Twisters

Year 17, Day 228 - 8/16/25 - Movie #5,112

BEFORE: David Corenswet carries over from "Affairs of State", and I think we can all try to forget about THAT film, I know Mr. Corenswet has probably tried to. I was very concerned that adding THAT film was going to push me over the limit this year, that I'd get to Christmas and wish that I could fit in JUST ONE more film, and then I'd have a bad flashback to dropping in such a terrible film. 

So I had to do it, I had to find the path to Christmas movies. It's a bit hard to swallow, here it is the middle of August, it's still 80 degrees outside, and I know how to get to my holiday films. Sad, really, I've got nothing more important in my life. JK. But it's also comforting, I KNOW that I can get there, and I'll have "no regerts" at the end of Movie Year 17. As if. Like I said, I have two paths for late September, and with one simple add they now both have the same number of steps. I think I'll take the path less traveled by, because I've heard that can make all the difference - so it's the one with the sports films (we've now got boxing, wrestling, football, baseball, and golf on the docket) and less of those eerie psycho-thrillers that have been known to wear on me if I watch too many of them. There'll be plenty of time in October for dark and creepy material. 

So let's look at the bright side, I've got a framework now that gets me through, and so from now on if I want to add something at the last minute, I've got to delete something. And vice versa, like there's one film I'm not sure belongs in November, it might be more of a February thing, so I should have a replacement standing by.  I'll maybe have to revise the plan for December when I get there, but there will be new films streaming by then, so it could be a whole new ball game. I've got back-ups for my back-ups so I should be OK. And look what's coming up, like three time-travel films, "The Brutalist", "Saturday Night", horror films and (eventually) FIVE Christmas movies. 

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Twister" (Movie #458)

THE PLOT: Kate Carter, a retired tornado chaser and meteorologist, is persuaded to return to Oklahoma to work with a new team and new technologies. 

AFTER: Well, it just goes to show you that there isn't a Hollywood hit from the past that they CAN'T make a sequel to, even if it's 28 years later and none of the original actors want to be along for the ride (or they're dead, and they just can't work it into their schedule). Other films from that year included "Independence Day", "101 Dalmatians", "Fargo" and the first "Mission: Impossible" movie - all of those had sequels on movie or TV screens. "The Rock" had no sequel, but hey, maybe now there's a chance. Hey, how is "Platoon 2" coming along?

There's plenty of action here as Kate is part of TWO teams, five years apart, that both chase tornados, but for slightly different reasons. The first time, she wants to test a theory that launching a very absorbent polymer directly into a tornado will cause it to lose all of its water, and therefore (theoretically) dispel it. No water, no momentum, no tornado, no damage to life and property. Well, it's a nice theory, anyway, but it doesn't seem to work, at least not against a class-5 tornado - the team got caught a little bit off guard there, they were expecting a class-1 so I guess they just didn't bring enough polymer? Several of her team members are sucked into the tornado, so I guess we all know what happens to them (they go to Oz?).

Following the disaster, Kate goes into a guilt-fueled depression, and moves to New York and takes a desk job with the national weather service. She'll fit in just fine, probably half of all New Yorkers are working remedial desk jobs while they're working through their past traumas. Prove me wrong. But her former teammate Javi tracks her down, he's been through military service and is now working for a mobile tornado radar company, and he wants her expert help in predicting tornadoes to test a new scanner, somehow if they could just get a super-clear scan of a tornado, maybe somehow they could find another way to stop them?  I guess nobody ever thought of this before or something? I don't know, it's a bit unclear. I think it might just be easier to get everyone to move out of the state of Oklahoma, that would certainly cut down on tornado casualties. Just saying. Another solid plan would be to get people to stop dieting and exercising and using Ozempic, because being skinny in Oklahoma is probably a death sentence during hurricane season. Fat people are just less likely to be swept away by strong winds. #science

They arrive in Oklahoma in time for tornado season, and find that it's a whole circus - storm chasers have come from all over the country, but they don't have Kate's ability to read the wind and the atmospheric conditions to determine where they're GOING to be. This is maybe a bit unclear too, they keep saying that there's so much that is unknown about tornadoes, but she sure seems to know A LOT, so, umm, which is it? Do we know a lot or do we not know a lot? One crew chasing the storms is led by Tyler Owens, who's known as the "Tornado Wrangler" on YouTube, and, well, he's cocky and flashy and obnoxious, so yeah, some real love-interest material there, you know how these things go. He seems to have much better funding than the radar company does, so I guess he monetized his YouTube channel? But then he just blew that money on a pick-up truck that can anchor itself into the ground and launch rockets up into the tornado. #squadgoals

I went back and re-read my review of "Twister" from just the 2nd year of this project, back then and I had a quibble about a crew setting up the tornado equipment by unloading it from a pick-up truck, THEN turning it on and THEN driving away. The very same NITPICK POINT applies here, why not set up the equipment on a trailer, turn it on, check the settings and put it on a trailer, so you can drive it into position, it's all ready to do, then just unhook the trailer and drive away?  We see them using trailers in this film to deliver other materials to the tornado, so don't tell me this isn't possible. Look, I'm not an expert on tornado equipment, I have no idea, really, but I'm a natural problem-solver. Clearly there's a problem with setting up the sensor that needs to go right in the path of the tornado for some reason, and they were fully expecting it to get blown away because they put a GPS tracker on it, but I solved the problem with the equipment you already have. You're welcome. And if you're making a sequel, please read my old reviews for the plot points that need to be fixed, please. #likeandsubscribe

As the film progresses, Kate's attitude about the different crews and their approaches changes, she initially dismisses the "Tornado Wrangler" crew as a bunch of profiteering glory-hounds, but she learns that the money raised by selling t-shirts gets spent on feeding tornado victims. Also she begins to question the motives of the StormPAR company, when she learns that its CEO is known for buying up land parcels after tornado victims decide to sell. So yeah, she kind of does a complete turn-around and then decides to hang out with the fun crew, and the fact that its leader is rather attractive and is also smarter than she thought might be playing into her decision as well. Remember, love is not the opposite of hate, not really - she might find over time that she has more in common with the guy who initially turned her off by coming on too strong. 

There's also an ethical debate here about whether financial aid and other efforts are better spent aiding victims or trying to prevent disasters in the first place - however, there's no clear answer so, really, why even bring up the question, then?  Oh, right, you probably came here because you wanted to see that mile-wide tornado that also happens to be on fire after destroying a refinery. That's so dangerous that even Javi drops everything and heads to the nearest town to make sure that people seek the appropriate shelter. When there's not enough underground shelter for everyone, they herd up the townspeople and put them in the local theater. Still, the tornado's headed right for it, unless Kate can use a combination of her polymer experiment with some cloud-seeding rockets launched from the Tornado Wrangler's pick-up. #WCPGW?

This was one of the movies that "saved" the movie theater industry last year, along with "Deadpool & Wolverine", I remember there was a lot of hype for it as one of the big summer blockbusters of 2024. But really it was only top 20, at least 5 movies made twice as much as this one, including "Wicked" and "Moana 2" and even "Despicable Me 4". I guess movies that are aimed at children and parents just make more money, because if people go out to see "Twisters", they're probably not bringing the kids, or they don't have kids to begin with. But parents bringing all their kids to the theater to see "Inside Out 2", that's kind of where the real money is these days. Right? #mathing

Directed by Lee Isaac Chung (director of "Minari")

Also starring Daisy Edgar-Jones (last seen in "Where the Crawdads Sing"), Glen Powell (last seen in "Ride Along 2"), Anthony Ramos (last seen in "Honest Thief"), Brandon Perea (last seen in "Nope"), Maura Tierney (last seen in "Beautiful Boy"), Harry Hadden-Paton (last seen in "About Time"), Sasha Lane (last seen in "Hellboy (2019)), Daryl McCormack, Kiernan Shipka, Nik Dodani (last seen in "Dear Evan Hansen"), Tunde Adebimpe (last seen in "Marriage Story"), Katy O'Brian (last seen in "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania"), David Born (last seen in "Killers of the Flower Moon"), Paul Scheer (last seen in "A Disturbance in the Force"), Laura Poe (last seen in "Arlington Road"), Austin Bullock, Stephen Oyoung (last seen in "Paddleton"), Alex Kingi (last seen in "Vice" (2018)), Chris Adrien, Jeff Swearingen, James Paxton (last seen in "Term Life"), Lily Smith, Austin Brooks, Darryl Cox (last seen in "Minari"), Douglas Seok, Ben Snow, Ashley Jay Sandberg, Capri O'Neill, Livia Chung, Chris Zurcher (last seen in "Apollo 10 1/2: A Space Age Childhood", Jennifer Rader

RATING: 7 out of 10 funnel cakes sold at the rodeo

Affairs of State

Year 17, Day 227 - 8/15/25 - Movie #5,111

BEFORE: I've got a path to August 31, but I think I'm going to flip a section of about 13 films around, so my last August film will be moved to 8/19 and I'll end August on a different film. Also I was one film short for August so I'm dropping this one in at the last minute - OK, the month is full now, no more adds. The reason for flipping is to move the film "Saturday Night" from a scheduled Tuesday to, you guessed it, a Saturday night. It could make the linking for September a bit tougher, but I can handle that. Totally worth it for the day-of-the-week tie-in. 

I also had some time today to fool around with some possible chains for September, now that I have a new ending point for August. I now have a path that will connect to October 1, in fact I have two, so now I have to decide between them. I'm not exactly sure how I'm going to do that yet, maybe I'll lean toward the one with more fall sports themes, or more back-to-school films, that would be one way - but that path is harder to tweak, there are less films I can drop to make more room for slots in November and December. So, really, I'd better start figuring out the path all the way to Christmas, so I'll know what the limit is for each month. 

David Corenswet carries over from "Superman" (2025)

THE PLOT: A young campaign aide gets in way over his head when he sleeps with the wife and daughter of a presidential candidate. 

AFTER: OK, now I kind of regret dropping this one in at the last second - if this film makes me short a slot in December I'm going to be very upset, because this one just isn't worth it. It's a stupid film that makes no sense, and it's not based on the way politics really works in this country, of that I'm pretty sure. It's from 2018 but there's no way it could be about Trump, because movies take a few years to make and nobody really saw Trump winning in 2016. My theory is that even HE didn't think he would win, and in fact never planned to win in the first place, he was just trying to improve his brand, and if he lost then he could claim that the election was stolen and he could rile up his supporters and come back stronger four years later. He certainly didn't want to do any of the hard work that the job required, so why then did he run for the office? Well, duh, power and money and the ability to go golfing every day on the taxpayer's dime. Then he had to run a second time because he forgot to pardon himself before leaving office in 2021, and people took him to court after that, so he had to get back in there to give himself immunity again. 

None of what's in this film is even close to that, except the senator portrayed here has something of an open marriage, well, we never see HIM cheat but his wife is DTF with the main character, so I can only assume they've got some kind of marital understanding. Later in the film Michael Lawson also sleeps with the senator's daughter, who's also kind of screwed-up, but in a very different way. And the film starts with Lawson banging a THIRD woman, some older lady who's well connected in D.C. politics, and that was just to get himself invited to a party, where he could then petition for a job with the senator's campaign. But this guy will sleep with any woman he can to get ahead, but really, that's all there is to the plot, Lawson sleeping his way to the top, the implication being that this is "just how it's done" in Washington, however it feels more just like some horny screenwriter's imagination. 

I'm not even sure that the director understands the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" when it comes to politics - there's barely a description of one party's policies over the others. And then we have the "Unity Party", which is some kind of third party, although largely conservative. It's a total fantasy to think that some kind of third-party candidate would have a viable shot in a U.S. Presidential election. Something like 47% of the voters in this country are registered with one of the two major parties, which means that if the independent voters could get together and agree, they could be the largest voting block of all - but it's unlikely to happen simply because they're all so independent. Even if the G.O.P. were to be completely rocked by scandals, they'd just change out the candidates and the head of the party and keep doing the same old shenanigans. 

Lawson gets his job with Senator Baines' campaign by giving his campaign manager a flash drive with a video of another one of his conservative clients having a liaison with another man in a bathroom stall. So yeah, this movie doesn't really aim high. Lawson's roommate Callie seems to be the expert at getting these videos, and holding on to them, but for some reason not utilizing them to get ahead, and she gets really made at Lawson for giving up one of the videos from her collection. OK, but why have them if you're not going to use them for blackmail purposes? Is this just some private collection or fetish thing? The rent needs to be paid, and you've got a gold mine just sitting there in a box, why not use it to your advantage?  Again, this makes no sense. 

Lawson finds himself in a difficult situation because even though the Senator takes him on a fund-raising trip back to his home state of Texas, Baines only wants Lawson to watch his daughter, Darcy and keep her out of trouble. Well, damn, that's like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, isn't it? OF COURSE he's going to fall for her and OF COURSE he's going to be stuck in this love triangle, since he's already sleeping with her mother. Step-mother? I don't know, this all feels like it's from a certain category on PornHub or something. Meanwhile his leftist lesbian roommate can't stand living with him any more, she's tired of being told to leave the apartment so Lawson can have sex with the Senator's wife, so she decides to finally start monetizing her blackmail videos so she can get her own place. (What could POSSIBLY go wrong?)

Really, the ONLY reason to watch this is to see David Corenswet in a pre-Superman role. There's just not a lot here besides that to hang your hat on. The only other good thing I can even say about this movie is that it probably helped a bunch of under-employed actors keep their SAG cards for another year, based on the lack of crossover with other movies, and the fact that there are so many actors here who I've never even heard of.  I know it's not from that studio, EFO, that made all those Bruce Willis films quickly and cheaply before his disease kicked in, but it kind of feels like it. This is the sort of film you'd see late at night on Starz or The Movie Channel just to fill up the hours between 3 am and 5 am when they're quite sure nobody is watching, only a few people might tune in because from the title they think it's a Skinemax special. 

If you REALLY want to squint and find a tie-in here, you could make a connection between all these videos of politicians having illicit sex and think there's some connection to a certain bunch of files that everyone is talking about these days. But really, that's a pretty big stretch. 

Directed by Eric Bross

Also starring Thora Birch (last seen in "Anywhere But Here"), Adrian Grenier (last seen in "Arsenal"), Mimi Rogers (last seen in "The Wedding Ringer"), David James Elliott (last seen in "Clockwatchers"), Grace Victoria Cox (last seen in "Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile"), Faye Grant (last seen in "My Best Friend's Girl"), Richard Strauss, Brandon Hardesty, Eugena Washington, Michael Copon, Bonnie Johnson (last seen in "Rules of Engagement"), Amy Campione, Nate Walker, Sheila Lee, Betzaida Landin (last seen in "The War with Grandpa"), Deniz Olgac, Aaron Rouse, Danielle Strauss, Stephen Israel, Paul H. Chapman, Jeff Goins, James Keesler, Felicia Devorris, Ted Kaufman, Kenneth Altman, Dacey Shackleford, Gene Hansen, Donald Imm (last seen in "Better Living Through Chemistry").

RATING: 3 out of 10 secret meetings on park benches (which, umm, by definition aren't really all that secret)

Superman (2025)

Year 17, Day 226 - 8/14/25 - Movie #5,110 - WATCHED ON 7/19/25   

BEFORE: Yeah, right in the middle of the Doc Block I went out and watched a fiction movie - a man can only take so many documentaries, after all, even good ones. If there's a superhero movie in wide release, I need to go and see it, I don't want to fall behind again. Plus, you know, there was a little bit of hype for this one. 

There was a free screening at the theater where I work, ideally it was for students and faculty, but most of them are on summer break, so nobody's going to mind if I slip myself into the crowd. Well, I am "staff", I'm just not staff-staff. Same difference. Even if I have to delay the review, and come in to work on my day off, it's so worth it, saving the cost of a movie ticket these days.

If I've done this right, Alan Tudyk carries over from "Moana 2" (or maybe "The Electric State"). 

THE PLOT: Superman must reconcile his alien Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing as reporter Clark Kent. As the embodiment of truth, justice and the human way, he soon finds himself in a world that views these things as old-fashioned. 

AFTER: Welcome to the NEW DCUniverse, this is the first film in a larger, ongoing series, assuming things go well. All those characters DC introduced over the last 10-12 years are no longer relevant. Umm, sorry, no refunds. I was talking to a co-worker during the "Smurfs" screening last month and he asked me why they needed to re-boot that franchise every few years, and my response was that everything needs to be re-booted every few years, it's not just those Smurfs. (Also, why was he more concerned about THAT franchise, over any others? Priorities, man.). As a lifelong comic book fan, I'm all too familiar with reboots. DC and Marvel (mostly DC though) see the need to completely trash all that came before, story-wise, every few years, because readers are constantly aging out of the program. New ones are being born, thankfully, and that means there's a steady stream of people looking to get into reading comics, but they may not know where to start. So they conveniently start over every few years (usually with Superman's origin story and a giant cross-over story) so that people have a good on-ramp into the system, and who has time to catch up on 50 years or even 10 years of continuity in order to understand a character? 

So yeah, it's unfortunate if you had taken the time to watch every DC Comics-based movie since "Man of Steel" in 2013, you may even feel now like you've wasted your time, but they've cleared the board and scrapped all the OLD stories and they're starting fresh. Again. Maybe. Really, it's. bit unclear right now whether ALL of the old stories have been trashed, or if it's just the ones that James Gunn didn't work on, and I'm betting it's the latter. So maybe "The Suicide Squad" still happened? Please? 

Which is more ridiculous - Superman saving the life of a squirrel, or him saving himself and others from a black hole by, umm, blowing on it? Jesus, it's not an old Nintendo cartidge of "Duck Hunt" - yes, I know Superman has super-strong breath, but it's a G-d d-mn BLACK HOLE, nothing is able to escape from it, not even light. We know this to be true, it's simple (?) physics, and Superman is NOT more powerful than the laws of time and space (despite him rewinding time in the 1976 movie by flying really fast, that was implausible then and remains so).  Here Superman is trying to save a character's baby, and together they're floating down a river of anti-protons or something toward a black hole, and come on, it's gravity, even Superman has to obey the laws of gravity, this is not a Road Runner cartoon!  It even gets to the point where Superman has passed the point of no return, where relativity predicts that matter will be crushed into an infinitely small space and then cease to exist (or be transported somewhere else, honestly nobody is really sure about that, but most likely crushed into oblivion). We even see Superman and the other characters start to get spaghetti-fied which means, END OF STORY, that's it, no escape is possible. Except then Superman uses his super-breath, and everything is fine, that creates enough extra escape velocity so that he can get away from the point of no return. Nope, impossible, we've got a contradiction here, the point of no return is exactly that, one can NOT escape from it, no way, no how. Try something else. 

There was another very cartoony reference, when Superman got crushed by the giant Kaiju creature, and he tunneled away like Bugs Bunny would have. Terrible idea, even though this is based on a comic book, that's not the same as a cartoon. This is not "Space Jam", this is "Superman" and the effects and the physics need to be a little more realistic, even though they are fantastic, they should NOT be cartoon-like. Try something else. 

On the opposite (boring) side of the scale, there was like a 10-minute argument (felt longer, though) between Lois and Clark regarding journalistic integrity - Lois believed that Clark interviewing Superman for the Daily Planet was a conflict of interest. SHE'S right of course, since Clark never would write anything negative about his alter-ego, he is hardly acting like an impartial reporter. Even Lois interviewing Clark as Superman when they're dating seems a little sketchy, although better than Clark interviewing himself. They then get into another debate about whether Superman has the right to involve himself in international affairs, and once again, SHE's right. Superman thinks that he serves justice and fairness, but he has appointed himself the sole arbiter of what is just and fair, and who's to say that he's correct? International conflicts can be very complicated, and what seems right today could appear to be incorrect or misinformed in the future. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan - among others, the U.S. felt it was making the right move, and then in the long term people came to perceive those conflicts as unjust military actions. 

Clark Kent has morals, sure, but a small-town Smallville mentality may not be the correct approach on a global scale, as today's ally might be tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa. Power tends to corrupt, so putting a new government in power has at least the potential for the new ruler to become corrupt. We always elect a new mayor in NYC thinking he'll be above corruption, and well, it never really works out that way, does it? 

Which leads to a larger question, is Superman a U.S. citizen? Is he considered an immigrant, an alien, or what?  There was an opportunity here to hold a mirror up to society, immigration being such a hot-button topic in the news right now. Was he "born" in Kansas, or born on Krypton and then sent in his rocket ship to Earth?  I hate to say it, but Luthor might have a valid point about his legal status, he wouldn't even have birthright if he was born on another world. This would give him no ability to vote, let alone meddle in foreign politics in an enemy country. We should applaud Superman's desire to make things "right", I suppose, but again, the issues may be more complex than he imagines.

Still, this does not give Luthor the right to target Superman, it really calls to mind the way that Trump went after Obama, demanding to see his original birth certificate, but then I suppose that IS the point.  We do see Lex putting people in cells, it's essentially an ICE detention camp, even if it's stored in a pocket universe. It might be like all current policies of Trump, they're popular with the majority of people, until their own friends or family members or employees start getting deported, then people change their tune and wonder why this had to happen. But again, as far as the film was concerned, I think there was maybe a coherent argument to be made here about whether might makes right, or whether that kind of thinking is outdated and wrong. Superman HAS great power, but what's more important is the way that he chooses to use it, or NOT use it, as the case may be. If having his superpowers is a great thing, then he maybe needs to spend a little more time thinking about that, because as I said, power tends to corrupt and he's not immune to that, except this is a fictional world where he's apparently always right, even though he says he makes mistakes and Lois Lane can out-think him. But watching Superman screw up wouldn't be all that entertaining, would it? So it's just easier to portray him as always being right, or at least trying to be. 

But what is "truth" in a world where there is fake news, and social media to spread it? What is "justice" in a world where people can be taken from their homes and imprisoned just for disagreeing with government policy? And don't think I didn't notice that Superman now supports the "human way", and it used to be called the "American way". Wow, don't sugar-coat it, Superman is a socialist, right? Well, sorry, but to be anti-American, first you need to BE an American, not a Kryptonian who looks like an American. And OK, let's talk about that message from Superman's birth parents, which originally Clark could only watch the first half of. The part about helping people and seeking out truth and justice, one assumes, which became his credo. But the SECOND part of the message, unscrambled and deciphered by LuthorTechs (umm, sure, nothing happening there at all) talks about how Jor-El's powers, under Earth's yellow sun, would therefore make him like a god among humans. Naturally his parents assumed that he would be elected ruler and have many harems, this is just part of Kryptonian society, as far as we know. Perhaps it's just that Krypton is a very different place, it's supposed to be more evolved and dignified, but then, umm, how do we explain away General Zod and other evildoers? So maybe it's just not as evolved as we think.  

Anyway, we're missing the ecological message here - Krypton was a doomed planet because (again, we assume) it used up all its resources, or it messed around with nuclear energy or had too many crystals or something. We should probably check this in the new DC universe - what's the deal with destroyed Krypton, or do we even know? Pollution, climate change, nuclear energy, reliance on fossil fuels, they're throwing away a narrative gold mine here, because Superman should be working every day to make sure that whatever happened to his birth planet does NOT happen to his new home planet. Right? So if that means fighting greenhouse gases in addition to metahuman criminals, so be it, that would be the Superman we need right now. Saving the life of one SQUIRREL just isn't going to get us there. 

Thankfully, they don't go back and re-hash Superman's origin AGAIN, because they kind of assume that we all just know it, we've read it in the comic books like a hundred times and in movies, almost as many, or perhaps it just feels like it. So this Superman's story starts somewhere in the middle, where he's already made it to Smallville and got that reporter job, he's already in a relationship with Lois Lane, and she KNOWS, so that's good, and Luthor is rich and powerful and already hates Superman and has taken many steps toward getting rid of him, and the Fortress of Solitude already exists, it just retreats under the ice when it's not in use, so other people don't discover it. (Plus, come on, it's cold in the Arctic, you've got to expect some shrinkage.) So wow, we're really saving a lot of exposition here, so there will be plenty of time later to throw more nonsense logs on the story fire. 

More people and things that we need to update everyone on - Clark's parents are still alive, though they're played by shorter, fatter actors - this is a downgrade from Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, unfortunately. Ma and Pa Kent can't seem to figure out how to use a cell phone, so this means everyone in Kansas is fat and stupid, right? I've got to consider Corenswet and Brosnahan a downgrade too, as I was fine with Henry Cavill and Amy Adams. Just me? I think one day we're going to look back on "Man of Steel" and "Batman v. Superman" and they're really going to shine in comparison to adjectiveless "Superman". BUT OK, James Gunn, you can try to prove me wrong, it won't be easy.  Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Cat Grant, well, whatever, but I thought Laurence Fishburne was just fine, there's really no reason to throw the metahuman baby out with the bath water, so to speak. 

We know that Peacemaker exists in the New DCU - what a coincidence, another James Gunn character didn't get retconned away. Can I assume that THE Suicide Squad carries over, too, at least the second movie if not the first?  It's the James Gunn-iverse, so really anything that he had his hands on is probably still relevant, and the rest (Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Shazam) will all need to be replaced as time goes on. Yes, even Blue Beetle. Again, I ask, but with a different person in mind, power tends to corrupt, so putting a new government in power has at least the potential for the new ruler to become corrupt. Someone has appointed himself the sole arbiter of what is just and fair, what exists and what does not, and who's to say that he's correct?

For example, the de facto ruler of this new universe has decided that Krypto needs to be a "bad dog" - why? What purpose does this serve, it's not exactly funny, maybe it's more slice-of-life relatable, but the Krypto I know from the comic books was extremely intelligent and well-behaved, so again, what is UP with this plot point? It only makes Superman look weak because it suggests that he doesn't have the discipline necessary to train a DOG. He can lift a falling skyscraper, but getting a dog to not shred things is somehow beyond his range? It doesn't make sense, yeah I know it's tied to Krypto being Supergirl's dog, but still, it doesn't feel right. He clearly CARES about the dog, because he passes up on battling some imp from another dimension to keep looking for the dog - this is also BAD storytelling, though, because Superman should never turn away from an emergency happening right before his eyes, it should not be part of his character, ideally. 

Other random thoughts - somebody clearly wanted to pair up Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga again as Superman's parents, I guess she wasn't available, but they cast an actress who looked enough like her that I see what they were trying to do. I also thought the actress who played The Engineer looked very similar, I don't know why anyone would cast two actresses who look so much alike in different parts in the same film, unless they're trying to suggest a connection between them. I read the Superman comics religiously, and I had no idea who "The Engineer" was, maybe I forgot?  Also, regarding "Ultraman", that name means something specific to the comic book readers, it's Clark Kent from a world where the Justice League heroes are villains. So if Lex had a portal to another universe, why not just enlist the Superman from that universe, rather than do what he did? 

I also don't know why they revived the characters of Otis Berg and Eve Teschmacher, these were characters invented for the 1978 movie, and neither one is from the comics. They're terrible stereotypes, Ned Beatty played Otis as the stupid, bumbling sidekick (Lex Luthor can't afford to hire smart henchmen?) and Valerie Perrine was really just eye candy (not that I'm complaining).  Their appearances here aren't much of an improvement, just saying, Teschmacher is still just here because she's sleeping with Luthor, she's essentially Melania Trump. I guess they're both not as dumb as they were before, so umm, yay? But we all need to move forward here, not backwards, and stick to the sacred texts - er, comic books, please. 

The minor staff members who work for the Daily Planet are just as bad, they're simple stereotypes - the dumb jock sports guy, the sexy vapid gossip columnist, the black guy. Sure, there may not be much time to get to know them, what with the world ending and everything, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to know them as something more than one-dimensional. 

I'm more motivated now to watch that four-hour cut of "Justice League", even though I know the earlier version backwards and forwards. Quite possibly it's so rich and full of more story that the new film will look like a children's comic book, all silly and stupid and such. Lex Luthor has a thousand monkeys in his pocket universe, and they're all composing hate-posts about Superman on social media? Man, that doesn't even make any sense - why would he use monkeys when he can use A.I. bots? That's even stupider than saving the life of one little squirrel. 

(UPDATE: I started watching the 4 hour cut of "Zack Snyder's Justice League" last night - I made it through almost two and a half hours, then I had to call it a night. Well, I had a free night because I watched "Superman" last month, but still, I'll have to break up the Snyder Cut into two parts, maybe I can finish it this afternoon after some job-hunting. The general feeling is that I'm not learning too much MORE about what Snyder had in mind, though there is certainly MORE of everything. Because why tell a story in two hours when you can tell it in four? Seriously, though, I see why cuts were made, and when Joss Whedon was brought in to replace Snyder, the changes were more about having a brighter, funner tone rather than making changes to the story. Which is how we got Aquaman talking like a "bro" rather than a lost king of a secret underwater species. The Snyder Cut is more serious, which may be more appropriate for a bunch of heroes trying to save the world, but really it's just way too long, so I get why it had to be trimmed down. I'm not counting this in my tally as a NEW movie, because it's really just a different cut of a movie I've seen before.)

Bottom line - this is the new DC Universe, or at least the start of it, and if it does well we're in for a long run, but if it doesn't sit right with me, it's going to feel even longer. I guess I'll go back and watch "Batman v. Superman" and "Justice League" again, because I'm still Team Cavill for now. I'll just have to wait to see what the future holds, as we all do. 

Directed by James Gunn (director of "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3")

Also starring David Corenswet (last seen in "Pearl"), Rachel Brosnahan (last seen in "Beautiful Creatures"), Nicholas Hoult (last heard in "The Garfield Movie"), Edi Gathegi (last seen in "Crank"), Anthony Carrigan (last seen in "Fatherhood"), Nathan Fillion (last heard in "Deadpool & Wolverine"), Isabela Merced (last seen in "Madame Web"), Skyler Gisondo (last seen in "Licorice Pizza"), Sara Sampaio (last seen in "The Clapper"), Wendell Pierce (last seen in "Thunderbolts"), Beck Bennett (last seen in "Unfrosted"), Mikaela Hoover (last seen in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"), Terence Rosemore (ditto), Stephen Blackehart (ditto), Christopher McDonald, Bonnie Discepolo (ditto), Darla Delgado (ditto), Pruitt Taylor Vince (last seen in "Gotti"), Neva Howell (last seen in "Logan Lucky"), Maria Gabriela de Faira, Zlatko Buric (last seen in "Triangle of Sadness"), Trevor Newlin, Frank Grillo (last seen in "The Purge: Election Year"), Tinashe Kajese-Bolden (last heard in "Strays"), Michael Ian Black (last seen in "Take Me Home Tonight"), Bradley Cooper (last heard in "IF"), Angela Sarafyan (last seen in "The Promise"), Louisa Krause (last seen in "Dark Waters"), Dinesh Thyagarajan, Tatiana Piper, Giovannie Cruz (last seen in "Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F"), Natasha Halevi, Paul Kim, Jonah Lees (last seen in "Tale of Tales"), Christian Lees (ditto), Rudy Quintanilla, James Hiroyuki Liao (last heard in "Frankenweenie"), Luis R. Hernandez, Mary Chatmon, Xingu Del Rosario, Lawrence Gilligan, Suzanne Hobbs, Kimmy Suzuki (last seen in "Great Expectations"), Paige Mobley, 

with the voices of Grace Chan, Michael Rooker (last seen in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"), Jennifer Holland (ditto), Pom Klementieff (last seen in "Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One"), 

and cameos from Milly Alcock, John Cena (last seen in "Jackpot!"), Sean Gunn (last seen in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"), Michael Rosenbaum (ditto), Will Reeve (last seen in "Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story"), Jake Tapper (last seen in "Yacht Rock: A Dockumentary")

RATING: 7 out of 10 curse words (superheroes can swear now? not an improvement)

Moana 2

Year 17, Day 225 - 8/13/25 - Movie #5,109

BEFORE: Up early again today because I had to go check in with my jobs counselor at the Dept. of Labor, this time I kept track of all the jobs I applied for over the last month using their web-site, and she was able to see that I have been busy. No interviews in the last month, despite my best efforts but you know what, I re-emphasized to her that I HAVE a job. Sure, it's a temp job, and some weeks I work four or five days and other weeks I work one or zero days, but that's the gig. I'm sticking there for at least a while longer to see if a staff job opens up, and if it does, well then all this job-hunting's been something of a waste of time, right?  No, seriously, I did apply for two jobs last week that I felt qualified for, and I think my chances are good, but technically still just waiting to hear. I can coast for a little while longer, just not a long while. 

Alan Tudyk carries over from "The Electric State". 

THE PLOT: After receiving an unexpected call from her wayfinding ancestors, Moana must journey to the far seas of Oceania and into dangerous, long-lost waters for an adventure unlike anything she's ever faced. 

AFTER: I think there was a strong story here, so my first impulse is to say "No notes" and leave it at that, but I think maybe if I delve into it a bit deeper I may find some things to take issue with, we'll see.  This one took a couple of attempts to finish it this afternoon, but I think it was a sleep deprivation thing - I only got four hours last night, then I had to take a bus back across Queens this afternoon after straightening out my unemployment benefits account. What was holding things up was that the school typed my SSN wrong on my W-2 form, and now I've got to get in touch with the H.R. department and somehow get that corrected over the last three years of employment, so I'll get my proper Social Security benefits when I retire. If I can ever afford to retire, that is - not looking so great at this point in time. But that's a problem for another day. 

Sending characters on a quest is fairly standard, "The Electric State" tried to do the same thing, but it was SO damn confusing, the parameters were so poorly defined, the ragtag group of characters was racing toward a place with really no idea what to do when they got there. Maybe that's why "Moana 2" seems like it has such a great story, because I just watched two movies with muddy storylines. "Damsel" kind of started in the same place, too, with a princess traveling to do something in order to save her realm, but you know, getting married, fighting for her life, teaming up with the dragon, it was all kind of off-the-cuff yet still felt too by-the-numbers. Remember, too, that Maui sort of started off like a villain in "Moana", but Moana traveled to see him, they worked it out, so of course now he's firmly in the hero column.  

Honestly, it's been eight years since "Moana" came out, so I don't remember all the details of that film, I didn't remember these coconut pirate characters or what exactly Moana did to get Maui on her side. Really, I should have re-watched the first film before watching this sequel, but who has that kind of time? Only three years have passed in story-time, though, with Moana now traveling to other nearby islands to search for traces of other people from their culture who live on distant islands. But she's been unable to find any, and apparently it's by design, there's an evil god named Nalo who created a giant storm that sank the island of Motufetu, which was kind of the central point for people from all the other islands to gather and connect with each other. Moana has a vision in which one of her wayfinder ancestors gives her the mission to raise Motefetu, otherwise the people on her island will go extinct. 

So Moana puts a ragtag crew together to help her sail across the ocean and follow a comet that's conveniently pointing in the right direction - Moni is the historian with muscle, Loto is the ship-builder and craftsperson, Kele is the grumpy farmer who can somehow grow plants in the lower deck of the boat, and of course her pet pig and rooster, because every Disney film needs at least two animal sidekicks. Nobody's seen Maui in a while, but you know, the chances are good that they'll probably encounter him somewhere along the way.  (He's kind of working on the same problem, but from another angle, that is if you can count being captured and imprisoned as working on the problem.)

The ragtag crew first encounters those coconut pirates, the Kakamora, though, who need help defeating a ginormous clam that's keeping them from reaching their home island. If you're following along in your quest handbook, this is the part where the heroes encounter a primitive race and have to perform a task to win them over and gain their help. Pay attention, there will be a quiz later, and this also ticks the box about entering the "belly of the beast" because they end up inside the giant clam (which is not symbolic of anything sexual at all, not in the least, and also Loto's not an overt lesbian, she's just a woman with shorter hair who's very good at carpentry.).

Anyway, the giant clam is the stand-in for the descent into the underworld, or a stand-in for the Death Star, whichever, because even though the team gets separated there, they manage to find Maui there and his help is sure to come in handy later.

Together they all teleport-travel to set up the big boss battle, which is a bit too convenient, but hey, probably cuts out 10 minutes of screen time that would have just been spent sailing on open seas, which, come on, is quite boring. Maui reveals that he didn't want Moana to come save him or help him defeat the evil power, because most likely she would die in the battle to come, and her friends and pets too. Still, they persevere and re-design the boat and come up with a game-plan, however it's with the idea that Nalo's going to see them coming a nautical mile away, so they'll have to keep switching tactics and improvise, the best idea seems to be to get the evil storm god to focus on defeating the humans on the boat so that Maui will have at least a chance to raise the island from the sea with his giant hook.  

Well, this is going to be a close one, what chances do a few humans have against a god while Maui's off doing the other thing?  Nalo can also strip a demigod like Maui of his powers, it turns out. So it's going to require a lot of trickery to outwit the god and some ability to think outside the box, and a total willingness to sacrifice themselves, but gosh darn it, that may be just what it takes to get it done, with a little help from the ancestors again.  As long as the island gets raised and diverse island people of all races, shapes and sizes are able to get together again, really, that's all that matters in the end. 

Speaking of diversity, probably this is the last film where Disney will be able to present such a wide array of ethnicities, races, and non-specific gender identities, as DEI programs suddenly getting cancelled all over the place due to our prevailing political climate. Who knows, maybe Disney is the 800-lb. gorilla that can continue to do whatever it wants, and tell stories about defeating the evil power with help from your platonic lesbian carpenter friend and your non-human sidekicks, and if they do, more power to them. But since Paramount already caved in to our Cheeto-colored Commander in Chief, I think maybe stories of the indigenous peoples and their non-Christian gods are maybe going to be back-burnered for a while. I hope I'm wrong, because I think this is an example of a sequel that came out better than the original film. 

Directed by David G. Derrick Jr., Jason Hand & Dana Ledoux Miller

Also starring the voices of Auli'i Cravalho (last heard in "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Dwayne Johnson (last seen in "Journey 2: The Mysterious Island"), Hualalai Chung, Rose Matafeo, David Fane (last seen in "Next Goal Wins"), Awhimai Fraser, Khaleesi Lambert-Tsuda, Temuera Morrison (last seen in "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom"), Nicole Scherzinger (also last heard in "Ralph Breaks the Internet"), Rachel House (last seen in "Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire"), Gerald Faitala Ramsey, Jemaine Clement (last seen in "People Places Things"), Tofiga Fepulea'i, Jasmine Johnson, Tiana Johnson, Ata Maivia Johnson,

RATING: 6 out of 10 Moana-bes (and this is EXACTLY what fans of Moana should be called, BTW)

The Electric State

Year 17, Day 224 - 8/12/25 - Movie #5,108

BEFORE: OK, this will be my fourth attempt to schedule and/or watch this movie - first I figured I would get here via Giancarlo Esposito, because I watched him in "The Show" and "Night on Earth", but I guess I couldn't fit it in, what with Mother's Day coming up and all that. No worries, Mr. Esposito was also in "Captain America: Brave New World", which was going to be on Disney Plus soon, so I could just work it in then. But then "Thunderbolts" came out and I had an opportunity to watch that back-to-back with Captain America, so this film got left out again. So then I saw how it connected with "Music by John Williams" via Ke Huy Quan, so it seemed like a natural fit for being the outro to the Doc Block, only I tried watching it last Sunday and I just couldn't get into it. These are bad movie scheduling vibes all around, really - but I got 30 minutes into it already, so I really just have to devote another hour and a half to it today to try and get through it. I can tell myself it's the only way to get to post my review of "Superman" in a few days. 

Millie Bobby Brown carries over from "Damsel". 

THE PLOT: An orphaned teen hits the road with a mysterious robot to find her long-lost brother, teaming up with a smuggler and his wisecracking sidekick. 

AFTER: Again, I feel like this kind of should have been a slam-dunk for me, it feels like it's RIGHT up my alley, there's a bunch of animated robots, a giant cast with some of my favorite MCU actors in it, plus Millie Bobby Brown from "Stranger Things" (Hey, why is that final season taking so damn long, anyway? Will I get to watch it in seasonally appropriate October? Nope, doesn't look like it.). Plus, it's based on a comic book (sorry, illustrated novel, that's the newest euphemism...) and it's directed by the guys who made "Infinity War" and "Endgame". 

So why the hell am I just not feeling like I enjoyed this one? For starters, it's as confusing as hell, it's set in the 1990's, but it's not the history I remember from that decade, so, great, we're dealing with an alternate timeline.  There's been some kind of war between humans and robots, but it's already OVER, which is a bad sign if you ask me. You know what would probably be more interesting? If the film was set DURING the Robot Wars, not after. Just saying, there's your movie, not whatever THIS is. Robots have been exiled to an desert area of the U.S. called the Exclusion Zone, where humans are forbidden. 

Meanwhile, the hot new non-robot technology is called the NeuroCaster, which allows people to transfer part of their mind into a mechanical drone to do their work, while the other part of their brain gets to go on a VR vacation. I don't know, that seems like an awful lot of work for a very small result, you can't really tell me this is easier in the long run than working for 50 weeks and taking 2 off and going on a REAL vacation, like on a REAL beach. A VR vacation is never going to be a proper substitute for a real one, like you can't eat great food in virtual reality - just like when we have VR sex worked out, it might be a moderate substitute for the real thing, but it can never replace the good old-fashioned flesh-on-flesh sex. Prove me wrong, science. I feel like we're back on the Star Wars Holiday Special wookiee porn dispute. 

In the world of humans, there exists Michelle Greene, who's been living in foster care since her parents and genius brother died in a car crash, and she refused to use the NeuroCaster at school, and I guess this is suppose to be symbolic of kids using their phones as a substitute for real learning, so this is the preachy part of the film. We're supposed to respect the girl who refuses to live in a fantasy world and use the new technology as part of her learning - she's a book girl, which is totally retro, but I can't really imagine a kid these days who doesn't want to use a phone or a computer to get things done. Maybe there are still Amish kids out there somewhere. 

One day Michelle is contacted by a robot named Cosmo, who was a character from a cartoon that she used to watch with her brother, and though the robot has a limited vocabulary of preset phrases, he manages to convince her that her brother's consciousness was transferred into this robot body, so they take off together for the exclusion zone to seek out his body. Sure, like you do sometimes, who's not up for a long journey across a dystopian future landscape on the slimmest of hopes?  Michelle has a vague memory of the doctor who told her that her brother was dead, and Cosmo seems to know where they need to go, somehow. But they're being tracked by human piloting one of those drone warrior suits, which is definitely NOT a robot because a human is controlling it. It's a fine line if you ask me. 

They encounter a smuggler named Keats who's been raiding the EZ for various collectibles he remembers from his childhood, in the hopes they'll be worth a lot of money someday (this is probably the most relatable part of the story, if you ask me) and Keats is partners/frenemies with Herman, a construction robot who saved his life during the Robot Wars. After fighting off the bounty hunter hired by the mysterious CEO of the Sentre corporation, this ragtag group finds themselves stranded in the Zone, which is apparently a quite dangerous place for humans to find themselves. 

The ragtag group gets even more ragtag when they visit an abandoned shopping mall that's filled with old and weird but still functioning robots. There's a mail robot, a baseball robot, a magician robot, and a football robot, and their leader is a giant Mr. Peanut robot for some reason. By this point, really nothing made sense any more, not at all, but it's too late to turn back now. In for a penny, in for a pound, so to speak. What do you know, this combination of humans and robots has exactly the skills needed to track down the mysterious doctor with glasses and figure out what happened to Michelle's brother's body and learn how his mind ended up in a robot. But this information would have been more helpful if they could only DO something with it, and it's just way too late for that. 

There's some novelty here in figuring out the identities of the actors doing the voices of the robots, and some of the casting is quite clever - whoever imagined Mr. Peanut with the voice of Woody Harrelson, for example, was at the top of their game. But in using Anthony Mackie as the voice of Herman, they computerized his voice and changed the pitch so much that you can't even tell it's him. So, umm, what's the point of THAT?  The cameo game is strong here, but most of the main actors don't seem to have to work that hard, nobody's going to win any awards for this one, to say the least, unless it's a Razzie. How the hell could "Five Nights at Freddy's" be a better movie about robots?  Well, maybe it just is. 

I feel like this should have been really cool, like maybe there was an opportunity to say something about the possible dangers of A.I., which is still a burgeoning industry that has a great chance of spiraling out of control. Yes, the mysterious definitely evil CEO of the Sentre Corporation is a step in the right direction - he who controls the robots could easily control the world, after all. But we need to stop thinking of the robots as our allies in the future, depending on how they're programmed, there's a decent chance that they'll be just the opposite. Making them appear cute and friendly and helpful at this point in time is just going to send the wrong message, across the board. 

Directed by Anthony Russo (director of "Welcome to Collinwood" & "The Gray Man") & Joe Russo (ditto)

Also starring Chris Pratt (last seen in "10 Years"), Ke Huy Quan (last seen in "Music by John Williams"), Jason Alexander (last heard in "Leo"), Giancarlo Esposito (last seen in "Captain America: Brave New World"), Stanley Tucci (last seen in "Tom Hanks: The Nomad"), Woody Norman (last seen in "C'mon C'mon"), Marin Hinkle (last seen in "Imagine That"), Michael Trucco (last seen in "Hunter Killer"), Holly Hunter (last seen in "Albert Brooks: Defending My Life"), Patti Harrison (last seen in "Outstanding: A Comedy Revolution"), Ann Russo (last seen in "Welcome to Collinwood"), Greg Cromer (last seen in "Are You Here"), Vince Pisani (last seen in "The Burial"), Camrus Johnson (last seen in "Quiz Lady"), Juan Uribe Brandi, Roshni Edwards, Aubrey Brockwell, Camille Marquez (last seen in "The Gray Man"), Lia Russo (ditto), Chris Castaldi (ditto), Tuc Watkins, Merle Dandridge, Ian McShay, Anthony Vorhies (last seen in "Extraction II"), Walter Strickland, Joe Avena, Necar Zadegan,  

Brooklynn, Antoinette LaVecchia, Rahul Kohli, Terence Lee, Christopher Brearton, Augie Rosalina (last seen in "Avengers: Endgame"), Terry Notary (last seen in "The Square"), Adam Croasdell, Chris Silvestri, Devyn Dalton (last seen in "Brothers"), Phoenix Notary, Gabrielle Maiden (last seen in "Under the Silver Lake"), Martin Klebba (last seen in "Movie 43"), David Alexander (also last seen in "The Burial"), Brooke Bloom (last seen in "Over Her Dead Body"), Cuyle Carvin (last seen in "American Made"), Rory Keane (last seen in "Fly Me to the Moon"), Art Newkirk (ditto), Jenna Pinchbeck, Casey Shirley (last seen in "Reptile")

with the voices of Anthony Mackie (also last seen in "Captain America: Brave New World"), Woody Harrelson (last seen in "A Scanner Darkly"), Jenny Slate (last heard in "Marcel the Shell with Shoes On"), Alan Tudyk (last heard in "Wish"), Brian Cox (last seen in "The Minus Man"), Hank Azaria (last seen in "Great Expectations"), Colman Domingo (last seen in "All Is Bright"), Rob Gronkowski (last seen in "80 for Brady"), Jordan Black (last seen in "Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar"), Billy Gardell (last seen in "Once Upon a Time in Venice"), Susan Leslie (B), Joe Russo (also last seen in "The Gray Man"), Kurt Loder (last seen in "Johnny Cash: The Redemption of an American Icon"), Will Lyman (last seen in "School Ties"), Billy Bob Thornton (last seen in "Cut Bank") and archive footage of Walt Disney (last seen in "Dear Mr. Watterson").

RATING: 4 out of 10 G.I. Joe lunchboxes

Damsel

Year 17, Day 223 - 8/11/25 - Movie #5,107

BEFORE: All right, it's the start of another work week, which means I've got just two shifts at the theater and then 8 days off after that. BUT tomorrow I have to attend some virtual career fair held by the NY Dept. of Labor because that counts as job-hunting. And then on Wednesday morning I have to meet with my Dept. of Labor career counselor in person, which is a two-bus bus ride across Queens, to show her evidence that I HAVE been job-hunting. Jeez, I'd really love to just get a job, because then I could put an end to the job of looking for a job. Which I wouldn't even be doing if my current temp job could hire me as staff, only there are no positions right now, and I'm not sure they'd give me the job even if there was one. Oh, yeah, it's fun being me these days. Well, I have my movies and I'm catching up on reading and logging in comic books, at least. If I don't find a job soon I may have to start selling some of my old comics. 

Robin Wright carries over from "Here". 

THE PLOT: A dutiful damsel agrees to marry a handsome prince, only to find the royal family has recruited her as a sacrifice to repay an ancient debt. 

AFTER: Well, this is what you get for $60 to $70 million in budget these days, but it's a bit unclear how much of that was spent on the dragon and the other effects. Ah, but that's the budget according to IMDB, Wiki says that Netflix spent $145 million producing the film, I wonder what else that figure includes. It's a bit strange that Netflix will spend that much making a movie that they don't sell to another company, they just stream it when it's done and they don't charge their subscribers extra to rent it. I think this means that Netflix is doing REALLY well, they take all the monthly fees and pool them together and they can drop $145 million on making a fantasy film and not care about it, or it means that they're somehow operating at a loss and they're in BIG trouble, because there's no way for them to make back that $145 million they spent on this. Can both things be true?

This is another attempt to take one of those medieval fantasy stories and turn it on its head because, you know, it's the modern age and we write things differently, sisters are doing it for themselves and so forth.  Millie Bobby Brown's character doesn't need "saving", if anything she's going to battle the dragon herself, single-handedly, and get her revenge on the people who tried to use her as a human sacrifice in the first place. 

I had a job-hunting experience last week where I got both e-mails and texts from a marketing company, who thanked me for my application submission and wanted to see if I was free for an interview on Friday, what time would be good, just let them know. Well, damn, it was good to see that my efforts were starting to pay off, but wait, can you remind me which position this was for?  I only applied for like a dozen things last week, and before I spent subway fare going into Manhattan, I wanted to know which job I was in the running for. They said sure, this was the Sales Promotion Assistant position that I responded to. That's when I thought maybe something was up. I would never apply for a sales or a marketing position, because the people in those jobs tend to be incredible weasels, something I would not like to become. And they were being super nice and somewhat aggressive about me coming in for an interview, I got two more texts about coming in on Friday, and then when I didn't respond, they said I could come in Monday, but that would be the last day. Sure...I got the feeling that they'd suddenly find a space for me on Tuesday if I didn't jump at Monday. So, I Googled the company name and I found a Reddit post that said to NOT fall for their scam, they will pretend to interview you and you'll see a lot of people going in and out of a room getting interviewed, but it's a scam, and you'll end up out in the streets handing out flyers trying to get people to change their cell phone plans. Umm, yeah, no thanks, that's not my idea of a good time. I could have just blocked them but I wrote an e-mail back saying "Nice try, but I'm on to your scam, please lose my number, and shame on you while I'm at it." I couldn't just let it go, I needed to burn that bridge. 

I mention this because Elodie's family should REALLY have figured something was up in this film, you don't get an offer from a far-off island kingdom to arrange the marriage of your princess daughter from your shitty little famine-plagued territory to their insanely wealthy prince and get a metric ton of gold to boot. If an offer sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Not always, but certainly most of the time. But the whole family of Lord Bayford takes a trip across the ocean to marry off Elodie, and save their little kingdom from poverty and famine. Elodie really digs Prince Henry, too, they seem to be hitting it off, but it's still surprising to me that she didn't spot the scam, I'm only surprised that it wasn't a letter from a Nigerian prince who's suddenly come into a fortune of money and needs a local bank account to deposit it in.  I mean, really COME ON, I smelled B.S. from the start here.  

The marriage may even be legit, however right after the wedding there's a second ceremony, where the new princess is asked to symbolically throw a gold coin into the chasm where the dragon lives, to represent the princesses who in centuries past were offered up as sacrifices to appease the dragon and save the kingdom of Aurea. Symbolic, sure - anybody who doesn't see that Elodie's about to be thrown into the chasm herself have probably never seen a movie before. I'd love to say there were any surprises here, but there just aren't, not if you're paying attention and have half a brain and can predict where the story might go.  

They do try really hard to make this feel original, like while Elodie is learning her way around the dragon's lair (thanks to a map drawn on a stone wall by the princesses who came before her) her father does regret his decision to pimp his daughter out in exchange for gold. Well, that is the way that dowries worked back then, let's be real about that for a minute. But the old guy does have regret, so he comes back to try to defeat the dragon himself and save his daughter. Well, it was nice knowing him.  

We'll have to move on to the next very predictable plot point, Elodie is forced to face the dragon herself when escape proves impossible, and then she'll have to either defeat it, or better yet, team up with the dragon to take down the evil royal family that has cast so many young damsel princesses down into the chasm to feed the beast.  Yeah, I predicted that turn of events too. The funny thing when you can see all the upcoming plot points in your head, and you know exactly where this story is going to go, then it just feels like it's taking WAY too long to get there. Really this is about 30 minutes of story that gets stretched out into a 110 minute film, so it's almost agonizing when you feel how long everything takes to happen. Sure, every little thing that got introduced turned out to be important in the end, but then the whole affair just seems like it's all by-the-numbers, if you know what I mean. 

We maybe haven't seen this exact story before, but come on, we've seen all this before. Movies where dragon's aren't as bad as you might first think have now been around for a long while, like since "Dragonheart" at least. But this dragon is the villain here for the first 3/4 of the movie, so the film really needed to pick a lane, as we all knew the real villains were those deceitful royals. 

Directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (director of "28 Weeks Later")

Also starring Millie Bobby Brown (last seen in "Enola Holmes 2"), Ray Winstone (last seen in "13"), Angela Bassett (last seen in "Strange Days"), Brooke Carter (last seen in "Venom: The Last Dance"), Nick Robinson (last seen in "Love, Simon"), Milo Twomey, Nicole Joseph (last seen in "Havoc" (2025)), Patrice Naiambana, Ulli Ackermann (last seen in "Wonder Woman"), Mens-Sana Tamakloe, Ezra Faroque Khan (last seen in "Doctor Strange"), Tasha Lim (last seen in "Saltburn"), Brogan McFarlane, Sonya Nisa, Esther Odumade, Margherita Ren, Eloise Shephard Taylor, Sofia Shallai, Matt Slack, Manon Stieglitz, Antonio Craveiro and the voice of Shohreh Aghdashloo (last heard in "Ghostbusters: Afterlife")

RATING: 4 out of 10 bio-luminescent leeches

Here

 Year 17, Day 222 - 8/10/25 - Movie #5,106

BEFORE: Tom Hanks carries over from "Music by John Williams". Initially this was going to be Ke Huy Quan carring over, and he was interviewed for the John Williams doc, but I changed the plan, I'll see him in a couple days though, just dropping two films into the mix to fill up August. Hopefully filling another two slots will make it easier to close the September gap, and not impossible. 

Here's what happened, I started watching "The Electric State" and something just wasn't connecting for me, or I wasn't connecting with the film. When this happens, it could mean that there's something wrong with my chain, even on a sub-conscious level. (Or, you know, maybe the movie just plain sucks.). But seeing Millie Bobby Brown made me think about another movie she's in that I also want to see, that film didn't connect to "Music by John Williams", but with just a tiny bit of effort, I found one that did. So I'll give "The Electric State" another shot in a couple of days, and this way if it truly does suck at least I'll only have to endure one more hour of it. 

Hey, it may not be the best plan but it's the best I can do on short notice. 

THE PLOT: A generational story about families and the special place they inhabit, sharing in love, loss, laughter and life. 

AFTER: I kind of figured that my first fiction film after watching 49 documentaries in a row would be really special, or perhaps I would be so relieved to get back in that groove that even a terrible film might seem kind of good, but I'm afraid that's not the case.  For whatever reason "The Electric State" just didn't cut it. "Here" is probably an average film at best, but the non-doc effect made it at least tolerable, or slightly above that.  

I don't really have much to compare it to, because there's never really been a film like this before, told over the span of hundreds, even thousands of years, but with only one camera angle, so whatever the director said was happening on THAT spot in 1776, in 1945, in 100,000 B.C., that's what we get to witness. I'd say the stories are told from the P.O.V. of the house, only some of the storylines are set before the house was built - so if anything, it's told from the P.O.V. of a plot of land, which contains a house's living room in the last century or so. We see the house get built, but that's not a constant, the house kind of comes and goes, sometimes it's not even there, and of course the people and furnishing change back and forth over the decades. 

Well, it's interesting to see how many different people owned this house over time, who bought it and who sold it, and why did they sell it then, and why did the next owner buy it, that's a novel idea for at least a few minutes.  Beyond that, it's annoying that we the audience have to piece together the timeline from the bits and pieces that we're shown, I kind of got a framework and then found I had to add to it or take away from it as more details about the house's inhabitants were revealed.  If you do want to cheat, you can just go to the film's Wiki page and they've broken down the plot in order, so you can get a better grasp not just about what happened, but what happened when.  

However, this means that each character's life is reduced to a series of beats, all of the important stuff like birthdays, weddings, funerals, moving furniture in, break-ups and make-ups and then each set of people packs up and moves out for either good reasons or bad reasons. The intent was probably to appear as if there's no rhyme or reason for excessive time-jumping to this degree, but that seems just a bit naive, because why would the director want to show us a day in the life of someone when nothing particularly interesting happened on that day?  But then this line of thinking leads me to conclude that putting the narrative thread of someone's key moments in such an order is incredibly manipulative, or at least contrived.  The writer or director can control exactly how exciting each character's life was, by showing us more exciting things about that person, or less things overall. 

Basically, the dinosaurs died, and we think we know why, but then once things cooled down they became much TOO cool, so Ice Age. Then animals evolved over millions of years to become proto-humans (is this still a controversial subject? I notice that there are no Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons in the narrative, they kind of skip a bit and go straight to what we now call Native Americans. Benjamin Franklin's son has a big house situated where what will someday be considered "across the street", so there are bits set during the Revolutionary War and the years soon after. Then THE HOUSE is built in the early 1900's and so our patience pays off, the story can finally move inside to cover more, umm, private moments. 

This is based on a comic book - sorry, graphic novel - with a similar structure, the illustrator, Robert McGuire, has said that breaking up the timeline and showing us moments (or tiny panels on the page) from the different timelines forces the reader to deal with the "now", rather than thinking about each character's past or future. His inspiration came from taking the same family photo in the same location, each Christmas. So these moments are really all meant to be like photos, little snapshots of the things going on in each character's life on those particular days. 

However, with the movie, although we still get a sense of "now", literally hundreds of "nows", our brain also naturally wants to assemble them into some linear history that we can deal with - at that point we're no longer focused on the now, we're dealing with a whole timeline, we can't help it. Like when you buy a house, don't you want to know what the deal was with the people that lived there before? Don't you wonder if somebody, umm, you know, DIED there? And then good luck trying not to think about other people getting it on in what you know consider YOUR bedroom. OK, so it's not as bad as sleeping in a cheap motel room, but still...

From the poster, one might infer that this is a movie about Tom Hanks and Robin Wright's characters, and OK, part of it is, but what about the other couples that lived in the house over the years?  If you paid for a movie ticket just to see the central couple of "Forrest Gump" re-united in a new movie, prepare for some disappointment, because that's just one of five or six relationships explored here, so how could the film possibly give us an in-depth exploration of any one of them when it just jumps around in time (but not space) so damn much? Well, it just can't. 

Besides, who's to say they're going to stay together as a couple for the whole picture?  There's trouble in Richard and Margaret's paradise when SHE doesn't want to live in HIS parents' house, then HE tries to earn enough money to put a down payment on another house, but then he loses his job, so that's off the table. She offers to pick up more hours, but then his male chauvinist instincts kick in because HE has to be the breadwinner, and then they apparently argue about this for months (years?) but eventually he draws up some beautiful plans to build her dream house somewhere, only that never really materializes either, and eventually HIS parents move down to Florida and they get the house, only she doesn't want it. Well, simple solution, just sell the house and buy a different one, right? Wrong, because, you know, in THIS economy? Forget it!  They'd have to pay capital gains tax, hire a real estate lawyer, get a real estate agent (or maybe two, one to sell the old house and another to sell them a new one), there's closing costs, filing fees, dealing with the bank to get a new mortgage, well, as you might guess it never happens. Finally she...well, no spoilers here. 

Some of the later incidents felt pretty forced, like having a somewhat minor character die from COVID, or showing the African-American family have "the talk" with their kids about what to do if they get stopped by a white cop for "driving while black". These are what you might call "topical references", but then I guess the entire film is really filled with them, from watching The Beatles on Ed Sullivan to watching "CHiPS" on TV or working out to a Jane Fonda VHS tape. 

I will say that this film depicts the only break-up I've ever seen on film where there were no raised voices, no name-calling, no over-dramatic packing and slamming of the door. Come on, this MUST be a fantasy film. You don't stay married for that long and just end things with a shrug, as if to say, "Well, I guess this is happening..."  Not relatable, not to me, anyway. So I guess the larger question here is, what are YOU going to see in this film?  Are you going to be reminded of family Thanksgivings and Christmases in the house you grew up in, whatever decade you had the good or bad fortune to grow up in?  Will this remind you of the joys of home ownership, when you had that small starter home and you were struggling to make ends meet, but you and your spouse had each other, so you found a way to get by?  

Or will you be reminded that everything must come to an end at some point, your parents will at some point get old, get sick and/or die, and then maybe that clock starts ticking on YOU. Every relationship, every life, every era is only temporary, and we're all here for an abrupt time, not necessarily a good time?  That in the history of the earth, if all time were a calendar, ending in now, all of human history would only take up like the last few seconds on December 31?  Our entire species is here because of some aberration, some fluke like the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs? If not for that, would dinos still be walking on the earth, or would some bird-like creatures have gained sentience and ruled the planet?  Plus, we're nothing more than an invasive species as far as our planet is concerned, and it can't wait until our climate change kills us all or we use up all our resources and it can wipe the slate clean again?  And will that happen before our solar system ends up being sucked in to the giant black hole at the center of our galaxy?  

Really, you can have all the feels here, the good ones and the bad ones. It's up to you. Anyway it's a grand experiment that may not to be to everyone's liking - I've got no specific problem with the format, but now that it's done, please let's not do this kind of thing ever again. 

Directed by Robert Zemeckis (director of "Pinocchio" (2022) & "The WItches" (2020))

Also starring Robin Wright (last seen in "Tom Hanks: The Nomad"), Paul Bettany (last seen in "The Secret Life of Bees"), Kelly Reilly (last seen in "A Haunting in Venice"), Lauren McQueen, Harry Marcus (last seen in "Breathe"), Zsa Zsa Zemeckis, Michelle Dockery (last seen in "The Gentlemen"), Gwilym Lee (last seen in "Bohemian Rhapsody"), Delilah O'Riordan, David Fynn (last heard in "Trolls Band Together"), Ophilia Lovibond (last seen in "Man Up"), Nicholas Pinnock, Nikki Amuka-Bird (last seen in "Knock at the Cabin"), Cache Vanderpuye, Anya Marco Harris, Tony Way (last seen in "Edge of Tomorrow"), Jemima Rooper (last seen in "What If"), Joel Oulette, Dannie McCallum, Keith Bartlett, Daniel Betts (last seen in "Carrington"), Leslie Zemeckis (last seen in "Welcome to Marwen"), Alfie Todd, Mohammed George, Denise Faye (last seen in "Burlesque"), Jenna Boyd, David Charles (last seen in "Into the Storm"), Lilly Aspell (last seen in "Retribution"), Jonathan Aris (last seen in "Radioactive"), Louis Suc, Eloise Webb (last seen in "Cinderella" (2015)), Angus Wright (last seen in "Pinocchio" (2022)), Martin Bassindale (last seen in "Holmes & Watson"), Mitchell Mullen (last seen in "Marlowe"), Chris Rogers (last seen in "Dumbo" (2019)), Ellis Grunsell, Teddy Russell, Finn Guegan, Callum Macreadie, Grace Lyra, Jemima Macintyre, Billie Gadsdon (last seen in "Cruella"), Beau Gadsdon (last seen in "The Girl in the Spider's Web"), Diego Scott, Logan Challis, Albie Salter, Albie Mander, Eloise Ferreira, Eliza Daley, Elodie Crapper, Faith Delaney, Makenzie Carmichael, 

with archive footage of Ed Sullivan (last seen in "Luther: Never Too Much"), The Beatles, Jane Fonda (last seen in "Martha") ??

RATING: 5 out of 10 cities on the Pennsylvania Turnpike