Category: Movies

I picked this DVD up last year in 2023, and it has sitten upon my game storage cabinet along with many other unwatched videos gathered over recent years until a week ago Saturday, when I felt I needed a break from the longer and, honestly, less compelling books I’m reading for the 2025 Winter Reading Challenge. So I picked this one without giving it too much thought (too much thought in selecting a movie to watch often leads me to selecting nothing, so I have to be careful to pick quickly sometimes).

The film is set in 1979–the book upon which it was based came out in the middle 1970s and has been optioned for a film pretty much since then. Eastwood plays a broken down rodeo rider fired from training horses but who is asked by the ranch owner–whom Eastwood owes for taking care of him when he (Eastwood) hit bottom after his wife and child died in an automobile accident–to go to Mexico to retrieve his son from his Mexican mother. Which is what Eastwood does, finding the mother is a party girl trollop in a large house (probably a kept woman of some sort by probably a gangster, as she has a couple of heavies at her disposal) who tries to bed him but doesn’t know where her son is since he’s running on the streets. Eastwood finds him at a cockfight and discovers that he has been on the streets since he was mistreated and otherwise abused at home. The boy runs off after Eastwood tells him his mission, and the mother shags Eastwood off (not that way–in the gets rid of him way). But the boy has stowed away in the backseat of Eastwood’s vehicle with his rooster (named Macho, although it’s not clear when he cries). And we have a bit of a road trip movie as they travel to the border pursued by the mother’s heavies and sometimes police. They end up breaking down in a village where Eastwood becomes kind of the local veterinarian and he kind of falls for a widowed cafe owner who is raising her grandchildren. Eastwood discovers that the ranch owner’s real motivation is not to raise his son but rather to use the son as leverage over some property owned in the woman’s name.

But, thematically, it’s not too far off Gran Torino, which I just watched four years ago. An older Man (capital M) takes on a youngster (of a different nationality/ethnicity) and tries to show him how to be a Man.

So since I’m getting older myself, I appreciated the theme a bit more than maybe I would have, erm, a couple years ago. But Eastwood, as he has aged, has shifted his themes accordingly which is probably why he has remained relevant when other filmmakers and actors have not.

The film does have one quirk of note: The Mexican characters speak Spanish to one another, and it’s only sometimes subtitled. Which I found odd. Y porque no puedo oir la lengua muy bien, no comprendo mucho del español.

Also, the film featured Fernanda Urrejola as the boy’s mother and Natalia Traven as the cafe owner, and I suppose that the film’s relative disappointment at the box office is the only thing that kept this from becoming an Internet Versus debate.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Cry Macho (2021)” →

The Librarian of Celaeno writes at Substack Collateral and the Remembrance of Death:

Directed by Mann and released in 2004, Collateral was one of a number of neo-noir films set in Los Angeles since the early 1990s, the first of which was The Two Jakes (1990) the sequel to 1974’s Chinatown. Neo-noir as a genre refers to films featuring themes of paranoia, alienation, vice, loneliness, and moral ambiguity, wherein the protagonists often have to make difficult ethical choices with no clear right path forward in a corrupt or indifferent world. It’s never nihilistic as such; morality does exist in the neo-noir universe, but good characters are often forced into situations where they have to do something ostensibly bad to prevent some greater evil. They generally also feature raw and realistic violence and incorporate unconventional camerawork to emphasize the fraying of mental and moral stability.

As always, his work is worth reading.

I watched Collateral last year, and the only intelligent thing I said about it was:

At any rate, the plot: Foxx plays a cab driver who picks up a blond Cruise at a courthouse after dropping off a prosecutor planning for a big case. Cruise has a couple of stops to have people sign papers for a real estate deal, so he engages the cab driver to drive him to all the stops. But, at the first stop, a body flies out the window and lands on the cab, and Max (the cab driver) learns Vincent (Cruise) is an assassin on a mission to… well, it develops, take out witnesses and the prosecutor in a case targeting one of his clients, or related organized crime figures.

Along the way, Max and Vincent develop a bit of a rapport. Vincent shakes Max out of a bit of a habitual, rote existence dreaming of better things (owning a limo company) and gets him to man up and demonstrate some confidence–one scene has Max going into a nightclub, pretending to be Vincent. But, in the end, the rapport is false, and Max has to protect his mother (whom he visited in the hospital with Vincent) and the pretty prosecutor who rode in Vincent’s cab earlier.

So the film has some depth in exploring the relationship between the men and how it evolves, mostly in Max drawing strength and confidence from the psychopath’s influence and ultimate his testing.

Which I suppose is okay as this is a blog and not a la-de-dah Substack.

One might posit that this sort of patriotic, heroic movie of the American Revolution could not be made in the 21st century or perhaps not during a Republican administration, but one might have an easier time defending the first thesis given the cinema’s profitable embrace of patriotism during the Reagan presidency. But one would have to go to more serious outlets of movie criticism were one inclined to tease out those arguments. Personally, I just muse on what I’ve seen, and those are two thoughts that came to mind. After 2000, we have the George W. Bush presidency, the attacks of 2001, and In the Valley of Elah and Lions for Lambs. I guess some more patriotic themed films have snuck into the theaters from time to time, but they’re not the standard fare. Not that I would know, I guess: Although I saw this film in the theaters in the pre-child days, I have only seen, what, two films in the theater in the last five years? So don’t mind the musings that follow. Just click More to see the actresses.

So: In this film, Mel Gibson plays a widower Carolina farmer who had served in the French and Indian War speaks out against a war against Britain but, as the revolution erupts, he’s drawn into the conflict when a particularly brutal British officer kills his son and fires his home. When he sees that American generals, trained in the British army, are trying to use British tactics to fight the country which perfected them, he builds a small militia force for guerrila tactics and harrasses the British, but not without a cost. Gibson does some incredibly action hero things, but main characters are definitely at risk, and many die before the war is over.

So a bit slower paced than more modern actioners (or even some actioners for the time) as it pauses every once and again for speeches about liberty and whatnot. A couple splashy gore effects, mostly from cannon fire. Good for rewatching every couple of decades, and perhaps a springboard to re-learning about the American Revolution–the expedition that Gibson’s character would have been part of took place about the same time that Benjamin Franklin, whom I “studied” a bit last year (see The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin and The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin), served in the Pennsylvania militia during the French and Indian War. Does that mean I’m going to start a study of that era in 2025? Probably not, as the Nogglestead stacks are (relatively) light in material.

But, now to the More part.

Continue reading “Movie Report: The Patriot (2000)” →

So last year (he said in italics because it was only last week, but he runs a bit behind on blog posts and wanted to emphasize how behind he runs), I picked out this film on one of those “I want to watch something, but not something too weighty or important or, well, most of the things I’ve bought over the last 20 years” moments. Which differ from the “I want to watch this movie which I’m sure I own but cannot seem to find, so I doubt that I own it and think I’ve rented it or recorded it to the DVR back in the days when that was an option” moments which lead me to watching nothing at all. On Any Movie nights, I pick something out. Well, I do about half the time these days; the other half, I still think “Do I want to invest two and a half hours (counting wandering to the bathroom, to fold laundry, or whatnot breaks) in this film?” Well, kismet or something like it led me to this film a week ago. And the answer is (spoiler alert!), “Nah.”

So.

I bought this film in September 2023, so it’s not like it’s “First In, First Out,” although…. Yeah, with as many films as I watched in 2024, it kind of is. I bought it because it’s a Van Damme film, and I’ve watched one or two in my lifetime (Univeral Soldier, and…. okay, maybe one), and I was thinking about Steven Seagal films recently, and probably picked this film out (it’s not Under Siege or Under Siege 2: Dark Territory which I thought about after having watched Die Hard and Die Hard 2 this holiday season). Okay, yeah, so I hoped for an 80s action film or a 90s throwback, but no.

Van Damme plays a boxer from 1925 France (which explains his accent, badly) who is asked by Downton Abbey‘s Mr. Carson (with his French accent from Top Secret! intact)–well, he’s told to take a dive in the second round for a bunch of money. Mr. Carson, or the French gangster equivalent, has a moll who is Van Damme’s character’s former fiancéé (being this movie is set in Francé, thé éxtra apostrophés and accénts should bé éxpéctéd). But! Van Damme (forget the character dodge) does not take the dive! He knocks out the opponent, and he hopes to escape to America (frog, yeah!) with the girl. But! Pursued by the gangsters, he finds himself in the foreign legion’s recruiting office (staffed, of course, late at night). And he signs up to the foreign legion to escape.

So he ships off to North Africa, where he meets and gets on with, eventually, many different diverse types, from an American black man escaping from 1920s racism to bad Germans to Englishmen escaping their pasts and Italians trying to impress their girls families. UNFORTUNATELY! a photo from a newsman is seen in France by Dark Mr. Carson who sends killers to enlist in the Foreign Legion to find and kill Van Damme. AND! They catch up when Van Damme’s group is going to an outpost to defend it or be slaughtered by the Berbers or Barbers, whichever looks the least like Perry Como.

So! They march out there, get ambushed, have to trust each other, and all die except Van Damme whom the Berber leader says has “courage” and finis!

Wait, what?

Yeah, no, it ended abruptly. After the battle of Rorke’s Drift, uh, that cheap set, the credits roll. We don’t get any resolution of the triggering story, the boxer and the girl, but someone said she went to America (in the 1920s, not the 19th century, so not in colonial times, mate). No resolution with Deja Vu Dark Carson. Nothing past the speech that the West were occupiers in northern African (whose leaders kinda look Arabic) lands. Honestly, I thought the film was made a decade (or maybe but a half) later with a message that seemed anti-War on Terror. But I guess the message resonates among the “Western” entertainment industry past 1990 or so which thinks history starts somewhere in the (late?) 20th century and ignores all the part before we became the baddies according to popular culture.

So. Not a good film. Ech.

On the other hand, I have it on DVD, so I can watch it whenever I want. Which is ultimately less than once now that I have seen it.

Ah, gentle reader, I just watched the first two Crocodile Dundee movies, wherein just is somewhere between 2015 when I bought the first at a garage sale and when I started dilligently writing movie reports (2021 or so?) and now. Or maybe I only watched the first; when I picked this from the library, I thought it was the second of the Crocodile Dundee films, so either I didn’t watch the second five or eight years ago, or I kind of blended the plots. Because, c’mon, man, the plots are secondary: They’re movies about an outback Australian in the big city.

In this case, Sue Charlton (Linda Kozlowski) has been living with Mick Dundee and their son Mikey in Walkabout Creek, Australia, but her father has a proposition for her: To run the Los Angeles paper, where the previous editor, an investigative reporter, died pursuing a story. So she brings Mick and Mikey along, and they live in Beverly Hills whilst she tries to discover the secret behind a movie studio that loses money but keeps making sequels to its flops which are partially filmed in Eastern Europe. Mick, in between his fish-out-of-water antics, gets a job on the set of the movie studio and works undercover. Suddenly, Mick is discovered, leading to his being hunted on movie studio back lots, and finis!

So, yeah, a film that really probably only got made because Paul Hogan wanted it and maybe because it came with some Australian government money. Much of the material seems recycled from the earlier films or otherwise tired and maybe a little fish-out-of-date. It did make me think about watching the first movie again, though, which rather captured a bit of lightning in a bottle, but it was the 1980s, man.

The film profferred Kaitlin Hopkins as Mikey’s school teacher.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (2001)” →

You know, a couple of years ago, I reported on a rewatch (mostly) of all the Conan movies, but apparently this one escaped my notice. Although the main character is Robert E. Howard’s Kull the Conqueror, the IMDB entry indicates this was to be the third Arnold Schwarzenneggar Conan film, but he turned it down–so the De Laurentiis family got Kevin Sorbo, who was doing the Hercules television series at the time, and changed it to Kull so he would not have to play a continuation of the character. It blends elements from several Howard properties, but I’m not going to tease them out for you. Instead, you can read up about it on IMDB or Wikipedia.

Kull tries to join the army of Valusia, but he’s showed up a bit and is called a barbarian by the general who notes the army is all noble blood. He (Kull) somehow gets into the palace when the king is slaughtering kinsfolk who he says are conspiring to take his throne. Kull tries to stop him from slaying others, and in the ensuing fight, Kull kills the king, which should make him king, but the king’s kin don’t think that’s right. But the dying king bequeaths his crown to Kull, who starts to throw off the slaves shackles and bring a more modern barbarian sensibility to Valusia until he is corrected by the crown’s eunuch (played by the head of Rekall from Total Recall). Kull is smitten by a fortune telling slave (played by Karina Lombard), but the scheming kin of the previous king raise an ancient goddess (played by Tia Carrere) who seduces Kull but fakes his death so she can assume the crown. Kull, the fortune-telling slave, and a priest of an another god escape to find the quest object which can stop the goddess.

It blends a lot of Conan history and elements from the Hour of the Dragon but with a prettier antagonist. A scene takes place aboard ships, hearkening back to the hero’s days as a pirate and so on. It also has a sense of humor about the film genre’s conventions where the original Conan movies were more earnest–but by the 1990s, that sly humor was worked into entertainment. At one point, Carrere’s character says, “I’ve altered our pact. Pray I do not alter it further.” which is clearly a hollaback to The Empire Strikes Back.

So it did not do well at the box office–it’s more of a direct-to-video or direct-to-cable quality–and it’s a little slow, but 80s action films (which this really is despite its release date) were slower, too, so I guess that’s not much of a wash. Also, I found the fight scenes a little underwhelming–Kull prefers an axe to a sword–but in close quarters against lightly armored opponents, it’s likely to be a little more pokey than slashy. But I’ve never actually fought a real sword fight and the only time I’ve worked with weighted weapons, I’ve gotten my hands whacked a bunch. So who knows.

I enjoyed it, but it might not be for everyone.

The film also featured Karina Lombard as the card-reading slave.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Kull the Conqueror (1997)” →

In years past, I’ve not been able to enjoy this Christmas movie because we did not have a copy of it. Sometime last year or earlier this year, I stopped at Vintage Stock (whilst killing time, when buying gift cards for Christmas, or whilst spending a gift card received for Christmas), I picked up a copy. And my beautiful wife, my youngest son (who is 16 and a half at this point, so old enough for exploding gremlins), and I watched it over the weekend. It might represent only the second or third time I’ve seen it–which is not a lot considering I cheekily put it on the top five Christmas movies list (so maybe Night of the Comet will someday replace it).

At any rate, the plot: An inventor/tinkerer is trying to hawk his inventions and to buy a present for his son in a Chinatown when he comes to a hidden shop and discovers a small cutesy made-for-merchandising mogwai which the old man in the shop won’t sell him–but his grandson does, and who tells the man the three rules. C’mon, say them with me:

1. Keep them out of bright light; they hate it. And sunlight will kill him.
2. Don’t get them wet. Don’t give them a bath.
3. And no matter what, no matter how much they cry or beg, never, ever feed them after midnight.

Well, of course, that doesn’t happen. What does happen is that the son’s friend, played by a young Corey Feldman, spills water on Gizmo, the good mogwai; the water causes the mogwai to blister and spawn other mogwai; the other mogwai trick Billy, the son, into feeding them after midnight; and the mogwai go through a pupal stage to become gremlins, which then go on a rampage through town until Billy and his girlfriend-to-be save the day on Christmas.

I mean, there’s more to it than that–scenes of, frankly, shocking brutality and practical effects as gremlins are killed by a variety of kitchen gadgets and other ways. And the gremlins dispatch several sympathetic characters rather casually and has an unnecessary gruesome story featuring a basic misunderstanding of modern chimneys–this is a Steven Spielberg production, but it smacks of a different Stephen. My mother-in-law took her twelve-year-old daughter to see this film in the theaters, and that’s how she learned Santa wasn’t real.

Still, a family tradition of sorts might begin here, although the number of years I have with offspring at home is dwindling and the number of years I have until I can watch it with grandchildren should be at least fifteen years if not more. So maybe it will be me just watching it every couple of years.

Even if it does feature Phoebe Cates as Billy’s girl.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Gremlins (1984)” →

It’s not a Christmas movie, but I picked this movie up when I wanted to watch a movie instead of watch a particular movie (such as The Bishop’s Wife). When I want to watch a particular movie, I often fruitlessly search the media library for it and think I must have recorded it on a DVR or rented it from the video store (relatively recently). This happened recently with Dazed and Confused which my oldest wanted to watch; I hunted for it and could not find it, so we didn’t watch it, but I see one of the boys has found it because it’s now atop the cabinets instead of shuffled somewhere therein. I’ve done that a couple of times recently, such as getting in my head I wanted to watch No Country for Old Men which will remain hidden amongst the DVDs until I want to watch something else.

So I wanted to watch something after nine o’clock one night last week (my contract included evening meetings ending a little after 8pm, and I’ve been a little too wound up to go to bed at normal time). So I plucked this film from the box atop the cabinets, where it has languished for over a year along with other titles I bought at that particular Friends of the Library book sale.

The film opens with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn as parents sending their last child overseas, leaving them empty nesters. Martin’s character has a job interview in New York, and he invites his wife along, but she declines. However, she shows up on the plane, and hijinks ensue. Their plane is diverted to Boston, their luggage is delayed (with no connecting flight or announced load out?), they miss the train, they rent a car and get lost coming into New York leading to a hijinkal crash on the docks, they’re mugged walking to their hotel and lose everything, they crash a sex addicts support group leading to the revelation that Steve Martin’s character has lost is job and needs the job for which he’s interviewing, and…. Well, other set pieces ensue, including Steve Martin’s character dosing on acid whilst in jail (how did the fellow prisoner get into jail with acid on his person?) which gives Steve Martin the ability to Steve Martin for a couple of scenes, and, well….

You know, the film stars Steve Martin and is “Based on a screenplay by Neil Simon,” which would sound good, but the actual screenplay for this film was by another guy. This is a remake of an earlier film from the 1970s, and much like my viewing of The Heartbreak Kid remake last year, the film underwhelmed and disappointed me and made me want to see the original to see if it had more point (1970s zeitgeist notwithstanding–but as a child of the 70s, I can appreciate it). This film was updated to include the acid trip, among other things, with the principals staying in New York whereas in the original, they turned down the opportunity to stay and returned to Ohio. Perhaps that was one of the stipulations of getting New York money or getting Rudy Giuliani to portray himself in the film. But the comparison between the then version and the now (also now a then version since this film is 25 years old–the portrayal of New York probably changed a lot between 1970 and 1999).

Also, I haven’t bothered with the character names because, c’mon, man, they’re fairly stock Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn characters. So you already know what you’re going to get.

At any rate, this film has mostly been forgotten, and it’s pretty forgettable. And, to be honest, I thought Date Night with Steve Carell and Tina Fey was a remake of this movie or its original as they’re similar plot-wise, but I guess not (and Date Night is atop or in the to-watch cabinet, so you’ll hear about it sometime in the future). Perhaps I thought it (Date Night) was a remake of this film because when I thought of Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in a movie, I probably thought 1985 or 1989 instead of as late as 1999.

And although I said Goldie Hawn, no pictures for you, gentle reader. She falls into that uncanny valley of “Pretty, but she looks a lot like my mom’s sister” which makes one feel squicky in admiring too closely.

Last year, after watching Meet Me In St. Louis, I asked:

Now, do I dig out The Bishop’s Wife or go right into the action-oriented Christmas movies?

Clearly, I did not watch the film last year, gentle reader, or I would have let you know about it. And although I am pretty sure I set my DVD copy of the film atop the cabinets for easy access at the time (or maybe during the Christmas season in 2022), I could not find the physical copy the evening I wanted to watch it. I was pleased to find it was available on Amazon Prime. But with limited commercial interruptions. So, to recap: We’re paying a hundred and increasing number of dollars annually for “when we get to it” shipping (free to anyone on orders over $25) plus streaming now with commercials to watch a couple of football games and a couple of movies a year? Ah, Amazon Prime, you are definitely falling to about even on the worth it scale. And trending to not with the next rate increase or additional uninterrupted after this interruption.

At any rate: In this film, a bishop (David Niven), presumably Anglican since he preached at St. Timothy’s but is married, is hoping to build a grand cathedral, but he is at the mercy of wealthy donors who have their own ideas including putting a widow’s dead husband’s name on everything. He prays for help, and it arrives in the form of Dudley, an angel played by Cary Grant, who acts as the bishop’s assistant, but more importantly, focuses on the bishop’s wife (Loretta Young). Dudley helps the wife and daughter find joy in Christmas again and charms everyone he meets, including the wealthy widow whom Dudley convinces to give her money to more worthy charities instead of building the cathedral–thwarting the bishop’s plans, but returning him to a happier place in his life as a preacher at the aforementioned St. Timothy’s. And then Dudley leaves, and nobody remembers him, taking his example and works as their own inspiration.

I dispute a common take on one of the last scenes in the film, though. Wikipedia says:

As the climax to the movie approaches, Dudley hints to Julia his desire to stay with her and not move on to his next assignment. Although Julia doesn’t fully understand what he’s talking about, she senses what he means, and tells him it is time for him to leave.

He doesn’t hint–he comes on pretty strong. But I don’t think this was Dudley actually making a move on the bishop’s wife. Instead, I think he was trying to get her to realize she loves her husband and to excise any feelings she might have developed for Dudley or confusion before he left, and perhaps she had to send him away–that he was an answer to her prayer and not the answer to her husband’s prayer. I suppose I could watch it over and over again and pore over the screenplay and whatever production notes or materials I could find to make this case, but I’m not a serious student of film. So you get this paragraph, gentle reader.

So it’s a classic, and it’s a Cary Grant film, and it’s been too long since I rewatched it.

Especially as it contains Loretta Young as the titular bishop’s wife.

Continue reading “Movie Report: The Bishop’s Wife (1947)” →

Powerline’s Week in Pictures informs us:

Not here at MfBJN, where we have enumerated the top five Christmas movies since 2003 as:

1. Die Hard
2. Lethal Weapon
3. Die Hard 2
4. Gremlins
5. Invasion USA

Even though we’ve not seen Night of the Comet yet, it is unlikely to break into this pantheon of 80s deliciousness.

After watching Shanghai Noon a couple of weeks ago, I had to go back and watch this movie again to see how many times Lucy Liu said, “Hubba hubba.” Ah, gentle reader, I was mistaken: She says, “Hubba hubba hubba” only once, so it was not her preferred phrase, and she was actually only echoing another character who said it more frequently.

So this is a Parker film based on a book by Richard Stark (Donald E. Westlake), but he did not want any films to use the name Parker when he was alive, so the main character in this film is Porter, and he’s a thief who steals from other thieves. The film starts after Porter and an associate, Val (he of the “hubba hubba hubba”), rob a Chinese triad of a payout that Val said was going to be $300,000, but it turns out that Val was lying, and Val wanted the entire $140,000 to buy himself back into a criminal syndicate–and he convinced Porter’s wife to shoot Porter, whom she thought was having an affair with a prostitute. So the film begins with a back-alley doctor removing the bullets from Porter and his vowing to get his share of the money back.

So Porter returns to the city, commits some petty crimes, and begins climbing the ladder to recover his money. Val has turned it over to “the syndicate,” so Porter has to deal with them as he ascends to the levels where someone can give him his cut of the cash. Meanwhile, a couple of corrupt policemen stand him up and threaten him with arrest or worse if he doesn’t turn the money over to them when he recovers it. And the syndicate, although it has told him that he’s crazy to try to recoup the $130,000 that they think Porter wants–and he corrects them that he only wants his share. The aforementioned Lucy Liu plays a sadomasochistic prostitute whose best customer, maybe, is Val and who is connected to the gang that Val and Porter ripped off–whom Val points at Porter so they can kill him for him.

At any rate, the whole Parker thing was he had a code that he only stole from bad people, or at least it worked out that way (from what I remember of the books). Aside from a couple of petty crimes at the film’s beginning, that holds true. And he has a soft spot for the prostitute whose picture with Porter spurred the whole movie (taken before he was married, we are told eventually), so that kind of humanizes him. He’s not the worst villain of the lot, for sure.

So I have enjoyed the movie at least thrice now (in the theaters, when I got the DVD, and just now, but I might have seen it another time or two in the last 25 years). And since we looked at Deborah Kara Unger (who played Porter’s wife briefly) when we talked about Highlander: The Final Dimension and we looked about Lucy Liu when we recently reviewed Shanghai Noon, I guess we should take a look at Maria Bello who plays the prostitute upon whom Porter is sweet.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Payback (1999)” →

Elon Musk calls Ben Stiller the R-word after actor says ‘Tropic Thunder’ couldn’t be made in 2024

So we’re up to at least two words you can only refer to by their first letters. Given the distribution of the consonants that start words and probably the fact that slurs with track statistically with consonants that begin words you can say or write (for now), someday we will run up against a dilemma: Do we go with the indefinite article (an N-word) or do we start adding numbers to them (the N1-Word or the N-Word1)? I cannot wait to see what the future brings.

The word is “retard.” Which I am pretty sure in its day was a polite way of describing an individual with mental disabilities. And it’s an actual line in Tropic Thunder, by the way.

Could it be made in 2024? Probably not in Hollywood. But some small indepenedent film maker probably. Without a distributor. So it would go directly into the miasma of streaming. Never to be seen. Much like most of the stuff coming out of actual Hollywood, actually.

And to be clear: Stiller is saying that America has killed edgier comedy, so I just presume Musk is just trolling. Keeping the engagement numbers up or something.

Not to get all recycler tour on you, but apparently on September 24, 2009, I said on Facebook, “Brian J. Noggle fears that, if they discover that he laughs at Larry the Cable Guy movies, Marquette will take away his philosophy degree.” Which is funny in itself: Looking at the list of his credits on IMDB, I’m trying to think what Larry the Cable Guy film I saw fifteen years ago. Witless Protection? Delta Farce? Or this very film? So I laughed that long time ago, but I have forgotten what I was laughing at. It must have been on the DVR in that period right after I moved, or I have lost it in the media library. Or I was referring to a stand-up special instead of a movie.

Alright, alright, alright, what do we have here? Larry plays a loose cannon health inspector who knows all the restaurant owners in his city or territory, but his boss, played by Biff from the Back to the Future movies, wants him out. So he, the boss, pairs Larry with a straight-arrow young woman played by Iris Bahr. Together, they investigate a series of incidents at better restaurants where diners are getting sick–and Larry himself falls prey to an intestinal disorder while on a date with a pretty waitress played by Megyn Price. Which seems to point to someone eliminating rivals from the city’s Top Chef competition.

I don’t know if I laughed out loud at anything here. I mean, it’s got the standard potty humor and running gags, like Larry using inappropriate idioms with a colleague in a wheelchair or referring to his partner, who wears her hair in a tight bun and wears pants suits, as a boy. The film is amusing in spots, especially if you’re a fan of the Blue Collar Comedy tours. Which I’ve seen but before I was wasting your time with twee comments on every thing I watch. It’s no comedy classic, though, so not to be remembered fondly or culturally. If I remember it all in fifteen years.

And, sadly, it hasn’t led to any Megyn Price versus Iris Bahr or Jane versus Butlin arguments on the Internet even though it was released at the height of the blogging world.

Continue reading “Movie Report: Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (2006)” →

I mentioned when I watched The Other Guys that I might have conflated the two films. And I had in my head that I wanted to watch this film. So I picked it up recently (undocumented on this blog, so probably the beginning of August when I was Christmas shopping). And a little ways into it, I thought I’ve seen this film before. As it’s not documented on this blog and not in the video library, I presume I rented it from video store six or seven years ago. And I’d forgotten it.

The film is nominally set in 1977, but it did not trigger any anemoia in me as the depth of the representation was pretty superficial. Ryan Gosling plays an alcoholic PI of dubious morals and utility who has been hired to track down a girl named Amelia. Russel Crowe plays a thug for hire whom Amelia hires to get the PI off of her back–which he gets via thuggery. But other thugs waylay Crowe’s Healy, so he thinks Amelia might be in real danger. So they team up, and some set pieces, and….

Well, you know, the whole thing is ultimately forgettable. The film is set in the late 1970s, but really doesn’t capture the time. It does allow them to put o on the end of porno and feature a plot that revolves around Detroit automakers working with corrupt government officials from the Department of Justice (?) to prevent catalytic converters from being mandated, and the daughter of a government official (Amelia!) makes a combination porno film that exposes the collusion and corruption. But people related to the film start dying, and….

Well, don’t think too much about it. Enjoy Gosling and Crowe having a good time.

And, if you’re like me, forget the whole thing and enjoy it again later.

Since Friar was hooked on Sarah Holcomb’s accent in Caddyshack, I decided to research her appearance in another of her four movies (this being her first in 1978, and Caddyshack her last in 1980, and Internet searches for “Where are they today?” lead to different flavors of LLM-generated “we don’t know; she starred in four films and disappeared with rumors that it was drugs and schizophrenia based on what one guy affiliated with Caddyshack said nearly thirty years later.” So, to answer the important question of whether she was from old Eire: No. She apparently was from Connecticut, and she did not have an accent in this movie.

At any rate, the film describes the happenings at a party fraternity at a fictional college. Two freshmen are looking to join a fraternity, so they visit the hoity-toity fraternity first and are not pledged, and then they go to the Delta house where they have an “in” as Dorfman’s brother was a member of the frat, so he is a legacy. But it’s the lowest frat, and Dean Wormer has them on probation and then “double secret probation” and looks for an excuse to toss them out. Hijinks ensue, including a toga party, a road trip, and culminates in an attack on the powers-that-be during a parade that is less funny now in an era of instability than it would have been in 1978 (but set in an even more stable 1962).

You still hear quotes from it and allusions to it (double secret probation, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”) and see memes about it (Kevin Bacon’s character saying “All is well!”) So it must have hit a certain segment of, well, influencers in just the right way to make it stick culturally. Heaven knows the humor in it was mostly miss for me (as was The Blues Brothers). I guess I was too young to see them at a formative time in my life, or perhaps too old.

And we discussed the Maggie O’Hooligan versus Lacey Underall dilemma in Caddyshack; given that Karen Allen played Boon’s girl in the film and is the only developed female character, if we want an Internet argument, I guess we have to gin up an argument about Babs versus Mandy, the two sorority girls vying for the affection of the leader of the soc fraternity.
Continue reading “Movie Report: Animal House (1978)” →

well, as I bought this film on Friday, of course I watched it Friday night. I mean, it’s Zardoz. You might never have heard of the film, but if you’ve been on the Internet for any length of time, you’ve seen Sean Connery in his costume.

And if you have not, you’ve seen it now.

The film is dated 1974, and it was filmed in 1973, but this is a very British and very 1960s movie.

The plot involves a bifurcated or trifurcated story set in 2293, 320 years in the future. A flying stone head, the god Zardoz, distributes guns (but no ammunition seemingly aside from what might be in the guns) to Connery-clad Brutals. The orange-clad ones are Exterminators, tasked by Zardoz to hunt down other Brutals, the normal ones, and exterminate them to keep them from overpopulating or just because this is a 60s British movie. However, I guess the Exterminators are also making the other non-Exterminator Brutals raise grain for Zardoz. Which, it turns out, is a front for the Eternals, a group of people living in luxury, albeit a early to mid-20th century luxury. The Eternals are protected in a society run by a crystal-based AI called the tabernacle, written/built mostly by their parents who locked them into one or more protective societies called Vortexes, and they have evolved beyond sleep, instead doing hippie-dippy group meditation or something. They’ve got their problems, too–some of them have become Apathetic and don’t bother to move, and others who commit thought crimes are artificially aged, so a group of old people live in permanent old age in an old folks’ home. But Zed, Connery’s character, sneaks aboard Zardoz and lands in a Vortex. He is taken into custody, studied, and displayed as a curiosity even as one Eternal, played by Charlotte Rampling, wants to destroy him before he can destroy the Eternals.

As I mentioned, this is a very 60s British movie with more of an idea and cinematic execution of an idea than a gripping or even plausible plot. It starts with the floating head of the Eternal flying the, well, flying head of Zardoz explaining some of what he was doing followed by the head barfing guns and the Exterminators taking them and Sean Connery shooting the camera/audience before the titles. Some of the scenes and set pieces are very cinematic and perhaps influenced a bit by expressionism of some sort, and the sets have a spareness you might find in Blake’s 7 or The Prisoner. And the ending where Zed takes a woman, impregnates her, and family snapshots as they grow older with their single son and then die leaving little trace (even though Zed had received all knowledge of the Tabernacle through “touch teaching” which was a very groovy sex montage) kind of leaves one wondering, and not in a good way.

I mean, would man evolve that much and that way in only 300 years? The Brutals getting shot looked like they were dressed for the mid-20th century. And why were they shooting brutals who were producing their food? Was the whole thing a long plan designed to introduce Zed to destroy the Eternals, some of whom inherited the life and were bored with it? One could say It’s a timely metaphor for Western Civilization in the 21st century if one wanted to, and one could maybe write an academic paper on it that few people would read. Fewer people than would watch Zardoz in the 21st century, perhaps.

Yeah, so a cinematic idea more than a movie. And more an event to witness because that photo of Connery is floating around.

Photos of Charlotte Rampling? Continue reading “Movie Report: Zardoz (1974)” →