get married and move back to the country anyway.
Celia was making her exit from Vince's home when he revealed that he had used an underhanded tactic to win his last case. Celia was incredulous and devastated. She believed that Vince was a great and honest man, so to hear that he'd used a trick to get a guilty man off was like hearing there was no Santa Claus.
With that she decided to quit. She would not work for an unscrupulous boss.
At this point I was a bit perturbed. She wouldn't work for an unprincipled lawyer, but she would work for a man who sexually harassed her. That's curious.
Had she been in such a financial spot that she couldn't leave Vince's employment in either case (his lying and cheating or his sexual harassment), then I would commiserate with her, but to choose to leave in the case of his deceitfulness in court as opposed to his sexual harassment seemed like she wasn't all THAT principled.
Then I remembered: sexual harassment was a normal part of the work environment while a deceitful boss was not. She was probably going to have to deal with come-ons and unwanted advances no matter where she worked, but a lying boss who helped murderers go free was a different matter altogether.
Celia would continue working for Vince for another two weeks. Oddly, she offered to work for him for free because she didn't want any of his "blood money." It really didn't make any sense. I don't know how she could afford to give him two weeks of free labor just to make it easier for him to get another girl to replace her. It didn't add up. On the one hand she had contempt for him, on the other hand she wouldn't leave him high and dry because of some strange sense of fairness, and on the third hand she also wouldn't take his money because it came from criminals. She was a conundrum to be sure.
And that concludes my rant about just one aspect of the relationship between men and women in 1930's cinema.
Shortly after Celia quit, Vince went on a bender. It seems that Celia's words cut to his core and he couldn't deal with the crisis of conscience. Was he that enamored with her or were her words that poignant?
His bender was rudely interrupted when Celia needed his help. Her fiance, Johnny, got arrested for suspicion of stealing some bonds. He claimed he didn't steal anything, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If anyone could get him off, Vince could.
And he did.
Johnny never even went to trial because Vince gave up one of his old clients (played by Jack La Rue, perennial bad guy) who was the actual thief. It was a risky move that could end in Vince's early demise. If he ratted on one thief, who's to say he wouldn't rat on the rest of his clients.
Celia couldn't have been more pleased. She went from resenting Vince to considering him the best guy in the world, and so were the emotional musings of women back then. One day they could hate a man's guts and the next day she could think he was the finest man that ever lived. And payment for such sentiments was standard as well: a warm wet kiss on the lips. It didn't matter if she was single, engaged, or married, she could only repay her thanks with a kiss that was more than just a friendly peck.
Celia went off to be married and Vince went on to be shot by the mob. It had to happen; if not for his betraying the mob, for his original sin of prosecuting an innocent man. We don't know if he lived or died because the movie ended with him in a taxi on the way to the hospital. It didn't matter either way because he was already fully redeemed and a martyr.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Bird of Paradise (1932)
Wet Dream
"Bird of Paradise" is a languid romance of a style that would continue to be repeated up until today. The formula is right out of a wet dream: white man goes to foreign country and woos the most attractive foreign woman there, even if it means giving the middle finger to their customs and practices which are usually barbaric anyway (per Western standards).
Johnny Baker (Joel McCrea) was the strapping, fearless-in-love white man. Luana (Dolores Del Rio) was the exotic, foreign, Pacific Island woman. She was also taboo; meaning that she was off limits to any man. Johnny didn't know she was taboo, and I'm sure he wouldn't have cared anyway. Early in the movie he chased her down, pinned her to the ground, and began kissing her. Even though she was fighting against him to begin with, she relented after his kiss, thereby proving that you have to rough-handle some women, but they'll submit in the end--mind, body, and soul. You have to be particularly rough with "savage" women because they don't know what it is to be kissed, but once they experience it, they'll be begging for more. And Luana was begging for more.
He stole her off to one of the smaller uninhabited islands to free her from her savage culture. He didn't take her back to America, but, for some reason, he thought they'd be safe on an island a short boat ride from the main island. There he went full Tarzan and learned how to live in the wild like he was a native. He also showed Luana love and life, and even taught her English in the whole month they were there.
They were blissfully in love, but it was only a matter of time before her people caught up with them and ruined their bliss. If they were to be truly happy, she would have to leave with him to civilization. Fortunately, one of Johnny's crewmates pointed out just how unrealistic such a happiness would be.
This movie was a fanciful romance. It allowed a courageous white man to be both savior and lover to a backwards but beautiful woman. I've never liked such movies and they were even cruder back then. As the tribesmen looked to appease the angry volcano god, Johnny Baker prayed to Jesus thereby making it, not only, westerner v. Foreigner, but Christianity v. Paganism. Anything to make westerners and the western way of life appear better and more correct.
Free with Amazon Prime.
The Spider (1931)
Murder at a Magic Show
"The Spider" began in a mysterious manner, but the mystery was the origins of a young man part of a magic show named Alexander (Howard Phillips). He worked in a show headlined by Chatrand the Great (Edmund Lowe), and Chatrand was earnestly trying to find Alexander's people. It merged into a murder mystery when a man, who seemed to know Alexander, was murdered at one of Chatrand's shows.
Alexander became the main suspect for police inspector Riley (Purnell Pratt), and Chatrand would have to act fast and decisively if he was going to clear Alexander, who had just been reunited with his sister, Beverly (Lois Moran), during that same show.
"The Spider" took murder mystery solving to the extreme. Usually a murder will occur in a place with no more than ten suspects; "The Spider" had several hundred suspects and none were allowed to leave the auditorium until the investigation was completed.
"The Spider" used a method that had been tried in other movies for crime solving: Chatrand used Alexander to read minds, which was similar to using a medium. How else could they find the killer among hundreds of potential perpetrators?
"The Spider" was entertaining enough. It borrowed a little bit from "Murder at the Vanities" in which a murder had been committed during a Broadway production and the police were trying to solve it before the production ended. It does add a bit of excitement and suspense to the movie. I liked "The Spider" even if it was not as intelligent as other murder mysteries.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Smart Woman (1931)
Nothing Smart About This Flick
Was there a writers' strike when this movie was made? I've read Dr. Suess books with deeper characters and better plots. This was one of the most asinine movies imaginable. I can't believe this actually passed for entertainment in 1931.
A woman named Nancy Gibson (Mary Astor) came home from a trip abroad to find that her husband, Don (Robert Ames), had found someone else. And here is where a viewer should know some things about that era when it came to socialites and infidelity: 1.) it was rampant and 2.) it was always handled diplomatically.
According to Hollywood anyway.
This is a point I'd argue with anyone about. I have seen no less than 500 movies released between 1929 and 1934. Many of them featured high-society and many of them depicted high-society folks as being unfaithful. It could've been a small part of the plot, a big part of the plot, or even the principal part of the plot; cheating was as common as checking text messages is today. And more often than not, when a partner was caught cheating, above all, it had to be handled civilly. It was very seldom that a divorce resulted because society also hated divorces.
Knowing all this, I knew exactly where this movie was going, and it only made it worse. Nancy would keep her husband by making him realize how much she loved him and how he didn't love his mistress at all. And another thing: Nancy would never raise her voice or make a scene because that was simply unbecoming a lady. The women back then would rely on their husbands' shame or guilt as a deterrent or punishment, but never a cross word from themselves.
It was one of the most pathetic displays of the absence of pride and dignity, but it was also very common. Nancy, knowing that her husband was cheating, was all twisted up in knots because she loved him so. She dare not chastise him lest she really lose him, and she dare not make a scene lest there be a scandal. Instead, she decided to play a coy game to subtly win him back.
First, she pretended not to care. Perhaps she was too giving with her love, affection, and dedication before. No man wants a woman who freely gives her love, he wants a woman whose love he has to chase after. If Don saw how little she'd miss him, it might make him desire her.
She invited Don's mistress, Peggy Preston (Noel Francis), over to their home just to show what kind of good sport she was. She would play hostess and feign total indifference to Don's new relationship. And Don, to show how lacking in awareness he was, agreed to the meeting, then told Nancy how good she was being, and proudly showed Peggy off.
I swear, rich people must've eaten bad caviar back then with brain-eating parasites in it. Some of the stuff they did was so daft and mind-boggling. What kind of people are these? They're not real. They're from a parallel universe where up is down and down is up. No red-blooded human beings behave like this at all.
Phase two of Nancy's plan was to make Don jealous. She invited a man over, whom she met on the boat ride back to America, named Sir Guy Harrington (John Halliday). He was unaware of his role in her childish game, but he was happy to comply.
The new man did give Don pause. He even had the temerity to be angry about how Nancy was disposing of herself. But his response was to storm away with Peggy, not recommit himself to Nancy.
Seeing that the jealousy plan didn't work she requested Sir Guy to help do something that could save her marriage. She was running out of time. If Don left with Peggy it would all be over.
Sir Guy then turned on the charm on Peggy, and sure enough that worked. Peggy, within the span of a few hours, and in the home of her fiance, began succumbing to the flirtations (and title) of Sir Guy. The truth is that she was a gold digger, but Don was too stupid to realize that. She was after his wealth then after Sir Guy's wealth, but Don simply saw that he lost his new chick to a suave British gentleman.
Now, with Peggy lost, and the bridge to Nancy burned, what was Don to do?
He decided to play the noble hero, which was also common back then in the cases of love triangles. Since Don had spurned his wife, Nancy, and lost his mistress, Peggy, he decided he'd at least try to make Nancy happy if he could.
He believed that Nancy was truly in love with Sir Guy, so, if he could talk some sense into Sir Guy, he could get him to leave Peggy and stick with Nancy. He (Don) had already messed up with Nancy; he didn't want to see another man treat Nancy the same way he did on account of Peggy. He began trying to talk Sir Guy out of leaving with Peggy; his reason being that he loved Nancy so he wanted to see her happy.
Fine time to realize that.
Don thought he'd accomplished something, even if he was leaving empty handed. He was on his way to leaving his home believing that he'd lost his wife to a better man, but Nancy made sure to stop him. Nancy was happier than ever. She'd overheard all the glowing things Don said about her to Sir Guy and she couldn't have been more pleased. Furthermore, she'd succeeded in wresting her man away from the clutches of a vamp.
Her excitement and happiness was so bemusing. It wasn't tainted, it wasn't muted, and it wasn't mixed with anger and hurt. And that's my problem with the caricatures in the 1930's: they were completely single faceted. They were usually one emotion or the other with no hint of something else. God forbid the characters on screen exhibit real characteristics. It was as if 1930's audiences didn't want, or couldn't handle, depth. They couldn't handle a person having mixed emotions unless they were mixed up about lovers. No, the happily ever after mustn't be tainted.
It was patronizing and despicable. "Smart Woman" was paper thin as were the characters. They were such farces and extremely fickle. They changed with the wind. There were no layers to them at all. They didn't have a thought past their nose, or a consideration past their own selves. They were children.
And as for the women-- in this movie and many others-- their worth and value began and ended with a man. Why would Nancy fight so hard to retain a philanderer who, if he fell for a Peggy, would fall for another Peggy? Not because of "love" as Nancy stated. No. It was because her entire self-worth was wrapped up in him. With VERY FEW exceptions, women in movies were either after love or money, and BOTH were tied to men. They were going to have to find a man for either. If they were after love, then they were good; if they were after money, then they were bad. They were completely shallow creatures who barely needed the brains they were given.
"Smart Woman" in a vacuum is probably an OK movie. I probably still wouldn't like it, but I could probably watch it without wanting a full lobotomy afterwards. But "Smart Woman," within the context of early-30's Hollywood, was simply unbearable. It was the same ol' sh-t with socialites, infidelity, the entitled men, and the vapid women. These movies make the 1930's seem very repulsive.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
Maker of Men (1931)
Breaker of Men
If you want to see a classic case of the "sports parent" and a bully coach, watch "Maker of Men." If you aren't familiar with the "sports parent," they're the parents that drive their children extra hard for the purposes of being good in a sport. One case that readily comes to mind is Todd Marinovich, a guy who briefly went pro as a quarterback back in the late 80's.
In "Maker of Men," Coach Dudley (Jack Holt) had the dubious distinction of being both, a sports parent AND a bully coach.
Dudley was a football coach for Western University. He was under contract for two more years even though his record was poor. His son, Bob Dudley (Richard Cromwell), was on the team and it was obvious he wasn't cut out for football. Even still, Coach Dudley refused to let him quit. What's more, he kept playing his son even though he was losing games because of him. Nowadays we'd call that "daddy ball." But Coach Dudley claimed he wasn't playing favorites, he was just trying to make a football player out of his son (i.e. He was trying to make a man out of his son).
Coach Dudley wanted more than anything for his son to be a football player. He didn't want him to quit largely because of how it would make him (the father) look and because he didn't want his son to be a quitter. He browbeat and bullied his son into continuing to play. He considered his son "yellow" for wanting to quit. He even publicly humiliated his son over the issue of quitting the team.
Bob came to his father privately, son to father, and told him he wanted to quit. Coach Dudley raged at him and told him he wouldn't allow him to quit. The next game Bob committed a crucial turnover against Monroe, Western's main rival. He muffed a punt because he was scared of being hit. That turnover led to a Monroe touchdown, and they went on to win the game 7-0.
In the locker room, after the game, Coach Dudley told the whole team that his son wanted to quit, and he forced him to stay on the team. He phrased it as though he were some great leader. He told the team that he "wouldn't let any Western man quit under fire."
He went on to say, "I forced him into the game." Then he walked over to his son in front of the entire team and said, "Now you can turn in your suit."
What a dick move. How was that supposed to make a man out of his son? How was that supposed to instill confidence in him? How was that supposed to teach him about being resilient--humiliating him in front of everybody because he didn't want to play football??
And make no mistake about it, this wasn't about not allowing someone to be a quitter. This wasn't about teaching someone to see things through even when things get tough. This was about a boorish, stubborn, meatheaded coach who wanted his son to follow in his footsteps.
Not allowing someone to quit makes sense if the player desired to play the sport to begin with, but that wasn't the case here. Bob NEVER showed a desire to play football, so to then berate him because he wanted to quit was the worst type of bullying. And the fact that Coach Dudley and others in this movie measured his manhood based upon football was despicable. Even Bob's girlfriend, Dorothy (Joan Marsh), left him because he didn't want to play football anymore.
Bob had no choice but to leave Western U., a school whose entire identity seemed to be football. He left to attend Monroe, Western's rival. His father didn't speak to him for TWO YEARS! Coach Dudley was so furious at his son quitting SPORTS that he refused to talk to him.
How juvenile.
Oddly enough, Bob decided to play football for Monroe. He was a fourth string back, yet he begged his coach to let him play against Western. I don't know what football was like in the 30's, but today a fourth string player is only getting in in garbage time.
The Monroe head coach allowed Bob to go in to return a kick. Bob returned it for a touchdown. He was fast and fearless on the field, something he never was when he played for his father. He was a brand new person, but we never find out why. Was it his father's chastising? Was it his anger towards his father? Or was it the coaching of the Monroe coach? I thought it was imperative to the plot and the message of the movie to know what was the reason for his newfound confidence and skill, yet we were never informed.
After such a runback, any coach worth his weight in salt would have Bob runback another kick. Monroe's coach didn't, so I could cross off Monroe's head coach as the reason for the new Bob. He sat Bob for the majority of the game as though Bob's runback was a complete anomaly, and if he put him in again he'd only hurt the team. Even if it was an anomaly, it would've been well worth putting him in again to see if it was a fluke or not.
The Monroe coach waited until the very end to give Bob playing time again. Bob got in and won the game for Monroe. It was at that point that Coach Dudley was proud of his son and decided to speak to him again.
What the hell kind of message is that? I will only talk to you if you're good at football? That's not love, that's psychosis.
The implications were that Bob nutted up and didn't quit, even though he switched teams, which made him a man. It is a reprehensible implication and is simply sad. How many sons didn't live up to their fathers expectations and were emotionally cut off as a result? Was that a common thing back then? Was that a praiseworthy way of raising a son?
And if the indication was that football made a man out of boys, I'd argue just as vehemently against such a stupid assertion. And I love football. I played when I was a kid all the way through high school. I even think football gave me confidence and a sense of identity. Having said that, I don't believe for one second that football is some essential right of passage for males.
I think the fact that Bob returned to football ruined the movie. Bob should've gone on to be a great inventor, a pilot, or anything other than a football player just to show that he wouldn't be defined by, or limited by, football. Instead, they made him a good football player, just for another team, and I was torn. I was angry that he was playing football, but I wanted him to stick it to his father. I wanted him to do well, but I hated that he had to do well in football as a means of validation.
"Maker of Men" was so far off the mark. The coach was a bully and football was a right of passage, and neither thing was corrected in the end. Coach Dudley never had an epiphany, he never saw that the way he treated his son was wrong. He only came to respect his son after he performed well in a big game and beat his team. And football was never discredited as a right of passage, or a proof of manhood. Bob won the game for Monroe which made him the man he was supposed to be.
Everything was wrong about this movie--so much so that it tainted Bob's win at the end. His win was really a loss; a loss for all the young men who never lived up to their father's absurd expectations and were never defined by sports.
Free on Odnoklassniki.
The Watchers (2024)
Good Debut Film
Why is it that hardly anything good ever happens in the woods? The woods are getting a bad rap. You'd be better off in a movie saying you're going to Fallujah than saying you're going to the woods.
In "The Watchers," Mina (Dakota Fanning) goes venturing into the woods of Ireland for a getaway. If we're being honest, she had no business there in the first place. The road she was driving on ceased being a road miles ago so she was going to be in trouble even with something as simple as a flat tire.
Once she reached a certain point the car shut off and her phone went haywire. That should've been warning enough that things weren't right, but she decided to walk deeper into the woods in search of help. What she found was that she was utterly lost, to the point she even lost the location of her car. Fortunately, she was rescued by a woman named Madeline (Olwen Fouere) just in the nick of time. Madeline took her to a concrete structure where she locked a heavy duty steel door just before the loud croaking and screeching got closer. There, Madeline introduced Mina to Ciara (pronounced Kee-ra (Georgina Campbell)) and Daniel (Oliver Finnegan). They told Mina to face the glass, which looked like a large mirror from their vantage point.
The next day Mina set out, again in search of a way out. After spending the whole day roaming around the forest and getting lost again, it was explained to Mina that they couldn't leave. The forest was confusing and by nightfall the "Watchers" would kill anyone not safely in the building with the big panoramic two-way mirror to be ogled by some creatures.
This was Ishana Night Syamalan's debut film. If the name sounds familiar, that's because she's the daughter of M. Night Shyamalan. Like her father, she came out of the gate strong. I liked this suspenseful horror. It had just enough mystery and fright to keep me locked in. It was like "It Comes at Night," but better.
What were the "Watchers"? Where did they come from? What are the four captives going to do?
Those were just some of the questions I had while watching. They all get answered, and more importantly, they get answered satisfactorily.
The Strangers: Chapter 1 (2024)
Was a Remake Needed?
"The Strangers: Chapter 1" was no worse than "The Strangers" 2008 starring Liv Tyler. However, it wasn't a significant improvement either, which leads to the questions of why did they redo it--especially since it is only sixteen years old.
"The Strangers" is a simple concept. A couple stays at a "cabin in the woods" and before the night is over they are stalked and terrorized by masked strangers. In this case the couple was Maya (Madelaine Petsch) and Jeff (Ryan Bown). They were on their way to Portland, Oregon when they took an exceptionally long detour off the main highway to go to a diner. The diner was in Venus, Oregon, a city with a population less than 500 and not one of them was friendly.
While at the diner someone tampered with their car so it wouldn't start when they were trying to leave. You don't see anyone tamper with the vehicle, but there's no way a nearly new BMW simply fails to start. Furthermore, the diagnosis by the local mechanic was a bad alternator; that's doubly suspicious.
Be that as it may, they had to stay in Venus for the night until an alternator could be brought in from civilization. They had no choice but to stay in a vacant cabin that was used for AirBNB. Not long after settling in, weird stuff started happening.
I regret to say that Maya and Jeff did standard dumb scary movie stuff, starting with the major detour. They couldn't have been so hungry as to not want to wait until they could eat at a diner right off the highway. I've driven through Oregon, there are plenty of such eateries.
There would be a lot more frustrating moves made by the couple before the movie ended. If you're used to scary movie blunders, none of it will shock you nor rile you up too much. If you're expecting common sense or just a better sense of self-preservation, then you may get really peeved with "The Strangers: Chapter 1."
The Greatest Night in Pop (2024)
The Anthem of 1985
When someone told me there was a documentary about the making of the song "We Are the World" I said, "Say less, I'm on it." There was no way I was not going to watch a documentary about a song that was as iconic as "We Are the World." That was practically the anthem of 1985.
"The Greatest Night in Pop" details how an idea to help starving people in Africa (primarily Ethiopia), initiated by Harry Belafonte, ballooned into an epic song featuring the who's who of the 80's. There were veterans on the song such as Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross, Tina Turner, and Bob Dylan. There were newcomers such as Sheila E. And Cindi Lauper. Then there was the supernova that was Michael Jackson. He and Lionel Richie were the earliest on the project and all 40-something artists worked under the guidance of Quincy Jones.
If I could've assembled my dream team of that era, even using the same amount of artists in the original, I would've figured out a way to include Prince, George Michael, Chaka Khan, Luther Vandross, and Phil Collins. I would say Whitney Houston too, but her debut came in 1985, so she hadn't quite blown up yet. That's something the documentary allows you to do--dream up a what-if scenario. I have no idea who'd be on such a song today.
It's a wonderful documentary for people like me who remember those artists, love those artists, and love that song. And just to see how the sausage is made is something very engrossing--how they were assembled, the time crunch, and even who was invited. Dan Akyroyd was in the chorus for goodness sakes!
I was all smiles and nostalgia watching "The Greatest Night in Pop." I can't get enough of documentaries like these.
Netflix.
Sting (2024)
Sucked Out Loud
Brought to you by Align, Pictures in Paradise, See Pictures, Cornerstone Films, and Ruby's Rib Shack is an astoundingly below average horror movie that will only annoy you. I watched "Sting" out of desperation. I hadn't seen a movie in theater for a while, there was nothing to do, and I like scary movies.
I believe that "Sting" was an A. I. written movie; it was that generic. It was an amalgamation of horror movie cliches stitched together to make a movie.
The movie takes place in Brooklyn, NY. It begins with a woman calling an exterminator because of some loud noises in the walls and ducts that sounded like a large predatory animal. When Frank (Jermaine Fowler) the exterminator came through he was attacked by an unseen creature.
Typical scary movie approach. Tease the creature with its strength, power, ferocity, and ability to make people scream in terror.
"Sting" then took us back four days earlier. Something from space entered Earth's atmosphere, crashed through the window of an apartment building, and landed in someone's room. What made landfall was an egg sack that was obviously as hard as stone. It opened up and a relatively small Black Widow looking spider emerged. A girl named Charlotte (Ayla Browne)--like Charlotte's Web, get it?--put the spider in a box and kept it as a pet.
Charlotte was the petulant, moody, and disrespectful teenager. A very standard and overused role. She lived in an apartment with her mother, Heather (Penelope Mitchell), her step-father, Ethan (Ryan Corr), and her baby brother. "Sting" tried to press upon us that they were the typical family with some issues. They were TOO typical. I remember thinking, while watching them eat dinner, "This is one lame boring family," which is fine because most families are. But why do you need to show us that? I will assume they are the typical family unless you show me that they're otherwise.
Charlotte, along with being the smart-mouth teen, was pretty dense. She found a spider that could mimic sounds. WHAT SPIDER MIMICS SOUNDS? All it would take is a quick Google search to find out that NO spider can mimic sounds such as a ringtone; but Charlotte the braniac thought she found some new undiscovered species.
Anyway, she kept it and named it Sting.
Charlotte fed the spider until it got to the size of a tarantula. She then handed Sting over to a neighbor named Erik (Danny Kim) who proceeded to feed Sting bigger and bigger prey.
As you can see it took concerted stupidity to create a monster.
By the time Erik was finished with Sting it was the size of a large dog and it roamed the A/C vents of the building to reach its prey.
Now, I have to skip to the end because "Sting" ended so flatly. It was such a disappointing ending that it made sure to kill whatever part of this movie that was still alive.
Charlotte had to search for her missing family. All of them were taken by Sting and placed in various places with strong webbing, presumably, to eat later (ala "Aliens"). The spider would bite the victims, inject them with a paralyzing venom, then drag them to a hidden location to enjoy later--except when it came to the baby. The spider never bit the baby, just picked him up and took him to another location.
Fine.
When Charlotte found her family they had escaped Sting's webbing and they were huddled up in a large trash receptacle that was on the other side of a compactor. If Sting should pursue them, then Ethan (the stepdad) only needed to hit a button and the spider would be crushed.
Sting pursued them into the trash receptacle and Ethan pushed the button, but nothing. The compactor was unplugged. As he dramatically reached to plug in the compactor, he plugged it in just in the nick of time. He was electrocuted in the process, but it allowed Charlotte to hit the button and crush the spider.
Family saved.
However, Ethan was laying lifeless after his jolt of electricity. Surely, he won't die?
Of course not. All we had to do was a little movie logic to know that he wouldn't die. What does this logic look like?
A baby will never be killed. I mean, it has happened on occasion such as "Stakeland," but for the most part babies aren't killed. So that means the baby bro will survive.
Children aren't killed. They're killed with a little more regularity than babies, but it is still rare. Furthermore, Charlotte was the main character, so she had to survive.
Women, particularly white women, especially when there's only one left, are not killed. So that means the mom would survive.
That leaves Ethan. Ethan would normally have about a 10-20 percent chance at survival, but because of the storyline of this movie his chances of survival were about 80-90 percent. You see, Charlotte already lost her biological father. He didn't die, he just abandoned her. After having lost one father, there was a very slim chance they'd take another father from her. So, when Ethan was lying lifeless, Charlotte did a little prayer, counted to three, then Ethan began breathing. And you know that traumatic events always bring families together, so there was that as well. After their harrowing event they all hugged and became closer as a result while the movie ended with a cliche camera shot of eggs that Sting laid as if we were all supposed to be blown away by such a revelation.
There was nothing about this movie that was shocking, surprising, or even the least bit original. "Sting" only succeeded in being trite, rote, and exasperatingly cliche. I really can't believe this movie even got the green light.
Madame Web (2024)
Don't Make a Sequel
You know how there's the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, I think Spider-Man is trying to build its own universe, or maybe it's already happened and I'm late to the party. There are the first three Spider-Mans (or Spider-Men?) starring Tobey Maguire, then the Andrew Garfield set, then the Tom Holland trilogy. Added to that are the Venom movies, the Miles Morales Spider-Man movies, and now we have "Madame Web."
"Madame Web" was an unfortunate creation. It looked like a nepotism project. That would be a movie allowed to be created by someone's relative just to keep that person happy. Let me give another example.
That would be like drafting Bronny James on your team just to get or keep LeBron James. Or allowing Yoko Ono to be on your album just so you can get John Lennon. I'm sure you get my point.
The movie began in 1973 in the jungles of South America. There were rumors of a people who could scale the trees and had super-strength and super-speed all due to a certain spider found there. A pregnant researcher named Constance (Kerry Bishe) was there to find this rare spider because of all of the ways it could benefit mankind. When she finally found it, her guide, a man named Ezekiel Sims (Tahar Rahim), held her up at gunpoint for the spider. Apparently, he wanted the spider for more selfish reasons.
The movie started off all wrong when Constance refused to relinquish the spider. Ezekiel had just killed her whole team, so we know he wasn't shy about killing. So, for her to hold on to a spider that she could probably find again didn't make sense. And even if she couldn't find another spider, her life and the life of her unborn child should've been important enough to protect.
Ezekiel shot her while trying to wrestle the spider away from her. A very unnecessary occurrence.
We found out later in the movie that she wanted the spider to help cure her unborn daughter which did help explain her actions a little bit, but I still wasn't buying the I'm-not-giving-it-up act.
From there the movie failed to get its bearings. The characters were bland, too many actions didn't make sense, and the villain was cheesy which made the plot terrible.
After the first act they skipped to 2003; Constance had died from her gunshot, but her daughter, Cassandra Webb (Dakota Johnson), survived. She was an EMT in NYC where, apparently, they do dangerous rescues normally reserved for firefighters. I say that because she pulled a man from a vehicle that was teetering on the edge of a bridge. When he was pulled out of the vehicle it plunged to the river below with her in it. The traumatic event unlocked a power in her whereby she could see into the immediate future. That led to her rescuing Julia (Sydney Sweeney), Anya (Isabela Merced), and Mattie (Celeste O'Connor), three girls she saw being attacked by Ezekiel in a vision.
Why were those three girls being attacked and killed?
I'm glad you asked. Because Ezekiel had repeated nightmares of those three girls killing him and destroying his life's work. In his dream/vision they were three super-powered females presumably empowered by the same spider that gave Ezekiel his powers. So, his reaction was to seek out the three girls and kill them before they could kill him.
I don't like it.
This is a sci-fi, not a fairytale. I don't like the idea of a guy having a dream about being killed by three teenage girls, so he decides to go kill them first. And as much as I didn't like the impetus for the conflict, I HATED how he found the three girls.
Step one of his plan was to find and sleep with an NSA agent with access to some super-advanced NSA tech.
Step two was to get her login information, by force, in order to use the tech.
Step three--and pay attention--was to use the technology to extract or recreate the images from his dreams so that he could then identify and locate said girls.
Yes. Somehow he either described the girls well enough, or the images were downloaded from his head into a computer which then properly identified all three girls. Then, with that same NSA technology, he was able to locate all three girls with a bank of screens, some cameras throughout New York, and one person monitoring it!! All with 2003 technology and network speeds!!!
The assumption is that the computer was doing all the work. It was accessing feeds from every camera in the state and running facial recognition software to locate the girls and then alert the singular woman sitting there bird-dogging the screens.
Julia, Anya, and Mattie couldn't go anywhere in New York except that there was a camera that had a network connection that the NSA tech could access and notify Ezekial's henchwoman, who then notified him, within seconds. IN 2003!!
I remember 2003. I had DSL. I was getting 1.8 Mbps downstream speeds TOPS. We weren't streaming a damn thing. I don't care how much money Ezekiel had, he lived in NYC like everybody else. There is no way that tech was going to work like that.
But moving on from the fairytale technology, the movie did a real disservice to itself by making Ezekiel's dreams a red herring. The three girls never had such powers and never GOT such powers. In the end it was all Cassandra. She unlocked more of her own power and not only saved Julia, Anya, and Mattie, but defeated Ezekiel.
The presumption is that there will be sequels to "Madame Webb" in which the three girls will have the powers Ezekiel saw in his dream. I hope there won't be any sequels.
Netflix.
Kung Fu Panda 4 (2024)
Change is Good
"Kung Fu Panda 4" (KFP4) is my first theater experience of 2024. I'd heard some rumblings about it, which I think is expected once a franchise gets four episodes in. I took my son to a matinee and we were the only two in the theater.
After defeating Tai Lung (voiced by Ian McShane) in part one, Shen (voiced by Gary Oldman) in part two, and Kai (voiced by J. K. Simmons) in part three; Po aka Kung Fu Panda aka the Dragon Warrior (voiced by Jack Black) has to take on The Chameleon (voiced by Viola Davis), a shape shifting sorceress looking to absorb the kung fu skills of masters past.
Po didn't have his five sidekicks this time around. Instead he was accompanied by a thieving fox named Zhen (voiced by Awkwafina). They have to go to Juniper City to face The Chameleon, but it is not entirely clear if Zhen is to be trusted.
Prior to undertaking this quest, Po was tasked by Master Shifu (voiced by Dustin Hoffman) to find a successor. Though Po is still having plenty of fun being the Dragon Warrior, it seems that his run is coming to a close.
With these two plots running concurrently it was kickin' fun for part four. I wasn't sure how I'd like it or even IF I'd like it. Fresh ideas are hard to come by and I was ready for disappointment.
By movie's end I was all smiles and very much into KFP4. We got our meaningful "skadoosh" and even a "skablam." Change is good.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)
Rocky Start
I wasn't all that excited about "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes." I'm typically not excited about decent trilogies that add a fourth movie. It just messes up everything. There are the rare exceptions like the John Wick franchise or the Rocky franchise, but as a general rule I prefer that movie franchises stop at three.
Having said that, I didn't let my prejudices affect my viewing enjoyment. I went into "Kingdom" fully open and without expectations. I liked "Kingdom" as a stand alone movie, but as an addition to an established franchise it left me with a lot of questions.
"Kingdom" takes place generations in the future. Apes have mastered language, they have customs and ceremonies, and they've formed societies. It seems that humans have been wiped out with the exception of a few unintelligent primal groups roaming around. The movie focuses on a chimp named Noa (voiced by Owen Teague). His life was upended when a rival group of apes attacked his chimp community. That led to him encountering an intelligent human named May (Freya Allan) and an of-above average intelligence orangutan named Raka (voiced by Peter Macon). Noa wanted to find his stolen community and May wanted something else entirely--and it was May who was the source of all the questions I had.
May pretended to be unintelligent like most of the other humans whom Noa's community called "echos." It seems she did so to be unimposing to Noa and other apes. It was also clear that she was attaching herself to Noa, but why? Once she accomplished her objective (acquiring a satcom key and destroying a bunker full of weapons and technology before the greedy chimp, Proximus (Kevin Durand) could get it) she became even more of an enigma.
Why did she attach herself to Noa? She couldn't possibly have had him in mind as an aid to get inside the bunker, or did she have such an elaborate plan that it involved gaining his trust so that he would help her?
What community was she from?
Did she have a backdoor deal with Proximus?
The questions bothered me because they were indications of plot holes and inconsistencies. It's possible that they plan on straightening everything out in a future sequel. It's also possible they're planning on another trilogy with Noa being the main character instead of Caesar. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and hopefully they come through, but the start is a little iffy.
Inside Out 2 (2024)
Adding to the Mix of Emotions
"Inside Out 2" brings us more emotions from Riley (voiced by Kensington Tallman), which you know means more issues. In the first installment it was Riley learning to deal with sadness (voiced by Phyllis Smith), now she has to deal with Anxiety (voiced by Maya Hawke). Anxiety cropped up, along with Envy (Ayo Edebiri), Embarrassment (voiced by Paul Walter Hauser), and Boredom (voiced by Adele Exarchopoulos), which was really indifference, once Riley hit puberty. She was a real mess inside.
Having so many more emotions to deal with made the movie a lot more interesting. I'd argue that anxiety was the only real new addition. Kids have embarrassment, indifference, and even envy before puberty; anxiety, however, is something that a more developed brain and a person with more experiences would have.
Anxiety had fully taken over Riley's emotions and kicked out her five original emotions. Actually, she had bottled them up--and I did like that pun.
I liked IO2 more than the first "Inside Out." I'm on record as saying that the first "Inside Out" was too somber, down, and depressing. IO2 was a little more upbeat, definitely more adventurous, and more relatable overall. My wife even said she plans on showing it to her 7th grade class.
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (2024)
I Made a Commitment
I made a commitment ten years ago when I first watched Godzilla destroy San Francisco. I didn't know that I was making a ten year commitment at that time, but I made a commitment nonetheless. That commitment has taken me from "Godzilla" (2014) to "Kong: Skull Island" (2017), to "Godzilla: King of the Monsters" (2019), to "Godzilla vs. Kong," to the AppleTV program "Monarch," to now. It's been a long journey.
The latest installment is titled "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire" (GxK). It's a new threat and a new objective. There are some hold over characters that bridge us from GvK to GxK such as Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall), MONARCH expert on King Kong; her adopted daughter Jia (Kaylee Hottle), the deaf girl who had a connection with Kong in the previous episode; and Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry), blogger, podcaster, and MUTO aficionado.
There was a lot going on in this release. Kong was looking for his own kind, Godzilla was powering up for something, and Jia was having dreams that caused her to draw things similar to some seismic or magnetic signatures MONARCH was receiving.
Warner Bros. And Legendary Entertainment spared no expense on this film. We got plenty of glamor shots of Kong, Godzilla and the extra monsters. Also making an appearance was Mothra, the Scar King (a red chimp looking to take over Earth), an ice breathing MUTO being used by the Scar King, and even a smaller undeveloped ape that was still about fifty feet tall.
You knew that no matter what, there were going to be some cities that paid a toll. Among the cities hit were Cairo, Egypt (even some pyramids were destroyed), parts of Italy, France, Spain, Miami, and Rio de Janeiro. Most of the damage done was for our protection.
Can you believe that?
In Godzilla's bid to protect the world's cities he partially destroys them. We found out a lot more about the MUTO's and their duties through some Iwi script.
Don't know what an Iwi is?
Little Jia was an Iwi. They were the indigenous people to Skull Island that were thought to be long gone. Apparently, there existed an Iwi tribe in "Hollow Earth," the mysterious world within Earth that can only be accessed by portals or wormholes.
When Dr. Ilene and co. Went to Hollow Earth they found a hidden Iwi people and some of their ancient text. It detailed the whole legend of how Godzilla protected the people from the Scar King, how Kong and other apes were protectors of some kind, and how Mothra was the driving force of all of the protection going on, but Mothra could only be awakened by an Iwi from Skull Island, which was Jia.
Like I said, there was a lot going on.
As a popcorn flick GxK was alright. I think the portentous music was overused such that every event seemed like it was climactic. If everything is climactic, the actual climax will be anti-climactic. I appreciate the money poured into the visual graphics. They could've done with at least one less character (I'm looking at you Bernie Hayes) and a little less deep diving to tie in a hidden indigenous tribe that could communicate telepathically as well as control gravity. But, even though I didn't love it, it was tons better than the Monarch TV show I just got through watching.
Fallout: The Beginning (2024)
I Won't Be Tuning In
"Fallout" is an Amazon MGM Studios production. On the homescreen for the show there is a blurb stating that the show is based upon one of the greatest video game series of all time.
I'll take their word for it. I haven't played video games with any regularity since 2006, and that was on Nintendo GameCube.
"Fallout" presents odd images to start. There's a birthday party happening. Everything at the house of the party says 1950's; from the decor, to the clothes, to the TV, and the cars, but the city that the house overlooks appears very modern.
Not five minutes into this birthday party we see what looked to be several nuclear explosions. Who or what caused them, I don't know. A nuclear apocalypse had begun; where was it going to take us?
The show skipped forward 218 years and we are introduced to our first character of portent: Lucy (Ella Purnell). She lived underground in "Vault 33" with her father and brother. Their community was soon attacked by "surface dwellers."
Our next character of importance was Maximus (Aaron Moten). He belonged to "the brotherhood" on the surface. The brotherhood looked like a military squadron, but it is unclear what their function is.
The last character to be introduced was the Ghoul (Walton Goggins). He was... I don't know what he was. I think he was undead, but then again he may have been kept alive by some futuristic serum.
What I saw from this hour-and-fifteen minute production? Another apocalypse show. What is another apocalypse show or movie? Most of humanity is dead, the landscape is feral, there are groups of bad people looking to harm others, and there is a group or two of "good" people whom we root for. That was it in a nutshell to me. I can't say that I disliked it, but I certainly didn't like it. I won't be tuning-in to this one.
Free With Amazon Prime.
Damsel (2024)
I Was Thoroughly Entertained
The first and only time I saw Millie Bobby Brown in a movie she was having to deal with a large lizard-like monster. That was "Godzilla King of the Monsters." In "Damsel" she had to contend with a slightly smaller lizard-like monster: a dragon that could talk.
"Damsel" was a period piece. I'm not that good at judging history by costumes and castles, but it looked like it took place in a fictitious kingdom in the 18th century. Millie played Elodie, a beautiful young lady from a poor house. The prince of Aurea desired to marry her and the house of Bayford (Elodie's house) needed money. It was a perfect match.
Elodie accepted the proposal and she and her family made the journey to Aurea to see her prospective husband. Everything was blissful until Elodie found herself being thrown to a dragon that required three princesses to be sacrificed to her every generation (or something like that). Elodie then found herself in full survival mode. How would she survive a fire breathing dragon and ultimately escape?
As I said, the dragon could communicate which made "Damsel" a tad more interesting. The dragon could talk, but it wasn't taking any time to listen.
I thought "Damsel" was an exciting movie. The opening monologue tells you that the damsel in distress will not be rescued by a hero which lets you know that Elodie will have to survive and fight on her own. Millie Bobby Brown was a good fit for the role as an action hero. She reminded me of Kiera Knightley but a little less dainty.
Also in the film were Ray Winstone as Elodie's father, Angela Bassett as Elodie's step-mother, and Robin Wright as the cold-blooded queen of Aurea. It was a very professional cast. The acting was unimpeachable and the story came together very well.
The writer, Dan Mazeau, only has two other titles to his credit: "Wrath of the Titans" (2012) and "Fast X" which I believe is Fast and Furious part ten, but we won't hold that against him. The director, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has directed several things including "28 Weeks Later" and "Intruders," which were both very good.
"Damsel" is well worth the watch, and as good as any other dragon movie out there.
Netflix.
Civil War (2024)
Largely Uninformative
"Civil War" is one of those films with such an expansive topic that it could be approached from a myriad ways. In general it can be approached from a macro view or a micro view. A macro view is one that would probably leave viewers unsatisfied because the movie tries to cover a broad issue in two hours. It would be like condensing a semester-long topic into one classroom session. A micro view tends to be better because the viewer can follow one set of people and learn things along the way. Most movies take that approach. "Civil War" took that approach yet failed in the most critical area.
"Civil War" followed Lee (Kirsten Dunst), Joel (Wagner Moura (known as Pablo Escobar in "Narcos")), Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), and Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson), all war journalists. Lee and Jessie were the photojournalists while Joel and Sammy were the reporters.
A civil war was happening in America and their quest was to get to Washington D. C. in order to interview the president. It would be tough because much of the U. S. was a warzone plus all reporters were shot on sight in the nation's capital.
The movie captured the mood of the film through occasional still photos and loud, bullet-ridden battle sequences. When that wasn't happening we were left to be entertained by the jaded Lee, the inexperienced Jessie, the optimistic Joel, and the old Sammy. The problem is that they told us nothing.
I watched this movie for the premise. I was intrigued. The trailers told me of a civil war in which Texas and California had united and were fighting together against the federal government.
Tell me more!
Why was there a civil war? How did two disparate states come together? Who started it? When did it start? How did it start?
You know, all the questions JOURNALISTS should ask and get the answers to. Which is why I thought the movie chose to follow journalists. Except they garnered nothing. I knew as much after the movie was over as I did after seeing the trailers.
I get that the journalists already had the answers to those questions, so there was no need for them to ask them or report on them, but I, the viewer, didn't have those answers. So, whether the movie decided on flashbacks, a montage, or a recap, they should've given us something. As it was, they left us largely ignorant so that all we were witnessing was military fighting without a clear picture as to what it was all about. We got a few little tidbits such as the president being in his third term and him disbanding the FBI (Trumpish behavior), but little more than that as if writer/director Alex Garland wanted us to draw our own conclusions.
I think "Civil War" missed an opportunity here. It could've been so much better. Instead I found myself staring at a group of four journalists which only made me wonder how necessary they were. They were perpetually in the way taking morbid photos while a young naive girl ran around with a camera as if she were on some kind of adventure; the whole time being protected by the elder members of her small clique. I wanted more. I needed more. And it didn't help that I paid $72.54 for three IMAX tickets. Ugh!