The Signal Watch
@signalwatch.bsky.social
260 followers 440 following 1.4K posts
(aka: League of Melbotis) - Austin, TX. Film, comics and other discussion! https://signal-watch.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
signalwatch.bsky.social
TL;DR - Pop Culture Fade-Out: What Happens When No One Remembers Lassie? #film #moviereview #movies
TL;DR - Pop Culture Fade-Out: What Happens When No One Remembers Lassie?
Liz is also easily distracted by squirrels A while back I read the book Rin Tin Tin: The Life and The Legend by Susan Orlean (recommended).  The book is a biography/ history of how one American soldier on the front lines of World War I found a stray dog, and how that dog became, literally, the biggest movie star in the world.   There's a possibly apocryphal story that at the first Academy Awards they had to re-do nominations and/ or voting because Rin Tin Tin, a skinny German Shepherd, came up as "Best Actor" (everyone kinda thought the awards were a bit absurd at the time).  But what is true is that dog was also one of the biggest box office draws in Hollywood for a few years there before the movies learned how to talk. While the original Rin Tin Tin passed and was buried in France, various other dogs took on the name and role, and through the 1950's, Rin Tin Tin was still a major pop culture fixture - a sort of family-friendly action star, now re-imagined for television as living on the frontier and starring in his own cavalry-themed Western. Now...  I'm not sure even my peers could tell you what breed Rin Tin Tin was with any certainty. Lee Duncan and the first Rin Tin Tin It's not clear what happened to the bloodline of Rin Tin Tin, and/or who owns the name and rights.  Nor is it clear anyone outside a miniscule handful of people cares, as the last produced Rin Tin Tin media I'm aware of is a very white-washed biopic from 2007.   But for a few decades, Rin Tin Tin was a household name and common reference point.  By the 1970's, Rin Tin Tin was *maybe* something our parents would reference, but wasn't really part of the cultural conversation.  I was aware of the dog star as a precursor to Lassie, and that was about it.  In today's world - if one in 5000 kids had ever seen a picture of Rin Tin Tin or knew the name, I'd be a little surprised.   But, once upon a time, kids loved that dog.  Heck, adults loved that dog.  But time passes. Now there's this gravesite in France for a dog that was once beloved globally.  But in a decade or two, will that grave be met by American tourists giggling at what a silly name it seems to be.  And for a dog?  Utterly unaware that at one point, that dog was the biggest thing movies had to offer. Horizon Lines We're constantly living on two horizon lines.  The first one sits in front of us, and it's where the new and novel comes into view, bright and shiny.  We need that glint of discovery, fresh ideas, characters and people.  And then there's the horizon behind us where the things beloved by our parents and grandparents and their forebears disappear into some great beyond of forgotten lore.  And that had been the norm for most of human history, minus myths and legends that have carried on, or been carved into stone. Music styles come and go.  Stories featuring favorite characters appear, survive a while, and then vanish.  Whole genres and print types wind up in archives and basements.  Movie stars shine brightly for a few years and then fade into obscurity.  The sexy starlet of today becomes the granny character actor of tomorrow or forgotten within a decade of her retirement. Some things come over the horizon line and pass fast as a meteor in the night sky.  Some are a slow moving object, seemingly in geosynchronous orbit.  But one day, those things will fade, too.  A movie will always play one last time.  A curtain comes down on an opera that will never rise again.  Sometimes we'll know this is it, but most often, whatever we're thinking of will disappear, unremarked upon.   Our history of shared fan favorites surviving hundreds of years in any medium is slim.  Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was released in 1818, and Stoker's Dracula was 1897.  Dickens' A Christmas Carol was published in 1843.  Bronte's Jane Eyre was 1847.  Pride and Prejudice saw print in 1813.  Mozart's The Magic Flute was performed first in 1791.  Hamlet was first staged around 1600.  These are considered classics at this point, and part of the cultural canon.  For now.  But what about work that isn't kept alive and preserved as part of academia and a sign of cultural literacy? There's going to be fans who remember and try to keep the memory of their favorite characters and books and movies alive one way or another, but they'll be in an endless war with accountants who see no profit in the old materials, and those who refuse to look anywhere but at that first horizon line, insisting anything new is inherently of more value.  But some folks only keep their eye on what's above and watch the things heading toward that sunset. I don't think I really even knew I was following a Lassie fan page on facebook.  Lord knows when I signed up for that or why, but it can't have been very active, or rarely pushed to my feed by the algorithm.  On Monday I saw a post by the owner of the Lassie fan page stating they were closing down the account and removing their content.  The community that had gathered there was kind of in mourning.   It's not the end of Lassie or even Lassie fan pages, I'd guess.  But someone who had cared enough to curate the community decided it was no longer worth the effort. The fan page had been a promotion for a Lassie fan magazine that had run its course, and now the owner wished to move on.   Lassie, that collie who helped make Elizabeth Taylor and Roddy McDowall movie stars, who was a TV staple in the first decades of TV, who survived in endless rerun during my youth... and was in a pretty good movie co-starring Helen Slater when I was in college...  that poor dog's time seems to be running out.   So, yeah, it struck me that I was watching the sun setting just a bit more on another once enormous cultural touchstone.  And while I hadn't been a part of the generation that loved Lassie as their childhood TV pal (and Lassie ran for 19 seasons, y'all, from 1954 to 1974) I was there right after all that ended. Growing up in the 1980's, collies weren't ubiquitous, but you saw them a lot.  I suspect because the adults around had been raised on the TV show and dreamed of a Lassie of their own, now they kept collies.  But, I can't even remember the last time I saw a collie anywhere outside of a dog show on TV.  And even the Lassie jokes of my youth have been turned into generic dog jokes. But I do recall "Lassie" having enough cache still in 1997 that when the pooch visited the mall where I worked, the line of kids and their parents was long enough that my plan to pop down and meet Lassie was thwarted.   But I think the last Lassie movie was made in 2005, and I'm not sure it made it to theaters in the US.  Which is wild as the movie stars Peter O'Toole, Samantha Morton, Peter Dinklage, and even Kelly MacDonald is in it.  Heck, there's a Redgrave in the cast.   you okay there, kid?  One too many trips down the well? Resetting at the First Horizon I'm sure some of the challenge of dealing with things like Lassie or Rin Tin Tin is that the legal entanglements become a bit much as heirs and companies fight.  Who owned what becomes messy as mergers occur and years pass and heirs battle.  And it's easier to not figure it out than sort it out.   Is the world poorer for one less movie about a dog barking at people until they pluck Timmy from the well?   But this isn't just about Lassie.  What I am interested in is:  where do these things go when they're past their time? As I observed when working in archives - the best way to ensure the persistence of an object existing is not to lock it away, but to ensure its accessibility.  After all, what good is it to have the Mona Lisa if you keep it in a safe where no one can see it?  How will you know it needs care?  Does it even really exist if it's out of sight?  How long til it's forgotten in that crate? (cue the end of Raiders) For a while, shows and movies were being printed to VHS and then DVD.  If you wanted all twenty years of Lassie on VHS, you could maybe find it at Suncoast.  But now folks are streaming.  And streaming *should* be how *everything* is easily available.  But good luck finding Lassie across the 1000 streaming services out there.   And, really, that availability is for nostalgia, and you can't count on nostalgia for keeping an audience that is... not always going to be alive.  You need to keep your property evergreen.   While stories have always been handed down and books have remained in print, we live in maybe the first era in human history where there's profit to be made by returning those characters and properties to the first horizon line.  IP-driven Corporations have managed to force their IP to exist well beyond the original shelf-life-expectancy, and well past the lifetimes of the character's creators.  Those companies now work to make sure they can still squeeze a nickel out of as much as possible - and that's driven the extension of copyright, and manipulation of trademark to protect corporate assets.   Mickey Mouse made his debut in 1928, almost a century ago, and is nearly as recognizable today as when The Mickey Mouse Club hit televisions in the 1950's and as important to Disney today in a way as he was then.   James Bond keeps returning, often with a different face behind the tuxedo.  And simply to print money, a fictional world exists where no one seems to know they shouldn't keep going to Isla Nublar and not to poke dinosaurs. There's other models.  No matter their origins in novels or plays, the Universal Monsters are now more famous as icons than they are as movie characters.  Each Halloween, we know we're getting commercials, advertising art, etc... with knock-offs of Universal's indelible Bela Lugosi Dracula, their Karloff Mummy and Frankenstein, their Elsa Lanchester Bride, Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man, Claude Rains' Invisible Man...   That breakdancing swamp guy could be sue-able by Universal as a Gill-Man rip-off, but probably won't be.  Because now that familiarity helps keep the monsters in the pop culture and can sell shirts, cups, hats and tote bags, and maybe some DVDs. So successful has this been, there's a whole Universal Monsters land in a new amusement park in Florida.  That's more than 90 years since Lugosi stared down some virgins.  And I'd guess the overwhelming majority won't have ever watched a black and white monster movie from 1932. But the real case has been something like Star Wars, which seemed to be fading out in the early 1990's becoming a series of popular sci-fi novels as the movies - hard to get access to - were fading into the edges of the cultural landscape.  In the late 90's the movies were juiced up with CGI and re-released in theaters, proving the concept was still viable, and that success helped launch what's now been 25+ years of getting new Star Wars material shoved in our faces (something I long ago stopped trying to track). Star Trek, meanwhile, came back in the late 70's thanks to Star Wars making sci-fi seem cool and profitable, and has been part of the media landscape, somewhat aggressively, ever since, across countless shows and movies. My guy Superman has been rebooted as a movie three times since 2006, and had at least two TV series since 2000, and a handful of animated efforts. To bring it back to our canine stars - word has it even Air Bud is shaking off the atrocity that was the Air Buddies concept, and a dog should be booping hoops again in theaters soon.   This isn't an argument that *everything* should exist in perpetuity, or even for decades after the initial popularity crests.  That would be nuts.  Not everything is James Bond, constantly reinventing itself for the flavor of the decade. We're only 125 years into a world with motion pictures.  I can't say if Star Wars will be around in another 125, or what that would even look like.  Or how all of this will work. But, yeah, one day - for all the movies and TV shows and toys and theme parks...  one day, someone is going to see a Darth Vader mask and have no idea what that thing is.  And no way of knowing. Or Maybe Time is a Flat Circle It's hard to conceive of all the stories and characters lost to time, that didn't crawl forward with the culture, year over year.  Most of them were brief successes, fading quickly.  And how many survived a few decades before vanishing? Lassie was a novel first, released in 1940.   And 85 years later, maybe that rough collie has had her last adventure.  And for a long while, people loved the dog in many different media and forms.  In twelve years, the book will enter public domain, and maybe something will happen.  Maybe not. An ever-diminishing number of people will have knowledge about the character and the media empire once founded on a collie and a boy.  I don't know. Maybe someone out there is pitching Lassie 3000 about a dog in the future and a robot boy, and it'll breathe new life into the concept. However, while writing this post, I was looking at some information and learned Europe seems to be trying to keep Lassie alive.  Germany rebooted Lassie with Lassie, Come Home a few years ago and a whole-ass Lassie movie sequel that was released in 2024, neither of which I think made it to the states. It's funny, that most North American of heroes, Zorro, is being kept alive with a Spanish television production (on Amazon Prime, recommended).  Maybe the Lone Ranger will pop up in Norway. In 2024, someone decided what we needed was an all-new Sam Spade mystery set in France. It's possible the glut of streaming will keep these characters around in all new forms.  A touch of pre-awareness and a sprinkle of fannish nerdiness by creators wanting to play in these sandboxes could keep that second horizon line far out. Maybe it's something indelible about a kid and their dog that speaks to people, as much as the story of Luke Skywalker and pals spoke to a generation that we feel the need to keep these characters with us and pass them down.   And, yet, we watch things fade into the distance.   For many Lassie fans, they may check out the new movies, but what they really want is to remember what Lassie meant to them on afternoons when they were nine years old, watching the dog on their TV screens.  And that's great.  We invented that phrase "My ____" to describe how we fell in love with a character.  My Superman is Christopher Reeve.  My Zorro is Duncan Regehr.  My Wonder Woman is Lynda Carter.   And you can appreciate that the next generation has their own.  And maybe Lassie will just keep on coming home.  And who knows?  Maybe under the right eyes, Rin Tin Tin will be back doing stunts and having adventures.https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
I'd have to go back and check to make sure he didn't
signalwatch.bsky.social
It's so insane to do in 2025, I was laughing like a maniac
signalwatch.bsky.social
I imagine in a theater where you aren't sitting on your sofa has a very different vibe
signalwatch.bsky.social
Chabert Hallo-Watch: Haul Out The Halloween (2025) #film #moviereview #movies
Chabert Hallo-Watch: Haul Out The Halloween (2025)
Watched: 10/12/2025Format:  Hallmark+Viewing:  FirstDirector:  Maclain Nelson Job: Copywriter/ Children's Book AuthorLocation of story:  Evergreen Lane - which I think is in Salt Lake Citynew skill:  it's an old skill remembered - how to draw and write kid's booksMan:  Wes BrownJob of Man:  ArchitectGoes to/ Returns to:  stays in same place (this is the 3rd installment)Event:  Halloween street fairFood:  Cookies Well, Ms. Lacey Chabert has released a new movie upon the Hallmark channel, and so we're back! This is the third installment in the Haul Out the Holly Saga, a movie series which is about people who are absolutely nuts for holidays, their HOA and rules.  We've abandoned Christmas for Halloween this go-round, which - given the first movies are about going over the top with traditions - seems appropriate.   This is, I should mention, a wacky comedy series with everything about the 'burbs heightened and zany, so don't take it too seriously.  It's a departure from Hallmark's usual "the characters are all smiling to let you know a joke happened" style of comedy, and, instead, works more like an 00's-era comedy - complete with joke-every-15-second pop culture referencing and a rap by Octogenarians.   These neighbors are dedicated In this installment, we see Emily and Jared get married after falling for each other in the first movie - in which Jared as board president used HOA rules to entrap and force Emily to spend time with him.  In the second, I thought they were married, but I guess they were just @#$%ing?  (Hallmark movies are infinitely better when you apply real-life to them.) I definitely get the feeling that here in the third installment we're sort of watching the product after some pals hung out to shoot a movie, and that's actually good.  They've got their characters down, it feels casual and like everyone knows each other, and I'd be curious how much was in the script and how much was improv on set. That said, the script is running in a half-dozen directions.  The usual A-B-C through-line of a Hallmark movie is completely absent as our leads are married and Hallmark does not make movies about early marriage having issues of any kind.   The movie *feels* like they took 3-4 scripts and crammed them together, uncertain what the plot of the movie was.   We're introduced to new neighbors, which I guess is a theme (we do not see the prior new neighbors from the second installment, Haul Out the Holly: Lit Up, and I'll assume after credits rolled, the psychos of this HOA murdered and buried them in shallow graves).  This time it's a couple of Shakespeare professors from the university, played by the kids from the 1990's Halloweentown series.   I've never seen the movies, but I guess two of the stars reconnected and got married or something.  Also, they're friends with Chabert IRL, and she got them in. But, yeah, you kind of think "oh, this movie is going to be about weirdos moving in next door and everyone thinking they're witches", but that gets dropped post haste.   There's a plot about Man's mom dating Stephen Tobolowsky's weirdo character, and that gets resolved after a misunderstanding that gets on the local news.  You see, the folks of Evergreen Lane (which is a Court or Circle, but no one asked me) are putting on a Halloween carnival thing because they're so inspired by the new neighbors.   We get more cookie-eating, we get Halloween sweaters?, we get yard decorating...  But the storyline seems to be that as a youth, Chabert got "Yard Yelped" by a neighbor girl, who is now a local reporter who blonde and coded as "mean".  That girl's family was driven from the hood for... scaring Chabert the one time and may be ready to humiliate poor ol' psychotic Evergreen Lane.   The big challenge at the end is if the news team will show Evergreen Lane as a fraud who fails to raise the right amount of money (they say "it's more than last year!" at some point, after we spent all movie saying they haven't done Halloween on this street in two decades, so no idea what happened there).  And the last fifteen minutes is a bit of a mess.  But that's a product of the movie introducing something like five storylines into the film in the first hour and still needing to make time for the usual dicking around. I don't write these things. But the plot is really there as a thin framework for shenanigans, which is a bit odd for Hallmark, who are usually big on streamlined stories hitting a familiar set of beats.  But in this case, we're just here to hang out with the folks of Evergreen Court Lane.  And that's fine.   While Tobolowsky is, indeed, wacky, Melissa Peterman is kind of the secret weapon of this series, and I don't know what she writes for herself and what's script, but she's got the best weirdo dialog. Is it stupid?  I mean, the only time I kind cringed was when they went for the Frankenstein rap.  I have no idea who thought that was a good idea.  It's also clear no one involved knew the difference between a DJ and MC in hip-hop, which tracks.  But it's definitely a comedy where they throw out a gag every few seconds and some of it lands and most do not.  The best gag was absolutely the Wizard of Oz throw-away bit.   Is Chabert good?  Yeah!  She gets to do some funny stuff (never underestimate the value of a small human for physical comedy).  But overall, she's carrying these movies well.   I just think they didn't quite know what to do with this movie, and so they took what feels like 4-5 episodes of TV and squeezed them into one 2 hour movie, and it was maybe too much.   https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
Hallo-Watch: Hereditary (2018) #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: Hereditary (2018)
Watched:  10/12/2025Format:  HBOmaxViewing:  FirstDirector:  Ari Aster I really liked Midsommar by the same director, and I'd heard about 75% good things about Hereditary (2018) and maybe 25% meh to bad.   Alas, the only scary thing in this movie is the pacing.   I get trying to build a mood, but holy cats, the mood should not be "for the love of Mike, get on with it".  The two hour run time felt like more than three.  And it just wasn't my bag, baby.   I guess maybe if I hadn't already seen Midsommar, this might have been more effective, but that is not how things transpired.  Frankly, I was shocked at the audacity of Aster to have two movies with such similar endings back to back.   The premise is fine, I guess.  Weird, controlling mother dies.  Daughter is accidentally killed.  Whoops, there's a secret cult worshipping an off-brand demon who has inhabited the daughter/ is merged with her? and now, in a ghostly fashion, slowly bothers this family to death.  And it's one of those movies where the evil wins (dramatic music).  Which would mean something if I cared what happened to any single character is this movie.  Temu Satan is going to take over the world because of these dopes?  I guess we got what we paid for. I think the thing we're supposed to be impressed by are moods and the kooky connections we see, like Charlie, the girl, meaningfully cutting the head off a dead bird.  And oh boy, will decapitation ever be a motif.  Or her wanting to build effigies (much as her mother does in her own way).   The selling point is supposed to be the family trauma.  Which, okay.  But... I didn't know these people at any point when they weren't brooding or gnashing their teeth or both.  So that's it - that's how I know them.  Unhappy people who become increasingly unhappy. Meanwhile, the music is doing a lot of heavy lifting to insist scenes are intense or scary as we just kinda sit there as an audience waiting for the next piece of movie plot track to get laid down.   I dunno, I just feel like I've seen one too many cult movies, and this one sort of just was that mixed with the 2010's horror trend of "the unknown" bothering nice white folks in their semi-rural house.  I didn't care about what was happening at any given moment, which is a weird way to feel when you're watching a movie.  If I'd turned it off and read the Wikipedia synopsis, I think I would have gotten the same amount out of the experience.  https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
We talked "Peacemaker, Season 2". #dcu #jamesgunn #television #hbomax #peacemaker
signalwatch.bsky.social
DC Studios Universe Watch: Peacemaker Season 2 #film #moviereview #movies
DC Studios Universe Watch: Peacemaker Season 2
I'm pretty sure we didn't talk much about Peacemaker Season 1 around here.  Which is too bad, I quite liked it.   Peacemaker Season 2 just finished on HBOmax.  And, man, are the reactions online weird.   And, look, I want to be a kind person, but sometimes it's really clear that * once a show moves beyond a certain number of episodes/ duration, and therefore snowballs in complexity, some viewers don't know how to watch a movie or TV show without being spoonfed what is happening * in 2025, people are still actively worrying about their fan theories and judging a show based on whether or not the show matches the story they told themselves.  Why would you watch a show so predictable you know exactly where it's going? * a lot of folks think that if something is character driven, nothing has happened, which just blows my gourd * a lot of people who consider themselves experts on "the comics" don't seem to actually know anything about the comics.  And I say this as someone who knows nothing about Peacemaker other than that he's a Charlton character with a very oddball helmet. And these folks are very online and want to speak to the manager. Over one movie (Suicide Squad) and two eight-episode seasons, we've seen John Cena as Chris Smith evolve as a character, along with a small group of pals.  He's gone from enthusiasm over being a government stooge/ assassin in order to fulfill his dreams of being a hero, to learning to stand with people who actually care about making the world better (ARGUS's motives were always of the CIA playing-the-game-to-lead-the-game variety).   Season One did have big-bads in the form of an invasive alien species, which managed to lead to a big action set piece.  Season Two is the fall-out of what happens when you rock the boat - for reference, check out what really happens to whistleblowers in the real world.  Ie:  As we enter Season 2, things are not going great for our 11th Street Kids.   The oddity of Peacemaker is that it treats heroing like something you can just go do - it can even be a job, one which Chris is told by accident he's not qualified for.   In the wake of that, and with heartbreak as Harcourt rejects him (again and again), Chris finds an alternate reality in which he could be a hero - but there's a different set of horrors attached there.  Is Gunn commenting on how mediocre white men who can't seem to get a leg up keep being drawn to White Nationalism and certain ideas about women?  I mean, I'd think so.  If you can think you're an effective keyboard warrior and have ideas about trad wives, then, I'd guess so. But, look, Peacemaker was always a bit different from Marvel product and felt much more akin to something like a 90's Vertigo comic than a standard superhero book.*   I've dug the show's oddly personal vibe.  It's a sign of the maturity of the superhero genre when you don't need to fight a villain of the week to get to the big boss, or sort out the villain's nefarious scheme.  In fact, Peacemaker Season 2 doesn't *have* a real villain.  It has broken people moving in a variety of directions.  And that includes Rick Flagg, who just hasn't properly dealt with the death of his son, and is seduced into Luthor's world and mindset by the end of the series. I don't think it's that complicated.  The peace that Chris Smith is making, is not done by killing dudes.  He's making peace for himself and his friends.  Yeah, the peace made is the friends we made along the way.  So there you go. I get that some folks feel like if they sign up for a superhero film or show, they're signing up to basically watch someone else play a video game for them to watch (I mean, how many John Wick movies are there now?).  I don't know what to say about not everything made for TV and movies being that, and that maybe... we can all try to grow a little in what we'll watch and enjoy?   The advantage I'm experiencing as a 50 year old dude is that I am now largely zen about whatever is being shown to me.  And turn off what isn't working.  You don't want to have Peacemaker end the season by fighting an army of evil Nazis from an alternate dimension?  Fine.  Let's do this character-based stuff.  As long as it works (and it does). It's not like sequels have never been about superheroes in crisis.  Superman II was about Superman wanting to give it all up for Lois.  Spider-Man 2 is about Peter wanting to quit.  Honestly, it makes the action feel less like something to sit through on the way to the next plot point when you feel like what you're seeing in the super-action occurs.  Asking "what's it all about?" kind of makes sense. We're getting fantastic performances from everyone.  Frank Grillo is just a good actor, and his arc here is wild.  I'm now a big fan of Danielle Brooks and will be checking her out (you know what I mean!  stop.).  I'd watch Jennifer Holland in anything.  Freddie Stroma just guaranteed himself a career at least doing cons.  And I've liked Steve Agee since the Sarah Silverman Show.  But obviously Sol Rodriguez is going to continue to play a big part of Gunn's DCU, and it's well deserved.  I just looked at the IMDB list, and it's really remarkable the talent assembled. Cena is such a weird outlier in the wrestling-to-acting pipeline - alongside Bautista?  Who I always forget was a wrestler.  Like, Cena's... good?  Maybe great?  At least as Chris.  I've not really watched him in anything else, but certainly any prejudice I had about wrestlers making that transition needs to get reconsidered.  Not everyone is out there making Santa With Muscles.   But for the folks who think the show somehow isn't pushing the DCSU forward?  My dudes, establishing Lex as a player within the US government?  Salvation?  CHECKMATE opening its doors?  My guys...  this is all the fun stuff on the edge of the Justice League that you find when you don't focus solely on Gotham (and, by the way, Sasha Bordeaux showed up in Detective Comics first, so keep up).  I was honestly surprised how much they telegraphed. I won't get too much into analyzing the music.  That is the realm of JimD.  But to say I'm now a fan of Foxy Shazam is accurate. Anyway, I guess if you were waiting 8 episodes for Hawkgirl to show up again (for some reason) I can understand your confusion to a small degree.  But, also...  hey, maybe pay attention to what the show is actually saying versus the outline you've written in your head.  But color me shocked that comic media fans online are saying goofy things that belie bad taste. *curiously, DC is launching a new Vertigo label while the mainstream books literally are borrowing the plot of Mortal Kombat for their big annual event.  Yes, I find DC K.O. to be the dullest possible thing DC could be doing in 2025. https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
I would not dare try to speak on your area of expertise
signalwatch.bsky.social
DC Studios Universe Watch: Peacemaker Season 2 #film #moviereview #movies
DC Studios Universe Watch: Peacemaker Season 2
I'm pretty sure we didn't talk much about Peacemaker Season 1 around here.  Which is too bad, I quite liked it.   Peacemaker Season 2 just finished on HBOmax.  And, man, are the reactions online weird.   And, look, I want to be a kind person, but sometimes it's really clear that * once a show moves beyond a certain number of episodes/ duration, and therefore snowballs in complexity, some viewers don't know how to watch a movie or TV show without being spoonfed what is happening * in 2025, people are still actively worrying about their fan theories and judging a show based on whether or not the show matches the story they told themselves.  Why would you watch a show so predictable you know exactly where it's going? * a lot of folks think that if something is character driven, nothing has happened, which just blows my gourd * a lot of people who consider themselves experts on "the comics" don't seem to actually know anything about the comics.  And I say this as someone who knows nothing about Peacemaker other than that he's a Charlton character with a very oddball helmet. And these folks are very online and want to speak to the manager. Over one movie (Suicide Squad) and two eight-episode seasons, we've seen John Cena as Chris Smith evolve as a character, along with a small group of pals.  He's gone from enthusiasm over being a government stooge/ assassin in order to fulfill his dreams of being a hero, to learning to stand with people who actually care about making the world better (ARGUS's motives were always of the CIA playing-the-game-to-lead-the-game variety).   Season One did have big-bads in the form of an invasive alien species, which managed to lead to a big action set piece.  Season Two is the fall-out of what happens when you rock the boat - for reference, check out what really happens to whistleblowers in the real world.  Ie:  As we enter Season 2, things are not going great for our 11th Street Kids.   The oddity of Peacemaker is that it treats heroing like something you can just go do - it can even be a job, one which Chris is told by accident he's not qualified for.   In the wake of that, and with heartbreak as Harcourt rejects him (again and again), Chris finds an alternate reality in which he could be a hero - but there's a different set of horrors attached there.  Is Gunn commenting on how mediocre white men who can't seem to get a leg up keep being drawn to White Nationalism and certain ideas about women?  I mean, I'd think so.  If you can think you're an effective keyboard warrior and have ideas about trad wives, then, I'd guess so. But, look, Peacemaker was always a bit different from Marvel product and felt much more akin to something like a 90's Vertigo comic than a standard superhero book.*   I've dug the show's oddly personal vibe.  It's a sign of the maturity of the superhero genre when you don't need to fight a villain of the week to get to the big boss, or sort out the villain's nefarious scheme.  In fact, Peacemaker Season 2 doesn't *have* a real villain.  It has broken people moving in a variety of directions.  And that includes Rick Flagg, who just hasn't properly dealt with the death of his son, and is seduced into Luthor's world and mindset by the end of the series. I don't think it's that complicated.  The peace that Chris Smith is making, is not done by killing dudes.  He's making peace for himself and his friends.  Yeah, the peace made is the friends we made along the way.  So there you go. I get that some folks feel like if they sign up for a superhero film or show, they're signing up to basically watch someone else play a video game for them to watch (I mean, how many John Wick movies are there now?).  I don't know what to say about not everything made for TV and movies being that, and that maybe... we can all try to grow a little in what we'll watch and enjoy?   The advantage I'm experiencing as a 50 year old dude is that I am now largely zen about whatever is being shown to me.  And turn off what isn't working.  You don't want to have Peacemaker end the season by fighting an army of evil Nazis from an alternate dimension?  Fine.  Let's do this character-based stuff.  As long as it works (and it does). It's not like sequels have never been about superheroes in crisis.  Superman II was about Superman wanting to give it all up for Lois.  Spider-Man 2 is about Peter wanting to quit.  Honestly, it makes the action feel less like something to sit through on the way to the next plot point when you feel like what you're seeing in the super-action occurs.  Asking "what's it all about?" kind of makes sense. We're getting fantastic performances from everyone.  Frank Grillo is just a good actor, and his arc here is wild.  I'm now a big fan of Danielle Brooks and will be checking her out (you know what I mean!  stop.).  I'd watch Jennifer Holland in anything.  Freddie Stroma just guaranteed himself a career at least doing cons.  And I've liked Steve Agee since the Sarah Silverman Show.  But obviously Sol Rodriguez is going to continue to play a big part of Gunn's DCU, and it's well deserved.  I just looked at the IMDB list, and it's really remarkable the talent assembled. Cena is such a weird outlier in the wrestling-to-acting pipeline - alongside Bautista?  Who I always forget was a wrestler.  Like, Cena's... good?  Maybe great?  At least as Chris.  I've not really watched him in anything else, but certainly any prejudice I had about wrestlers making that transition needs to get reconsidered.  Not everyone is out there making Santa With Muscles.   But for the folks who think the show somehow isn't pushing the DCSU forward?  My dudes, establishing Lex as a player within the US government?  Salvation?  CHECKMATE opening its doors?  My guys...  this is all the fun stuff on the edge of the Justice League that you find when you don't focus solely on Gotham (and, by the way, Sasha Bordeaux showed up in Detective Comics first, so keep up).  I was honestly surprised how much they telegraphed. I won't get too much into analyzing the music.  That is the realm of JimD.  But to say I'm now a fan of Foxy Shazam is accurate. Anyway, I guess if you were waiting 8 episodes for Hawkgirl to show up again (for some reason) I can understand your confusion to a small degree.  But, also...  hey, maybe pay attention to what the show is actually saying versus the outline you've written in your head.  But color me shocked that comic media fans online are saying goofy things that belie bad taste. *curiously, DC is launching a new Vertigo label while the mainstream books literally are borrowing the plot of Mortal Kombat for their big annual event.  Yes, I find DC K.O. to be the dullest possible thing DC could be doing in 2025. https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
lol. WHAT? Man, I am going to be hitting ebay
signalwatch.bsky.social
Berkley-Watch: Showgirls (1995) - w/ Elizabeth Berkley at the Paramount Theatre, Austin, TX - 10/09/2025 #film #moviereview #movies
Berkley-Watch: Showgirls (1995) - w/ Elizabeth Berkley at the Paramount Theatre, Austin, TX - 10/09/2025
Watched:  10/09/2025Format:  Paramount TheatreViewing:  I don't know, manDirector:  Verhoeven I kinda knew going to see Showgirls (1995) in a theater in 2025 was going to kick-ass, no matter what.  There is a self-selected group of fans of this movie, and I guess I'm now part of this unruly mob.   As (a) someone who crushed hard on Jessie Spano in high school and graduated with the Bayside High gang, and (b) who was a bit goggle-eyed that Berkley made her pivot into major motion pictures with Showgirls, (c) and who felt she got a raw deal from deeply ingrained misogyny of the 1990's (maybe I didn't feel that so much in 95', but it was a growing realization later.), and (d) has delighted in how Elizabeth Berkley seems to have embraced this thing that could have wrecked her...   An idea I had that ultimately was part of what killed the PodCast was "I want to watch Showgirls with people and ask them what they think.  Over and over and over."  Because, truly, the movie is a mirror to the viewer and a Rorschach test.  While I have ideas about what I think it says about dreams, the American dream, showbiz dreams and what all of them cost (as well as plenty to say about sex and how it is offered and used as a commodity in entertainment) - that's me, man.  I wanted to sit down and have other folks work through the movie.  But to a person, when I suggested it, they said they would not do that.  And, so, my podcasting dreams were dashed. Then, a short while ago, Berkley said she was coming to Austin of all places for her 30th Anniversary screening of the opus, and, yeah, buddy, I was in. The grand Paramount Theatre of Austin, TX  Yours Truly and AmyC Ms. Berkley Elizabeth Berkley came out before the movie with some prepared remarks, looked like $100 million bucks, and was an absolute delight.  She talked about her journey through the movie and the fall out for her career afterwards.  And, she discussed how she picked herself up again.  Great stuff.   She really wanted the event to be something for the fans of the movie, and to make it special, and to that end, she: * brought wardrobe from the movie * was pretty dang candid about things * taught a room full of people how to dance like Nomi * really did land with her talk about resilience and staying true to yourself Yup.  The Versayce dress and the red fringe number. Once again, the Austin crowd did great in the Q&A.  Salute.  People asked both fun and probing questions, with the occasional shout out reminder that people were just happy to have Berkley in the room with a yelled "we love you!" and applause. I don't go out like I used to, but this was the second event I've been at this year with a primarily LGBQT+ crowd, wherein I was a token straight dude in the audience.  And, y'all, if the Kylie show and this screening are any indication, LGBQT+ crowds are *better*.*  This thing started at an 11 and went up.  This wasn't just watching a movie, this was an audience talking to the movie while it unspooled. I would definitely go back for another big-screen viewing.  I've seen the movie a few times, but you don't quite get the energy of the stage sequences the same way on your TV and if there aren't a few hundred folks shouting at the screen.   And that crowd was great.  I've been to my share of movies where there's been an audience - including Re-Animator on Monday.  And still, as great as I think horror audiences are, and that crowd in particular was, it didn't quite have the ecstatic vibe of the Showgirls audience.  Folks had shown up to have themselves some fun, some dressing the part (I have not felt underdressed at a movie before, but here we are), and generally just blowing the roof off with enthusiasm. There were high end cameras there, so *something* is happening with the footage, but I have no idea what. I am feeling a full discussion coming on, because I *do* think the movie should be reconsidered.  The shock of what Verhoeven put on screen remains - that is a *lot* of casual nudity.  But we can deal with it better now to discuss what he's doing and why without just clutching pearls and being concerned for people who are *fine*.  If it's trashy... yeah.  This is a guy from Holland making a movie about America.  And what's more American than shoving all of your sin into one place in the desert that has no right to exist?  Where puritanical America went/ still goes to gamble, legally bang hookers, and generally get up to no good?  And it's basically a cash generator for anyone who wants to make a buck and doesn't care how they get it. But, really, I just kind of want to salute Elizabeth Berkley for being super cool, and for bringing so much joy to Austin.  She truly did come to share some love for the folks who have embraced her movie.  I am very sure she felt the love reflected back to her.  Especially in the form of that multi-minute standing ovation. Berkley has a new show coming soon produced by Ryan Murphy, and based who's in it, I'll be giving it a look-see.   Anyway, it's always nice when your 1992 TV crush turns out to be pretty rad in person. *I also always have a great time at horror screenings like Re-Animator from the other day.  It's a different energy, but it's a lot of fun.https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
Parker Watch: Play Dirty (2025) #film #moviereview #movies
Parker Watch: Play Dirty (2025)
Watched:  10/09/2025Format:  AmazonViewing:  FirstDirector:  Shane Black Between 1962 and 2008, author Richard Stark (real name: Donald Westlake) delivered 24 Parker and Grofield novels.   Between sometime around 2010 and 2017, I read all of the Parker and Grofield books, mostly in order.  And I've re-read some since, including this year.  That's not a guarantee of anything for you, but it is a sign of something that this was the series I actually stuck with it. Over the years, the books have been adapted here and there, but during Stark's lifetime, he had a rule that the studios not use the name "Parker" in their adaptations.  Likely because the studios always made changes, and he was protecting the essence of his character. With Stark/ Westlake's passing, his wife allowed the studios to try another go at an adaptation, this time using the Parker name.  And, thus, we got the 2013 mid-tier film, Parker, starring Jason Statham and Jennifer Lopez.  We talked about it here and here.  But now we have a new take... and I do not know who this is for. If it's for regular movie watchers who don't care about Parker or Shane Black - it's going to feel off, but they won't know why.  If it's for Shane Black fans, it's not anywhere close to his best stuff.  If it's for Parker fans... we're used to disappointment. Written and directed by action/comedy auteur Shane Black, Play Dirty (2025) is not based on any one Parker novel, and seems to borrow elements from a few, changing significant details, using character names and then changing the characters.  It is intended to be a modern Parker, and it seems to want fans of the books to say "that's him!  That's finally Parker!" while introducing a new audience to the idea of Parker.  But it never feels like Parker, while this version absolutely does Parker-ish things.  Nor does it feel like the writing of Richard Stark, even when the characters and borrowed beats feel familiar. To those choosing to watch the movie as their evening selection because it's free to stream for Prime members, it's going to mostly work as a quirky heist movie with a lead who is Mark Wahlberg.  And his band of merry thieves.   The problem with making a Parker movie in 2025 is that (1) Parker would not get involved with a heist as high profile as the one in the movie unless he had some very specific conditions met and (2) the movie can't help but keep escalating the explosions and very public gun play - taking a page from recent Netflix action movies like The Gray Man, which are fun, forgettable films where the explosion budget is very high.  Parker dropping a freaking NYC metro train onto a city street is just not really in his playbook.  Especially as doing so would likely destroy the items he's trying to heist, rendering it from invaluable to trash. It's hard to know what are studio notes, but not so hard to pick up on what is Shane Black if you've watched his movies since the 1980's.  He, rightfully (usually), gathers that hanging on for the joke instead of just moving at full throttle through an action sequence pays off.  He takes delight in the absurdity of people in a loving way, but also knows these are fictional characters and you can take any of them out at a moment's notice if the action calls for it. But credit to superstar casting director, Sarah Hailey Finn.  LaKeith Stanford was a perfect Grofield.  Keegan-Michael Key was a solid choice for Ed Mackey.  Thomas Jane probably should have been Parker, now that I think about it, but he fills his part just fine.  And seeing vets of a few years ago like Tony Shaloub show up as solid as ever is gratifying.  Not to mention Gretchen Mol and, yes, that was Peta Wilson.  It seemed like Chukwudi Iwuji really had something to do here, and then...  not really?   And, yeah, Wahlberg was bad casting, but I suspect that was Amazon and not Finn.  If you want a movie, you need to have a star.  But stars don't want to play Parker.  They want to play a cool dude who does shoot people. Look, there's just too much...  movie stuff.  In 24 books, Parker never talks about where he came from or who he is when he's not on the job.  What little we see is when he tags up with Claire or when a book starts with Parker somewhere with a woman he's going to part ways with in the next few hours.   Him talking about lessons he learned at age 8?  Man, if that happened, I have zero memory of it and it'd be weird if he did - maybe in one of the last few books. The overly complicated disaster/ action scenes have janky CGI, which normally I shrug off, but in non-sci-fi context, it looked pretty bad and made it feel like a cartoon.  The explosions and gunfire seemed like they'd raise so many questions and alarms, the Parker of the books would have just holed up in an apartment for two weeks with Zen until the coast was clear and then leave town at 4:00 AM.  He would not have kept on trying to improvise his mission with the people around him who'd not pulled it off. We have a weird relationship to violence on screen.  Because I know I come into any Parker movie with a lot of baggage, I was doing a quick look to see what folks online thought about the movie who have no idea who Parker is, don't care, and just want to watch a movie.  And it seemed like my concerns about the half-way approach to Parker as it gets handled in movies, especially when you pivot to comedy (and there are funny moments in Parker books, but they aren't "comedies"), bears out.   Without the voice of the narrator (and a kinda meh performance by Walhberg), Parker just seems like a bland-dude who is particularly violent in this movie.  No one is afraid of him except one mobster - and everyone should be a *little* bit afraid of Parker, except maybe Madge (Peta Wilson).  Parker's a planner, that's his thing.  The books are either about him planning something and it comes off (in the first 8 books or so), or they pick up as the plan went to hell, and now Parker is picking up the pieces.  By showing *both* in the film, it just makes Parker and Co. look bad at their jobs.   All that said, LaKeith Stanford is kinda perfect as Grofield.  I think he read those books and took them to heart.   Anyway, as a Parker fan, I didn't really find the movie satisfying.  As a Shane Black movie, it felt like one of the less interesting entries in his filmography, but a moderately entertaining two hours.  As a heist movie fan, none of it added up, and it was a mess.   I doubt I'll think about this movie much ever again.https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
May you get 60 cakes! and ponies!
signalwatch.bsky.social
Hallo-Watch: Jakob's Wife (2021) #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: Jakob's Wife (2021)
Watched:  10/07/2025Format:  ShudderViewing:  FirstDirector:  Travis Stevens During the Q&A for the screening of Re-Animator, star Barbara Crampton mentioned she'd produced and starred in a horror movie recently, Jakob's Wife (2021).  I recalled the name from last year's mini-dive into Crampton's work, but didn't get to the movie.  But we've fixed that. One fun thing about horror is that even when you say "vampire movie", it only really means a potential set of rules and maybe a gentle push a few directions.  Eggers' Nosferatu is not Coogler's Sinners is not Garrard's Slay.  You can change up the rules, and change up the look, as long as you do a few key things, usually involving blood consumption and slow discovery of evil.  But not always! The high concept of vampirism can be used to explore themes well beyond "a foreigner has moved in next door, and probably brought rats with him".  To that end, Jakob's Wife digs not just into the traditional roles of men and women, but of women as they reach a certain age, denied a life of their own in prescribed servitude.   Our titular Jakob (Larry Fessenden) is a pastor of a church in a dying southern town.  He's leading his diminishing flock, preaching traditional values of a man's role in his family.  His wife, Anne (Barbara Crampton) is the dutiful pastor's wife.  She's past the point of youth, married thirty years and feeling life passing her by as the perpetual prop to her husband. The one activity she does on her own, which Jakob dismisses, is working to get the old gin mill repurposed as a shopping and recreation area.  Her committee has hired her former flame to do the work to bring it to life.  When Anne and Tom go to see the decrepit mill, Tom makes a move on Anne, but in that instant, they come across a vampire. Anne returns home, changed.   SPOILERS In one lane, the movie follows the familiar track of Anne's realization of her physical transformation, but the story is her metamorphosis from demure pastor's wife to someone finding the person they thought they lost or never got to be as the vampiric lust for life kicks in.  The movie certainly is built on the framework of a horror film, but leans hard into those themes, powered by some terrific dark comedy, especially in the back half as Anne and Jakob reckon with her new state, and Jakob wants to support Anne, while also finding her new assertiveness confusing.   What's interesting is that our "Master" here is not seeking ownership of Anne.  Instead, they're offering to set her free - and not in the usual "won't it be cool to turn into mist and eat people, if you agree to do my bidding?" way.  Instead, the Master is offering Anne the power to be her own Master.  Which sure colors who considers themselves Anne's "master" now. Not all of it lines up - people go missing but are unmissed.  It sure seems like what's going on at the main house would draw the attention of neighbors, but doesn't, except when it does.  But I'm also aware, this is a movie about the big ideas and not the plot and logic details.  This ain't that kind of movie, kid.  But I was curious if the parent-aged Jakob and Anne had children who had moved on, or were childless, as those are two very different points in life. The Master is a Nosferatu-style vampire played by the increasingly popular Bonnie Aarons in what I *think* is an intentionally gender-ambiguous way, but indicates at one point that she is/was a woman.  Which both throws some new color on her desire to "free" Anne, as well as the one sexual seduction scene with Anne and the Master. The film has some nice cinematography, showing a town on it's last legs but with echoes of what was a vibrant community.  But also the twilight that Anne moves into, with light blasting and then vanishing as the movie progresses. It's interesting to also see a vampire movie about people who are not, you know, already young and with their lives ahead of them, given the chance to be young and hot forever.  Instead, it's about someone with a lifetime of feeling unseen, and it's a really great concept.   Everyone hits their marks in the movie, but Crampton's performance is interesting.  She seems so normal at points, even as a vampire, that it's a bit disarming.  She's not someone going through a tortuous process, exactly, she's someone feeling good in her own skin for the first time in decades.  She's not playing grand guignol (except when she is) or some wild-eyed animal crazed with blood-lust, she's like a person who is having a good year after several bad years - that I'm not sure I'd seen before. Anyway, I dug it.  Every time I thought I had the movie clocked, it pivoted.  Good stuff for Spooky Season.https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
Last night had a chance to see Re-Animator on the big screen, followed by a Q&A with two of the leads
signalwatch.bsky.social
Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985) - w/ Crampton and Combs at the Paramount Theatre, Austin, TX - 10/06/2025 #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985) - w/ Crampton and Combs at the Paramount Theatre, Austin, TX - 10/06/2025
Watched:  10/06/2025Format:  Paramount Theatre, Austin, TXViewing:  unclearDirector:  Stuart Gordon Well, what a spectacular evening. Last year I watched Re-Animator (1985) for the first time in forever, and was reminded of (a) what a great movie Re-Animator really is, (b) fired up a new appreciation for what the movie is doing, and (c) was reminded that Barbara Crampton is just an excellent idea all around.   She's on socials, and she does not disappoint.  And so it was that I learned she and Jeffrey Combs were traveling to some cities to hype up the 4K restoration of Re-Animator on its 40th Anniversary.  And, fortunately, they were coming to Austin. I won't comment too much upon the movie.  It ain't for everyone (Mom, you can skip this one), but it's fair to say in 2025 that it's a bonafide classic.   Anyway, not only did SimonUK and I decide to go, my ol' pal CB - who was a horror kid from small times - was in attendance.   Before the show, I was waiting for Si, and, in this picture, I realized Barbara Crampton and Jeffrey Combs had stepped out to take some PR shots, and I was somewhat nearby and so took a picture of Crampton, not realizing Si was walking right up to her. that's Si in the black shirt back there not realizing who the blonde lady is Si thought I was taking pictures of him, which he found odd.  Then I pointed out, no, I am taking pictures of the folks we paid good money to see. Crampton and Combs doing what we've all done - wandering into Congress Avenue Unlike me, they remembered to take a picture of the marquee After this, we went inside.  Upstairs, I came within about five feet of Crampton, and because I have nothing smart to say, I left her alone.  But I am large and was in motion, so she did look and smile my general direction, and that ain't nothing. The crowd was *great* during the film.  Re-Animator is a weird, gorey, hilarious mess that I think hits all the right notes - just notes you didn't know you ever wanted to hear in that key or in that order.  But these were *real* fans.   Then there was a Q&A.  And, look - I was dreading this part.  Q&A's have been some of the cringiest moments of my life, but Austin did me proud.  There was maybe one or two awkwardly phrased questions, but nothing stupid, no one pitched a movie to them, or told a personal story longer than two sentences.  And it was fun and funny.  All in all, it was really tight and handled well. Moreover, I felt like I learned a lot about this movie and the deal with the sequel, which I'll be watching this Halloween, I think, despite the lack of Crampton.  However, I am reminded there are at least three Crampton movies released in the past few years that I intended to watch this year.  So, provided they're available, I will be watching them. Anyway, a great time was had.   My view from the seats where I wasn't going to block anyone's view Crampton and Combs say hello to Austin Talking the the moderator To all a Good Night https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
Reposted by The Signal Watch
sleestak.bsky.social
Crazy that Jade Helm became real
signalwatch.bsky.social
Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985) - w/ Crampton and Combs at the Paramount Theatre, Austin, TX - 10/06/2025 #film #moviereview #movies
Hallo-Watch: Re-Animator (1985) - w/ Crampton and Combs at the Paramount Theatre, Austin, TX - 10/06/2025
Watched:  10/06/2025Format:  Paramount Theatre, Austin, TXViewing:  unclearDirector:  Stuart Gordon Well, what a spectacular evening. Last year I watched Re-Animator (1985) for the first time in forever, and was reminded of (a) what a great movie Re-Animator really is, (b) fired up a new appreciation for what the movie is doing, and (c) was reminded that Barbara Crampton is just an excellent idea all around.   She's on socials, and she does not disappoint.  And so it was that I learned she and Jeffrey Combs were traveling to some cities to hype up the 4K restoration of Re-Animator on its 40th Anniversary.  And, fortunately, they were coming to Austin. I won't comment too much upon the movie.  It ain't for everyone (Mom, you can skip this one), but it's fair to say in 2025 that it's a bonafide classic.   Anyway, not only did SimonUK and I decide to go, my ol' pal CB - who was a horror kid from small times - was in attendance.   Before the show, I was waiting for Si, and, in this picture, I realized Barbara Crampton and Jeffrey Combs had stepped out to take some PR shots, and I was somewhat nearby and so took a picture of Crampton, not realizing Si was walking right up to her. that's Si in the black shirt back there not realizing who the blonde lady is Si thought I was taking pictures of him, which he found odd.  Then I pointed out, no, I am taking pictures of the folks we paid good money to see. Crampton and Combs doing what we've all done - wandering into Congress Avenue Unlike me, they remembered to take a picture of the marquee After this, we went inside.  Upstairs, I came within about five feet of Crampton, and because I have nothing smart to say, I left her alone.  But I am large and was in motion, so she did look and smile my general direction, and that ain't nothing. The crowd was *great* during the film.  Re-Animator is a weird, gorey, hilarious mess that I think hits all the right notes - just notes you didn't know you ever wanted to hear in that key or in that order.  But these were *real* fans.   Then there was a Q&A.  And, look - I was dreading this part.  Q&A's have been some of the cringiest moments of my life, but Austin did me proud.  There was maybe one or two awkwardly phrased questions, but nothing stupid, no one pitched a movie to them, or told a personal story longer than two sentences.  And it was fun and funny.  All in all, it was really tight and handled well. Moreover, I felt like I learned a lot about this movie and the deal with the sequel, which I'll be watching this Halloween, I think, despite the lack of Crampton.  However, I am reminded there are at least three Crampton movies released in the past few years that I intended to watch this year.  So, provided they're available, I will be watching them. Anyway, a great time was had.   My view from the seats where I wasn't going to block anyone's view Crampton and Combs say hello to Austin Talking the the moderator To all a Good Night https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
that should be the entire review. 1000%
signalwatch.bsky.social
Musical Watch: Les Girls (1957) #film #moviereview #movies
Musical Watch: Les Girls (1957)
Watched:  10/04/2025Format:  TCMViewing:  FirstDirector:  George Cukor Les Girls (1957) is what happens when someone sees Rashomon, likes the notion of the same story told from different angles, but lacks the ability or skill to write a story that pulls off the Rashomon-effect.  And, so, Les Girls is three different stories with the same characters that seem like they take place completely divorced from each other.  Because of this, and because none of the three stories is very interesting (and because my mind drifts when movies are dull), it is, I think, somewhat of a confusing watch.   But if you read about Gene Kelly, Les Girls gets mentioned all the time, so I wanted to check it out.   The story, like Rashomon, is told in flashback based on courtroom testimony.  But instead of murdered samurai, we're dealing with a civil libel suit in British court (Patrick Macnee plays one of the barristers!) after a showgirl published her memoirs and scandalized her former co-dancer, a French girl.  Seems there were three dancers in a stage show - one British, one French, one All-American Mitzi Gaynor - and all three had entanglements with their boss/ director/ lead dancer, played by Kelly. Both the British and French dancers take the stand and tell their version of events, but...  unlike Rashomon, they aren't the same events - they're basically two different stories altogether, and as the dancers are also roommates, I don't get how anything here was supposed to be a secret.  Nor do I know when each story took place, if this is just a sequential story, or if anyone is telling the truth at all (I suppose it's supposed to be on-the-nose/ deep that someone walks around outside the court with a sandwich board reading "What is truth?").  It is possible for r/3rds of the film, we're watching fabrications.   Which... why? At last Gene Kelly shows up to tell his side, which is about how he was actually not courting either the British or French woman (both of whom were accusing the other of philandering with Kelly).  And he states he was always in love with Mitzi Gaynor.   It is... laborious and boring and spends so much time on plot, there's a shocking lack of singing and dancing.  And what is there is... fine.  It's still Gene Kelly.  But by this point, he's cooking up dance sequences and is in his mid-40's trying to make sense of the success of The Wild One, and just as oddball as Astaire's "Girl Hunt Ballet" in The Bandwagon is a very weird sequence, so, too, is a 40-something Gene Kelly trying to play a guy playing a biker and obviously referencing the Brando movie.   Also -- as Jamie pointed out, two of the three looked alike, and that caused some visual confusion. If there's anything to recommend it, what dancing is there is spectacular.  But, really, there's some oddly prescient camera work in some sequences that seems like it's from the 1970's instead of the 1950's.  Just gorgeous stuff.  The sets are wild - with one multi-story contraption.  And it rightfully won an Oscar for costuming. In theory, this is a Cole Porter movie, but it didn't really have any of my favorite Cole Porter numbers.   It also has an ending that is so misogynistic, it's kind of mind-boggling.    I don't recommend this movie.  Not my cup of tea. https://signal-watch.com
dlvr.it
signalwatch.bsky.social
Nothing but respect for my Zorro