Army of Thieves

Year 16, Day 278 - 10/4/24 - Movie #4,863

BEFORE: See, I told you we'd get to the other film by Zack Snyder, which is a prequel to "Army of the Dead".  Again, I realize I'm watching the film first and the prequel second, but this is the same order the films were released in, and I have to respect that.  Everybody at the time (2021) who doesn't have to wait for films to link into some giant chain probably watched them in this same order, with "Army of the Dead" going first. Whether this is the right move or not, I can't possibly tell, but I have to watch the films in the order that preserves the unbroken chain. 

Dave Bautista carries over one more time from "Knock at the Cabin".  It's only archive footage - a clip from "Army of the Dead" is apparently tacked on at the end of this one, but that's enough for my purposes.  As long as Bautista's listed in the IMDB, which he is, or if he's not, then I can verify he's there with my own eyes, I can count this as a valid link, by my own rules. 

THE PLOT: A prequel, set before the events of "Army of the Dead", which focuses on German safecracker Ludwig Dieter and a group of aspiring thieves on a top secret heist during the early stages of the zombie apocalypse. 

AFTER: This is two hours of movie that explains a 5-minute sequence from "Army of the Dead" that probably nobody even cared about, when Scott Ward and Maria Cruz walk into the locksmith store and find their safe expert, who somehow knows how to crack the mystery safe in the casino. They had no idea they were accidentally bringing him the schematics for the FOURTH safe that followed the three he'd already cracked, and also he had no idea that the safe was in Vegas, which is coincidentally where he ends up at the end of "Army of Thieves".  In other words, events conspired to draw him to right where he needed to be so he could go on the mission, because we're all the sums of our experiences and our travels, and wherever you go, there you are, or something like that. 

I mean, there's divine providence, and then there are unbelievable coincidences, but the actor who played this master safe cracker, Ludwig Dieter, directed this prequel, and really, who would know more about this guy than the actor who played him?  How the hell did a German safe-cracker end up working at a Vegas locksmith, anyway?  And what are the odds that he'd been working for five or six years just a few miles from the safe that he trained for YEARS to crack, and not even know it?  It's mind-boggling, sure, but it's what we're being asked to believe here, despite the incredible odds against it.  But here at the Movie Year we know there are no coincidences, only happy accidents, as I've seen my fair share. What are the odds that I'd encounter Muppeteer Frank Oz on 40th St., after he gave a lecture at a theater bookshop, and at the same time, I'd have an autographed photo of him in transit to my house, having bought it just a week before?  

It cuts both ways, though, terrible coincidences also bring bad luck, like what are the odds that I'd have a contact at Lucasfilm who owed me a favor, and I would travel up to Marin County one year after San Diego Comic-Con, because I had an open invitation to visit Skywalker Ranch at my convenience, and get there to find out that the whole ranch was shut down in preparation of Lucas' announcement that he was retiring and selling Lucasfilm to Disney?  I mean, if he'd called me I could have politely asked him to delay his announcement by a few days so I could get that tour in, but I guess it turns out that he and I weren't as close as I thought, and he's just a billionaire who was only thinking of HIMSELF at the time, and not me.  Still love ya, George, but you did me wrong back in 2012. 

And if you think about it, it turned out to be bad luck for Ludwig Dieter in the end, I mean here come two mercenaries into his locksmith job one day, and they offer him $250,000 for one day's work cracking a safe, and come on, it's his DREAM job, but one that turned out to be a nightmare.  Here he was, willing to risk a stroll through the zombie quarantine zone JUST to crack the world's most difficult safe, the legendary Götterdammerung, and well, maybe that trip didn't turn out in his favor, but I've said too much. 

But we have to back through the mists of time, back to when the zombie outbreak in Las Vegas was just starting, and the people of Europe were not quite sure whether to believe the news reports from the U.S. or not.  Really, with the world's attention on Las Vegas and/or the end of the world as we know it, there couldn't be a better time to rob a few banks, well that's the theory, anyway.  Bank teller Sebastian Schlenct-Wohnert spends his nights making YouTube videos about safecracking, and also practicing on getting tumblers to fall by sound and touch in just seconds flat. His posted videos don't get many hits, but one comment on his latest video invites him to a secret safe-cracking competition in Berlin, and he's intrigued.  He wins the contest, despite getting a late start because he's anxious, nervous and really confused about what's going on.  

But winning gets him recruited for a heist crew, provided he's willing to give up his bank teller job and do whatever's necessary to become very, very rich.  There's a hacker, a planner, a getaway driver and a gunman, like, come on, according to movies that's all you need, right?  And nobody knows more about these three safes, made by legendary locksmith Hans Wagner, who after completing his four masterpieces and losing his wife and son in an accident, created only one final safe, which he locked himself in as a suicide method. 

The four safes are named after the operas in Wagner's Ring Cycle - there's Die Valkure, Das Rheingold, Siegfried and Götterdammerung, and the gang only knows where the first three are, nobody knows where the fourth one is, except for anyone who saw "Army of the Dead".  The safes increase in difficulty, so the gang starts with the first one, which is in a Paris credit union, and I think if they didn't want to rob them in this order, Sebastian probably would have demanded that they do, you know, because he's German and probably has OCD like most Germans do. 

Sebastian is able to crack the first safe, Die Valkure, but he insists on listening to the appropriate Wagner opera whlie doing so.  Umm, that's great, but I have to call a NITPICK POINT, because wouldn't the loud opera prevent him from properly hearing the tumblers as he's cracking the safe?  I mean, does he work by hearing or touch, or both? How does the opera not get in the way?  Anyway he and the crew take some money from the safe, but not all of it, because the other three safes have much more money in them, and they've proven that Sebastian can open them, so they head for the second safe in Prague, and this time the crew provides a distraction by robbing the bank the old-fashioned way, with guns and masks, while Sebastian and planner Gwendoline are in the back vault, cracking it open.  Brad gets shot in the shoulder during the escape, and he deliberately leaves Sebastian behind, forcing him to avoid Interpol on his own.  

The third safe is in a casino in St. Moritz, and by this time the heist crew has fractured, because of Brad's betrayal of Sebastian.  Now three members of the crew move forward with the plan to steal the entire safe before Interpol arrives to move it, and the other two members of the team (gunman and driver) are lying in wait to steal it from THEM after Sebastian opens it.  Now Sebastian has to crack the most difficult safe of his career so far while it's on a moving truck, headed toward an inland lake where they'll escape with the money by boat.  But first they'll have to face off against both the former members of their crew, and also the police.

NITPICK POINT: The logic kind of breaks down here when Sebastian/Ludwig finds the passport in his new name, along with plane tickets to Las Vegas, because that's where Gwendoline wanted to go.  Sure, I get that he's going to fly there and kind of wait for her, but that area is kind of infected by zombies at the moment, which the movie keeps reminding us about.  So, why go there, if it's not safe?  Also, considering the nature of the apocalyptic outbreak there, don't you figure that there might be travel restrictions in place?  I remember from going to Vegas in 2019 that the airport there isn't very far from the Strip at all.  

And so it ends where it needs to end, in order for the other film to begin where it begins.  Bear in mind that while "Army of the Dead" was a heist film situated in the middle of a zombie film, "Army of Thieves" is more of a far-off zombie threat stuck in the middle of a giant heist film.  Neither film is really 50-50, so as a result they're kind of two different animals.  

Here I was, intrigued by those skeletons that the crew found in the Vegas vault, ones that kind of were dressed like them, and I figured that with "Army of Thieves" maybe we'd get the story about the previous crew that tried to break into the Götterdammerung safe, and why they failed.  One character even suggested that the 2nd crew WAS also the skeletons, that they were stuck in a time-loop and being forced to commit the same heist, over and over again, until they found a way to succeed. Yeah, it's an interesting concept, but it didn't work out.  Now, in the scene where Sebastian competes in that safe-cracking competition, there was a doorman/bouncer who was nearly as big as Dave Bautista, so I thought maybe he'd be on the team, and then they would fail at the Vegas heist, and there would be the right number of skeletons to explain that scene in "Army of the Dead", but no, the prequel went in an entirely different direction, just to kind of end up in the same place, more or less.  

But is this a BETTER heist film than its sequel was a zombie film?  Well, geez, I don't know, that's like comparing apples and zombies - one's a heist film and the other's a zombie film at the end of the day.  OK, maybe this is a slightly better film overall, if I can be allowed to compare the two.  But it doesn't have any Richard Cheese music in it, that's a solid point against it.   

Also starring Matthias Schweighofer (last seen in "Army of the Dead"), Nathalie Emmanuel (last seen in "Die Hart"), Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin (last seen in "Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver"), Guz Khan (last seen in "The Bubble"), Jonathan Cohen, Noemie Nakai, Christian Steyer, Dan Bradford (last seen in "Unlocked"), Tonya Graves (last seen in "The Omen" (2006)), Trent Garrett, Barbara Meier, Trish Osmond, Pavel Gajdos, Hana Frejkova (last seen in "Child 44"), Jan Nemejovsky (ditto), Peter Hosking (last seen in "The Catcher Was a Spy"), Rebecca Connolly, Frank Kusche, Ian Willoughby, Andreas Nowak, Duy Anh Tran, Michael Pitthan, Miloslav Pechacek, Zdenek Pechacek (last seen in "Lord of War"), Josef Jelinek, Tigran Hovakimyan, Fanette Ronjat, Dunja Hayali, Daniel Vano, Ondrej Blascak, John Bubniak, Amy Huck (also last seen in "The Omen" (2006)), Ted Otis, Bob Boudreaux, Leonard Treyde, Jasmina Peña Milian, Nandi Sawyers-Hudson, Violina Maria Rostami, David Dvorscik, 

with archive footage of Ana de la Reguera (also last seen in "Army of the Dead"), Peter Simonischek and Nicolas Cage (last seen in "Albert Brooks: Defending My Life") 

RATING: 6 out of 10 banana nut muffins

Knock at the Cabin

Year 16, Day 277 - 10/3/24 - Movie #4,862

BEFORE: At this point in the year, putting the chain together is all about choices - I guess maybe all year long, it's all about choices.  But when the number of slots left in the year dips below 50, it's really about making some tough ones. Can "Dune: Part Two:" be considered a scary movie?  It's got sand-worms in it, like "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice", but maybe that's not enough.  OK, so that one's out.  What about this one, which connects here, but also connects to another movie from M. Night Shyamalan, "Old", which can't fit in this year's chain, but might be in next year's?  There's no way to tell, so do I cut THIS one to go with THAT one, will that it make it easier to watch "Old" or less likely to watch THIS one?  I'm erring on the side of watching whatever I can, and hoping that things come together for next year, as they usually do, and I'll somehow have a full slate then, just like now.  If I cut this one, then I'm one film short for the year and I'd have to find a replacement, which I don't want to do.  So I'll cross this on off and I'm still on target for Christmas. It's not exactly as simple as that, but let's pretend that it is. 

Dave Bautista carries over from "Army of the Dead". 

THE PLOT: While vacationing, a girl and her parents are taken hostage by armed strangers who demand that the familyl make a choice to avert the apocalypse. 

AFTER: Well, I haven't watched a movie from M. Night Shyamalan in a while, not since "Devil", which he wrote and produced but did not direct.  Do you know it's been 25 years since "The Sixth Sense" came out?  Man, if ever a director got in trouble for just making the kind of films he wanted to make, it's him. Immediately he became famous for that twist ending, then he was known as "the guy with the twist endings", so people approached movies like "Signs" and "The Village" saying, "OK, what's the twist this time" and soon a feeling of aggravation developed, like why get mad at him for having twists?  A lot of movies have twists in them, and if a movie just stayed the same and people could predict how it would end from the beginning, then they'd probably get mad at THAT.  It's really not fair.  Then time goes on and "The Shape of Water" wins Best Picture and "The Lady in the Water" underperforms, and the poor guy probably doesn't know which way is up, like should he do a twist ending now or not, what the hell do people want to see? 

This one might keep you guessing, with regards to who these four people are that show up at the lakeside cabin with bad intent. Are they thieves, killers or devout members of some cult?  Are they the actual Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, or are they just symbolic of that as a concept?  They're not there to kill anyone except maybe themselves, or are they?  They seem to be really big fans of suicide, so it seems like they want one of the members of the family staying at the cabin to kill themselves?  What would that accomplish?  

Well, it's a gay couple with an adopted daughter, I'm not sure if that makes any difference, but perhaps this is based on the absurd notion that some people have, saying that natural disasters are somehow a sign from God that people are living corrupt lifestyles, having gay sex or now I think it's moved on to woke teachers somehow convincing your vulnerable pre-teens to have sex-change operations before they head home from school.  Which doesn't make any sense on SO many levels, including the fact that hormone treatments and psych evaulations which would precede any sex-change operations take MONTHS, and fanatical right-wingers seem to think that they can just be scheduled between P.E. class and lunch.

I think it was back around Katrina when the first nutcase suggested that New Orleans was nearly wiped off the map by an angry God who disapproved of the way that some heathens were living their lives, gay people being gay and raising children together and no doubt turning THEM gay, but it didn't stop there.  Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attack on pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays and lesbians, so basically everybody he didn't like and therefore projected that God wouldn't like, either.  Pat Robertson really started this trend by blaming gay people for an earthquake in California way back in 1994, pretty much ignoring the fact that Los Angeles is on a major fault line, and that really should be enough of an explanation. Then we had several preachers, including those at the Westboro Baptist Church, praising God for sending Superstorm Sandy to NYC as part of his plan to systematically destroy the parts of America that don't follow their God's teachings. 

But these four people who come to the cabin are similarly convinced that there is some connection between humans and natural disasters, which also doesn't really track, because the world is so much bigger than humans are, so it seems like it would be more logical that the world could get along fine without us, but I don't know, perhaps there's some weird way in which the Earth might need us as much as we need it?  I'm not a scientist, but perhaps in science there is a reason for everything, even if Earth science doesn't really work on those terms. It's really only in the last few decades that people have realized they have an impact on the world, a destructive one due to pollution and plastics in the water and carbon in the atmosphere that is changing the climate.  So maybe thinking that people can cause environmental disasters isn't THAT far off, because they're saying now that each tropical storm or hurricane is worse than the last one, and that's on us, probably.

Still, I don't think that people cause earthquakes and mass plane crashes, as seen here, so how could a sacrifice made by one family somehow STOP the chaos and mass destruction going on around the globe on this day?  Well, that's really the question of the day, isn't it?  Is this just designed to make us think about our impact on the planet, even when it's not very obvious to us?  Because it sure seems like this is another anti-gay thing, if one member of the male-male couple kills himself, that would be better for the world?  I'm pretty sure that's not what the filmmaker intended to suggest, but still, it's kind of there.  

The four cultists who come to the cabin (Four Horsemen, perhaps) were guided there by dreams or visions, and the proof is that Leonard at one point says the same thing as the news reporter on TV, as if he had dreamed it before.  Or it was some form of trickery, which is suggested as a possibility, only they sure seem sincere about it, enough to commit suicide for the cause.  Well, we've all had those moments in life where we have deja vu, we feel like we've seen the events that just took place before somewhere, perhaps in a dream.  I've had dreams that ALMOST came exactly true, like the one about a polar bear costume on "The Masked Singer" - the only thing I got wrong was the identity of the singer inside, but come on, that's everything, so I'm prepared to just chalk it all up to dreaming something random. 

So I don't know, this is kind of a big nothing-burger of a movie, but I've seen it now, I can't un-watch it so it still counts, and I separated the 2 films in Zack Snyder's "Army of..." franchise for something that just wasn't really worth it.  I hope this doesn't come back to haunt me next October when I can't find a way to connect with that other Shaymalan film, "Old".  Well, we'll just have to wait and see.  

Also starring Jonathan Groff (last seen in "Idina Menzel: Which Way to the Stage?"), Ben Aldridge, Nikki Amuka-Bird (last seen in "Jupiter Ascending"), Rupert Grint (last seen in "Moonwalkers"), Abby Quinn (last seen in "I'm Thinking of Ending Things"), Kristen Cui, McKenna Kerrigan (last seen in "Aftermath"), Kittson O'Neill (ditto), Ian Merrill Peakes, Denise Nakano, Rose Luardo, Billy Vargus (last seen in "Creed II"), Satomi Hofmann, Kevin Leung, Lee Avant, Odera Adimorah, Kat Murphy, Saria Chen, Clare Louise Frost, M. Night Shyamalan (last seen in "Glass"), Rebecca Newton, William Ragsdale (last seen in "Broken City").

RATING: 5 out of 10 grasshoppers in a jar

Army of the Dead

Year 16, Day 276 - 10/2/24 - Movie #4,861

BEFORE: A programming note today before I begin, I said I would be catching up a few franchises this October, and some of them I've seen before - I've got one more "Purge" movie to watch and (currently) two "Scream" movies, unless they release another one in the next two weeks, then I'll have three. The new "Godzilla v. Kong" and the new "Ghostbusters" also made the cut this year, as you've probably guessed from my links, if you've got nothing better to do than figure out my chain. (Really, come on, get a life, would you?)

Today's movie, "Army of the Dead", is part of a two-movie chain, along with "Army of Thieves", and I will be watching both movies this week HOWEVER it will not be back-to-back.  Oh, I tried, I took the films on my list and I tried VERY hard to put the two films next to each other, but there simply was no way to do it without leaving something out and I WILL NOT leave another film out, we're clearing house here at the Movie Year. So they're both in, for the necessary nature of being inclusive, there's just going to be one film in-between.  Was going to be two, but I'm dropping "Dune: Part Two", because it's sci-fi and not Halloweeny enough.  Hopefully I will watch that in January, along with "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga". 

Now, the question becomes, which order to watch them in?  "Army of Thieves" is the prequel to "Army of the Dead", however it was released a few months later, so do I preserve the order of the release dates, or watch the story in chronological order?  It's a tough call, harder even then figuring out which order to show "Star Wars" films to your kids in.  By release date, or by film chronology?  I mean, do you start with Episode IV, which came into the world first, or start them with Episode I, so they know the backstory first, a luxury we old people did NOT have in the 1970's and 80's. One correct answer is "Do whatever you want" but an even more correct answer is to go by release date, so the saga's secrets will be revealed to you the way the Creator intended. (and I mean George Lucas, not God, well, OK, maybe they're kind of the same thing)

Once I made the October chain, I had an option to either start with "We Have a Ghost" and end with "Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire" OR flip the chain, just reverse it back to front.  One order would put "Army of the Dead" first, and the other would put "Army of Thieves" first.  I can't really LOSE here, but the linking to September films and November films kind of dictated that I open with "We Have a Ghost" and this would put "Army of the Dead" ahead of it's prequel.  It's fine, the film with the earlier release date therefore comes first, it's what nature intended, and Lucas is in his heaven and all's right with the world, except there are zombies running around in it.

Tig Notaro carries over from "We Have a Ghost". 

THE PLOT: Following a zombie outbreak in Las Vegas, a group of mercenaries take the ultimate gamble, venturing into the quarantine zone to pull off the greatest heist ever attempted.  

AFTER: Over these last few years, I've become an "expert" in so many things - boxing movies, rom-coms and yeah, zombie movies.  Not the really scary ones like "Night of the Living Dead" and "Evil Dead", at least not yet - but I would like to get to all the outstanding Bruce Campbell movies one of these years.  No, I mean films like "The Dead Don't Die" and "Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse", you know, the fun ones.  Also "World War Z" and "Zombieland" and probably a few others I've forgotten about.  

But I'm an "expert" on so many other things, like contemporary lounge music, and the Marvel multiverse (which I had to explain to an older gentleman who left a screening of "Across the Spider-Verse" in a confused state, it turned out he hadn't read a Marvel comic since the 1970's and Peter Parker was the only Spider-Man he'd ever known) and also, I know some things about disability insurance is calculated, but I'm taking those secrets with me to the grave.  I also like to stay on top of current trends, and one that I've noticed lately is movies, and TV shows using cover versions of rock songs that are slowed WAY down and performed in a very creepy style. The recent season of the HBO show "True Detective" did this with the song "Twist and Shout", and once you hear that, you will never, never be able to hear that song, even the Beatles version, without a chill running down your spine.  There's also a commercial airing now for KerryGold butter (!) that shows a kitchen table on city streets and dark alleys while a slowed-down, super-creepy version of Cheap Trick's "I Want You to Want Me" plays over the footage.  Watch that ad online and tell me that kitchen table hasn't killed at least three people.

Which brings me to the opening credits of "Army of the Dead", possibly the most spectacular, horrible and glorious ten minutes I've seen in the opening of ANY movie.  Not the opening story, which details how the zombie plague got loose from containment in the desert outside Las Vegas, but the CREDITS, which show the plague spreading over the Strip and zombies taking over the city, while characters we don't even know yet are trying in vain to stem the zombie tide.  The music is a slowed-down, creepified cover of "Viva Las Vegas", performed by my favorite lounge lizard, Richard Cheese (and his band, Lounge Against the Machine). Richard is also an expert in making tracks for zombie movies, because his cover of "Down with the Sickness" was featured in the 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead", also directed by Zack Snyder.  Well, he found his niche, for sure.   

There's complete anarchy, head-shots, people being bitten by zombies, zombies being torn apart, there are bullets timed to the music, or maybe it's the other way around, we don't know who these heroes are who are fighting the zombie horde, yet at the same time we're learning all we need to know of their backstory, and this all may be important later, we're not sure.  And meanwhile, Richard Cheese is singing about blackjack, power and the roulette wheel, fortunea being won and lost on every deal. Good god, I was drawn in, I don't want to watch this movie again, but I'l watch these credits again as many times as necessary to commit it to memory.  

There are topless zombie showgirls attacking a man in a hotel hot tub. There are gamblers winning jackpots on slot machines (the coins don't come falling out any more, sorry, but whatever) only to get eaten by a zombie bachelorette party.  There are Air Force planes carpet-bombing the city, and Elvis zombies being crushed by the falling Eiffel Tower from the Paris Hotel & Casino. Paratroopers landing next to the Statue of Liberty next to New York, New York who then get swallowed up by the zombie tourists.  Finally the military builds a wall around the city from shipping containers, and a look inside shows nothing but zombies as far as the eye can see, with the entire Vegas Strip in ruins. How could the movie that follows these masterful credits POSSIBLY live up to them?  

Well, it can't - the bar was just set too high, I think. Like imagine if a baseball team scored 87 runs in the bottom of the first inning, and then everyone still has to sit there for the whole game, but come on, the most exciting bit is over, you can probably leave during the second inning and be fairly sure you caught all the action.  WELL, I stuck around, thinking the movie might be as entertaining as those credits, but no such luck.  Really, it was all downhill from there.  What's the lesson, make your credits boring so your film seems more exciting?  Nah, but I do think it was a mistake to have the most action, the best editing and the best pacing all there in the first 15 minutes.

The rest plays out like some weird combination of "Ocean's Eleven" meets "World War Z", although that description sounds a lot more exciting than what ends up happening.  Scott Ward is contacted by a casino owner, who claims that there's a large amount of money in his basement vault on the strip, and he wants Ward to put a crew together to get it.  With a safe-cracker, a helicopter pilot and a few people who are experts at shooting zombies, it just might be possible, but of course dangerous.  And there's a time limit, because in four days the government's going to drop a low-level nuke on Vegas to obliterate any zombies remaining within the walled city.  If they can smuggle themselves into the city, get to the vault and reclaim $200 million, they can keep $50 million for themselves and divide it however they want among the team.  

Ward recruits his former mercenary teammates from the time of the initial zombie attack and decides to go for it, because he's tired of flipping burgers out in the desert, so I guess even death by zombie is better than that.  He also reunites with his daughter who works at one of the camps near the quarantine zone, and she knows a coyote who can get them in - and there's supposedly a helicopter on the roof of the casino, they just need to bring the pilot to get them out. And they have the world's best safecracker and some zombie sharpshooters, so (come on say it with me...) what could POSSIBLY go wrong? 

They learn that there's a limited number of zombies left in Vegas (one presumes that at some point, maybe half of the zombies died because their food supply ran out, at that point do they just eat each other?) and most of them are the dumb ones, the "shamblers" who just roam around looking for brains to eat, but some zombies have evolved into Alphas, which seem to be semi-intelligent - like, they can play roulette but they're not great at blackjack or craps - and they also have a male leader and a queen, too.  Also there's a zombie white tiger roaming around, and I can probably tell you which famous pair of magicians probably owned the zoo he came from.

But the team (well, most of them, anyway) makes it to the vault and sets about cracking the safe and planning their route to the helicopter.  Everything seems to be going well, and they should be fine unless the government suddenly decides to change the schedule and move up the bombing by 24 hours.  OK, so they may be in a little trouble there, and wouldn't you know it, some of the zombies might be a little mad that someone took their Queen's head off.  OK, a few complications, we can get through this, we'll be fine as long as Ward's daughter doesn't wander off on her own for some reason looking for her friend who came into the city a few days before...

This film keeps insisting on setting up its problems as solvable, then constantly throwing more and more obstacles into the mix to make the unlikely impossible. Really, I get the formula of it always being darkest before the dawn, but I thought we had an understanding that no matter how hard the problem, eventually the good guys will prevail and defeat the evil power.  Well, maybe somebody didn't get the memo about that, or maybe it's just not that kind of movie.  Horror movies may be run a bit differently, after all, and if things seem darkest before the dawn, just wait because they're about to get even darker after. Or something like that. 

This is also the film that was forced to replace an entire actor's performance, once comedian Chris D'Elia was hit with sexual misconduct allegations.  He filmed all of his scenes as the helicopter pilot, then had to be removed digitally from every shot and replaced with Tig Notaro, who shot her scenes against a green-screen.  And it only cost a few million to do this - but it's only in the last 10 years that special effects technology has made things like this possible at all. 

This was also the first Netflix film to get a wide release in movie theaters, before it was available on the streaming platform. Yeah, so the movie's a bit of a bust, but the opening credits are phenomenal, and this film (and its prequel) are both four years old now, so that means a couple of Octobers have gone by without me being able to link to this.  Really, it feels good to cross this one off the list, if for no other reason than it was really difficult to get here. 

Also starring Dave Bautista (last seen in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"), Ella Purnell (last seen in "Never Let Me Go"), Omari Hardwick (last seen in "The Mother"), Ana de la Reguera (last seen in "Nacho Libre"), Theo Rossi (last seen in "Cloverfield"), Matthias Schweighofer (last seen in "Oppenheimer"), Nora Arnezeder (last seen in "The Words"), Hiroyuki Sanada (last seen in "John Wick: Chapter 4"), Garret Dillahunt (last seen in "Just Before I Go"), Raul Castillo (last seen in "Hustle"), Huma Qureshi, Samantha Win (last seen in "Justice League"), Richard Cetrone (last seen in "Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver"), Danielle Burgio (ditto), Michael Cassidy (last seen in "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"), Steve Corona (last seen in "The Harder They Fall"), Chelsea Edmundson, Zach Rose, Brian Avery, David K. Maiocco, Ryan Watson (last seen in "Wonder Woman 1984"), Sabine Varnes, Monica Lopez, Kelly Phelan, James M. Halty, Leon Budrow, Maeve Garay (last seen in "Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire"), Colby Lemmo (ditto), Jess Harbeck, Wayne Dalglish, Ken Thong, Donna Brazile, Sean Spicer (last seen in "Unfit: The Psychology of Donald Trump"), Sheila Awasthi, Sebastian Balchand, Marisilda Garcia, Isachar Benitez, Antonio Leyba (last seen in "The Marksman"), Colin Jones (last seen in "Only the Brave"), Athena Perample, Albert Valladares, Sarah Minnich (last seen in "Vengeance"), 

RATING: 6 out of 10 mysterious skeletons (Hmmmm....)

We Have a Ghost

Year 16, Day 275 - 10/1/24 - Movie #4,860

BEFORE: Here we go, let's kick off that horror chain!  Steve Coulter carries over from "Hangdog", and I'm exactly where I wanted to be.  Horror is the genre for the next 27 films - well, mostly, because some allowances need to be made to keep the chain alive.  There might be a couple of horror/comedies in here, one animated film about a monster,  something that's technically a superhero film, and so on.  Hopefully it all works out and makes some kind of sense out of the nonsense. 

Before I start, here are the links that will get me through October: Tig Notaro, Dave Bautista, Ana de la Reguera, Anthony Molinari, Dan Stevens, Rebecca Hall, Ben Chaplin, Brian Cox, Naomi Watts, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Juan Riedinger, Adam Brody & Kyle Gallner, Jenna Ortega, MIa Goth, John Ralston, Mark O'Brien, Kerry Bishe, Celeste O'Connor. Yes, that's only 18 links, but really, it's all I need.  Once somebody gets into acting in the horror genre apparently it leads to a lot of other work. 

THE PLOT: Finding a ghost named Ernest haunting their new home turns Kevin's family into overnight social media sensations.  But when Kevin and Ernest investigate the mystery of Ernest's past, they become a target of the CIA. 

AFTER: I'm going to start this year's horror chain with a ghost movie, and also end it with a ghost movie - you can probably guess which one from the links above.  But this year's Shocktober will also be about finishing off (or at least getting current with) a few notable franchises.  I watched every "Purge" film except for ONE, because it didn't link to the others, and that's the kind of thing my OCD has been itching to resolve.  The "Scream" franchise also made TWO new movies since I watched the first four (was it four? I want to say it was four) so I'll deal with them as well.  I've got a lot of movies and not a lot of time, what with NY Comic-Con and the festivals at my second job, so look, if I don't make it to Halloween on time, I might have to run horror movies into November, but I want to finish everything by October 31 and close up shop until Thanksgiving. The chain is telling me that's the right thing to do - or it's the spooky voices in my head, which sounds a little more disconcerting. 

The connection here to the "Ghostbusters" franchise is that the other ghost film established the new rules for ghosts - everyone can see them, not just the people they're haunting.  Nobody can touch them, but they can touch people and instill them with spooky energy - what is a ghost, after all, but a dead person's energy with a little bit of their soul (or whatever) telling them that they can't move on until something particular gets resolved?  Ghosts also can't talk in this film, so David Harbour has to harness those silent movie techniques, just like Charlie Day did in "Fool's Paradise" as a (mostly) mute mental patient.  Yeah, the ghost in this film is also a little mentally challenged, he doesn't really remember much about his life because, well, his brain died with his body, so he's just like a shadow, or spectre, of his former living self.  Look, I don't think ghosts are real, but if they were, they'd have to follow a set of rules regarding energy and its presence in the material world, so it's kind of nice that some writer did a little thinking about this, I suppose.

There are a couple more modern updates here, though - like teen Kevin isn't scared by the ghost in his family's new house AT ALL, he's already pre-over it. Why? Because there are so many more scary things in his life already, like climate change, the polluted oceans and the idea that eventually the earth's going to run out of natural resources within his lifetime, not to mention the threat of nuclear war, the upcoming election and let's throw in racism and cop-killings while we're at it, plus the general inequality of being a person of color in today's world.  Also, his family has moved like five times in the last few years, hoping for a "fresh start".  Sorry, but a ghost doesn't even make his list of things to be scared of - that's a bit of a unique twist on a ghost story right there. So he befriends the ghost instead, and manages to get the first-ever video of a ghost, which his father wants to keep secret from his mother, but then uploads to YouTube for some reason. NITPICK POINT: those two things would seem to be inconsistent.

The video gets seen by millions, and for some other unknown reason, people believe it is a ghost and really, that doesn't make sense either because people should be skeptical of any ghost or demon or Bigfoot video they see on the internet.  There's a 99.9% chance it's a fake, right?  That would be the most reasonable conclusion, but here everyone believes it and Ernest the ghost becomes a viral media sensation.  Um, sure, if the movie keeps wanting to put up its own roadblocks to make things more difficult for the characters, I guess it has a right to do that. 

But the main goal here is to find out what, if anything, is unresolved and therefore preventing Ernest (not his real name) from crossing over - assuming that's what supposed to happen, so much is unclear because being a ghost doesn't come with a Handbook for the Recently Deceased.  So Kevin and his new maybe-girlfriend are kind of flying blind, they know that there's a box with a stuffed animal in it, and also that Ernest had a reaction when he saw a young blonde girl at a playground, so maybe he had a daughter?  Damn, if only somebody's brain didn't turn to swiss cheese when they die.

Meanwhile, there's a division of the CIA that apparently spent years trying to prove that ghosts exist, and they never even came close.  One paranormal scientist who wrote a book about how all ghosts sightings ever turn out to be fake, but as soon as she sees the video from the Presley family, she instantly KNOWS that it's real.  OK, umm, but HOW? She gets in touch with her old boss from the CIA (Steve Coulter, of course, that sly dog) and they dig out the old ghost-busting tools and they're convinced this is the one, what they've been waiting for all this time, they're going to catch a ghost, and, umm, do something with it.  This is also unclear, maybe they're going to analyze its energy and solve the world's problems, or maybe I fell asleep at the part where they explained this, I'm not sure. 

Well, anyway, it's a bit of a soft start to this year's horror chain.  You really don't want to start out with something truly scary, I think it's better to ease into it, like a hot tub or a very cold pool.  This is mostly a non-intense comedy, except for one part where the ghost makes his own face melt like those Nazis in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".  The part with the TV medium and her crew coming to the haunted house to film the ghost was a real narrative dead-end, like why even have this in the movie if it goes absolutely nowhere? 

I'm proud that after all these years, my blog is still ad-free, I don't get any revenue from the site, not even from telling you that the season 4 premiere of "Ghosts" will air on CBS October 16, and after that it will be streaming on the Paramount+ service.  Nope, not a dime for that, so I must be doing something wrong. 

Also starring Anthony Mackie (last seen in "Pain & Gain"), David Harbour (last seen in "Gran Turismo"), Jahi Di'Allo Winston (last seen in "Proud Mary"), Tig Notaro (last heard in "Beavis and Butt-Head Do the Universe"), Erica Ash (last seen in "All I Wish"), Jennifer Coolidge (last seen in "Shotgun Wedding"), Faith Ford, Niles Fitch (last seen in "Roman J. Israel, Esq."), Isabella Russo, Scott A. Martin (last seen in "Fire With Fire"), Jo-Ann Robinson, Tom Bower (last seen in "The Killer Inside Me"), Dr. Phil McGraw (last seen in "Natalie Wood: What Remains Behind"), Sean Boyd (last seen in "Jack Reacher: Never Go Back"), Nicholas X. Parsons (also last seen in "Pain & Gain"), Peggy Walton-Walker (last seen in "Welcome to the Rileys"), Sherri Eakin (last seen in "The Hollars"), Morgan Hernard (last seen in "Allegiant"), Kyler Porche (last seen in "When We First Met"), Yoshio Maki, Ned Yousef (last seen in "Quiz Lady"), Naoko Okamoto, Mike Mayhall, Adam Stephenson (last seen in "Geostorm"), Ellen B. Williams, Sarah Voigt, K Steele (last seen in "Blue Bayou"), Jophielle Love (also last seen in "Quiz Lady"), Luna Craig, Hawn Tran (last seen in "Heist"), Fionn Camp, Lara Grice (last seen in "The Mechanic"), Alasdair Flagella, Christopher Michael Clarke, Ann Mahoney (last seen in "Assassination Nation"), Jackson Kelly, Liam Kelly, Lucy Faust (last seen in "Beautiful Creatures"), Creek Wilson (last seen in "Ma"), Gabe Bowling, Jackson Campbell, Anisa Kharnvongsa, Marcha Kia, Chelsea London Lloyd, Steph Martinez, Mia Schauffler, Olivia Shatsky, Lena Stamm, Kat Conner Sterling

with archive footage of Demi Moore (last seen in "LOL"), Patrick Swayze (last seen in "I Am Chris Farley"), Pat Sajak (last seen in "Muppets Haunted Mansion"), Vanna White. 

RATING: 5 out of 10 boxes to unload from the moving truck

Hangdog

Year 16, Day 274 - 9/30/24 - Movie #4,859 - VIEWED ON 9/24/24

BEFORE: I had an opportunity to watch this film a week ago, as part of the After-School Special programming at the theater where I work part-time.  This essentially was the New York premiere of this indie film, which was completed last year but had not yet had a theatrical release.  Yeah, I work in independent film so I sure know the name of that song, distribution is a crazy wild unpredictable process.  You can get your film into festivals, it can win 6 or 7 awards, and still the distributors are not necessarily going to beat a path to your door.  Some films don't get a theatrical release at all, and in that case some filmmakers might have to use a booker to get their film into small theaters across the country, or worse, four-wall the film themselves, which means to buy every seat in a movie theater and then try to sell those tickets, or maybe even give them away to the right people to insure that their film at least gets SEEN by people.  It's a tough racket for sure.  

So I would love to do whatever I can to help promote "Hangdog", the director, Matt Cascella, is  graduate of the School of Visual Arts, and last week's programming was all about showcasing the work of those alumni.  And you know, I really don't end up watching a lot of little indie pictures, because my linking system kind of weeds those films out now. I used to go to film festivals on the semi-regular (I'm a three-time Sundance/Slamdance veteran, also went to Toronto FF once) and really, that's your best chance of seeing indie films these days, or at least seeing them FIRST.  So yeah, I got to see "Hangdog" before almost everyone else, except for the cast and crew. If this film takes off I can say I was THERE for the premiere. 

Now, I'm not really supposed to watch a film AND manage the screening at the same time.  Technically I'm supposed to be watching the THEATER during the screening, not the movie.  But we did all the set-up, and the event was not a full house, despite it being a free screening open to the public.  I double-checked with my venue manager that there was nothing else I needed to do during the screening (really, my job is a lot of waiting around during the screening, that's when I usually eat dinner these days) but in this case there was another house manager who kept an eye on the lobby and office while I sat in the front row of the theater. This is not something I do often, but I have been known to show up at the theater on my day off to watch a movie, as long as it's not a ticketed festival event that's OK. One of my upcoming October horror movies was watched on my day off for FREE, I just can't say the name of that film three times. 

Here's the format breakdown for September, and I'll post October's links tomorrow as we start on spooky movies:

12 Movies watched on cable (saved to DVD): The Beekeeper, The Transporter, Transporter 2, The Mechanic, Plane, Are You There God? It's Me Margaret., Disobedience, The Exception, The International, Alice Darling, Blockers, IF

1 Movies watched on cable (not saved): Rocket Science

9 watched on Netflix: Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken, Divergent, Insurgent, Allegiant, Trolls Band Together, Spaceman, Leo, Migration, The Super Mario Bros. Movie

2 watched on Amazon Prime: Drive-Away Dolls, Jackpot!
3 watched on Hulu: Infinite Storm, Self Reliance, Fool's Paradise

1 watched on Peacock: Kung Fu Panda 4

1 watched in theaters: Hangdog
2 watched on a random site: Ophelia, The Bronze

31 TOTAL

Steve Coulter carries over from "Fool's Paradise", and today's film is a replacement for "5-25-77", which has been cut for not having the CORRECT Steve Coulter in it (yes, there are two). That film will be re-scheduled, perhaps next year for Star Wars day?  Or May 25, I've really got two chances for a proper tie-in by date.   

THE PLOT: Anxiety-ridden Walt embarks on a desperate quest through Portland, Maine to retrieve his stolen dog before his girlfriend returns from a business trip, or risk losing them both. 

AFTER: I think for my year-end countdown I'm going to have to drop the category called "Movies where everything goes wrong", because really, if you think about it, that's EVERY movie, isn't it?  I'm trying hard to think of a movie where nothing goes wrong, and I just can't do it.  Whether it's a drama or a comedy, or even an action movie, if simply everything goes according to a plan, then that would be incredibly boring to watch.  I joke around a lot now when I tweet about a film's premise, and often add the hashtag #WCPGW, for "What could POSSIBLY go wrong?" but I'm being serious here, I think even at the writing stage all those people who stereotypically stare at the blank page in the typewriter or the blinking cursor on their screen seriously need to just take any premise at all and think about what could go wrong that would also advance the plot.  

The only film genres that might be immune to this are some documentaries and some romance films, but rom-coms are full of things going wrong, and a romantic drama about everything going RIGHT In a relationship would also be quite boring.  So really, that just leaves fact-filled docs and maybe some sports films, but in sports films you want to root for the underdog or the people who have to overcome adversity, and that also counts as stuff going wrong.  So, just docs about successful people then - every other movie is filled with things going wrong, because we have to feel bad before we can allow ourselves to feel good.  Right?  A happy ending can only come after people overcome their troubled situations. Prove me wrong. 

You kind of need to watch a few thousand movies in a row to really be aware of this, that's what I've found out.  My view on movies is very different than it was when I started this crazy blog, and really I blame volume, volume, volume - there's so little that I haven't seen before at this point.  Thank God some people still make weird movies so that I can still BE surprised, but I think it's a bit like building up a resistance to alcohol or drugs, the more times you experience the high, the greater the dosage you're going to need in the long run just to FEEL something.  Like one time I was on medication and I couldn't drink alcohol for six months, I lost whatever resistance I'd built up, and in six months plus one day I was at a bar that served only strong Belgian beer, and man, I was flying.  

So, since I'm looking at the approach of No Movie November, I can only imagine what it's going to feel like to go three weeks without watching a movie, and then getting back on that horse the day before Thanksgiving.  That movie might only be average, but still it might feel like a cinematic masterpiece, who can say?  Two months ago when I couldn't eat solid food for a day and a half before my colonoscopy, I ate a couple hours after the exam and the food tasted AMAZING - Cuban fried pork chops with onions, moro rice (w/beans), plantains and beets.  A meal I've had many times before, but it never tasted so good.

That's kind of how I feel after watching my first indie film in a very long time - I don't even know if I'd call anything I've watched already this year an indie film, maybe "The Strange Name Movie" or "Bathtubs Over Broadway" count, if not then maybe it's "Year of the Dog", another film about losing a dog and feeling anxiety over it. What even counts as an indie film these days - "It's a Disaster"? "See You Yesterday"? "Space Oddity"?  "Clockwatchers" was, once upon a time, I think.  I guess you kind of know it when you feel it, but generally they're films that aren't in wide release, starring a bunch of actors you don't know, and they look like they were made on a shoestring budget, like not that many locations, have no visual effects and tend to be about very personal things, like you can almost bet that someone wrote this story because it happened to them.  

But the indie films can also be very refreshing, and feel very real for all of those reasons. I'm never going to be aboard a spacecraft that's headed to another solar system, I'm never going to be on an elite squad of mercenaries trying to take over an aircraft carrier, but sure, I could lose someone's dog and feel terrilble about it, or I could be on the hook for something I did while my wife was out of town and be unable to tell her about it, these things hit home because they COULD happen to us, we could see ourselves in Walt's position.  Even moving from a city to a small town and feeling out of place, or being between jobs and feeling adrift, like we don't know what we want to do with our lives, these are very common, very real anxieties.  I get nervous whenever we open the front door, because there's always a chance that one of our cats has decided that they've had enough of living indoors, and even though they don't know what waits for them outside, they're damn well going to make the most of whatever it is. To a lesser extent, I worry that my wife will have the same feeling someday, but I'm pretty sure she'd give me some kind of heads-up first, but with the cats, it would probably be a split-second decision.  

We lost one of our family's cats when I was a kid, the one that gravitated toward my mother, and she was distraught for several days.  We walked up and down the streets of the neighborhood calling the cat's name, but that just didn't work.  The chances were against ever finding the cat again, because housecats don't really have that habit of marking their territory, like dogs do - if you wonder how lost dogs find their way back home sometimes, it's got everything to do with the smell of their urine, I think.  Whenever you walk them they're leaving themselves a road-map home, just in case.  But I was at my friend's house one day and his neighbor's dog was barking at something up in a tree, and it turned out to be my mother's cat. I called home and we rallied the troops, my mother came with kitty treats and we cleared the dog away, and we got the cat back, against all odds.  Well, the cat's dead now, but he got to spend a few more years in a house where he was cared for and loved, so there's that. 

Cat people and dog people, I know they're different and you can really only be one or the other, but Walt in this film was neither, until he started dating Wendy and she adopted a dog, Toby.  The couple started out with a rule about the dog not sleeping in bed with them, but that soon fell by the wayside.  Wendy then needed to drive to New York to make a pitch for her app idea, which left Walt alone with Toby for the first time, a chance for them to bond and a chance for Walt to prove to Wendy that he's a stable, responsible person. #WCPGW?  After walking Toby and buying dog food, he stops off at a dispensary to buy a joint, which puts him in the position of describing his exact form of anxiety to the weed dealer, because, you know, it's important to get that right.  When he comes out with the pot, the leash is still there but the dog is gone.  What to do?  

This is enough to send Walt into another anxiety-driven tailspin, because all he sees is the end of his relationship, and he does what any of us might do in this situation, he lies to his girlfriend because he still has a SLIGHT chance of finding the dog before she comes back.  If not, then he's on the hook for both losing the dog AND lying to her about it, two big relationship no-nos.  He puts up "Lost Dog" signs around town with a $500 reward, and then he has to deal with the kind of people who would call that number on a flyer for reasons other than reporting that they saw or found his dog.  And there are a few of them.  

However, as bad as the situation is, there are still some upsides to it - this puts him in touch with his mysterious neighbor who has a back porch that overlooks his backyard.  Hey, everyone's a stranger until you get to know them, and at least the neighbor's good for some beer and sympathy, it's a chance to work on his social skills.  And designing the flyer allows him to put his graphic design skills to work, he did have a secret desire to be an art director, and this counts as experience, right?

Eventually, Walt gets a call from someone who claims to have knowledge of the dog's location, he wants the reward but he also wants Walt to take the ferry out to Peaks Island to claim it.  That's where my summation of the plot ends, but I dropped a couple words in there that may give you some hints. Remember that I said there was only one kind of movie, one where things go wrong, but also there are two kinds of movies, ones where things work out for the best and ones where they don't, and I just don't want to say which kind of movie this is. But we do like it when normal people face adversity and come out on top, that's kind of a given.    

If you do get a chance to see this movie, please take it, whether it's in a theater or on streaming or DVD or if you call up the director and take him out to dinner in exchange for a screening link. This is my way of saying, "Please support independent films," even if a bigger company is streaming them to you and DON'T download them illegally. Then spread the word on social media or your blog or maybe help create or beef up the film's Wikipedia page. Somewhere a writer/director (and their pet) will be so grateful. 

Really, there might be something broken in the movie distribution system if "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" earns over a BILLION dollars and a film like "Hangdog" is considered lucky to take in a few hundred thousand. You can tell which film I think is just a pile of hot garbage. 

Also starring Desmin Borges (last seen in "Shotgun Wedding"), Catherine Curtin (last seen in "Worth"), Kelly O'Sullivan, April Clark, Barbara Rosenblat, Matthew Delamater (last seen in "The Tender Bar"), Tabitha Petrini, Robert Hadlock (last seen in "Moonrise Kingdom"), Kate Alden, Jay Dunigan, Kellon Haynes, Nicholas Zoto (last seen in "The Kitchen"), Jenna Berloni, Tyler Garstka, Wesleigh Sterrs, Amy-Jane Mooney, 

RATING: 7 out of 10 jars of artisanal pickles (Steve Coulter REALLY shines in this movie, BTW)

Fool's Paradise

Year 16, Day 273 - 9/29/24 - Movie #4,858

BEFORE: It's almost the end of the month, I'm getting set up for the horror film chain, and I know it's time to this because of that classic rhyme that we all learned as children: 

Thirty days has September, 

But too many movies and I'll be bored in November. 

After the animation films are done, 

I'll add up my movies, and there'll be thirty-one. 

See, it was right there along, I should have remembered that rhyme, telling me it's OK to go over the monthly limit, as long as I keep the chain alive.  That's really the only thing that matters, never break the chain. So Charlie Day carries over from "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" and someone from THIS film is going to be in the first horror movie on October 1.  I'll just watch this film on Hulu, then post twice and I'll be all caught up.  Format breakdown tomorrow for September, then October links on Tuesday. 

THE PLOT: A fool for love becomes an accidental celebrity only to lose it all.

AFTER: Man, this film really links to a lot of the movies on my romance list, maybe I should have saved it to make my linking easier next February.  But I can't really call this film a romance, even though it has a love affair and a marriage in it, that would still be something of a stretch.  Nah, if I need the linking here, it's better to dump this one here, and next February will just have to take care of itself.  Besides, I don't even know which films I'll be watching then, so saving a film that links films that I might watch could mean that I'll just end up never watching this one. Carpe cinema.

I went into this one not knowing what to expect at all, and well, honestly, I'm not really sure what I ended up finding, as in I don't know what to DO with the things that happened in the movie, and how I might feel about them.  A lot of things happen, sure, but what do they really end up meaning?  Do they all add up to some kind of coherent point or statement about the world today, and if not, is it OK if they don't?  Was this meant as a commentary about celebrity today, how easy it is to become famous and then how easy it also is for that fame to just disappear overnight?  Or am I bringing that to the table, and really there's no message there at all, no larger meaning?  I'm not sure, but if so, is THAT the message, that life has no meaning other than what we impose on it and we serve no purpose other than that which we create for ourselves?  Whoa... Nah, probably I'm overthinking it. 

The central character is a mute man who has the mental capacity of a five-year old, or thereabouts, and he gets released from the mental health facility for, well, for no really good reason, they just kind of drop him off in the middle of Hollywood because he needs to form a bond with someone, which honestly does not sound like he's getting proper medical care.  But sure, I get it, he can't escape from the looney bin because he doesn't have the capacity to do so, instead the forces around him need to change to get him to the outside world, so he can either sink or swim or reveal something to us about humanity.  Well, the kind of humanity you're likely to find in Hollywood, anyway, so honestly, maybe lower your expectations a bit. 

He can imitate other people's actions, but he can't seem to act on his own, he doesn't have the ability to think for himself.  Imagine Forrest Gump mixed with Peter Sellers' character from "Being There", somebody who just goes where the day takes him and doesn't fully comprehend what's taking place around him.  While he's selling oranges by the highway, he's spotted by a producer who notices a resemblance to a difficult actor, Sir Tom Bingsley, who's currently filming a movie about Billy the Kid but also refuses to leave his trailer.  The producer scoops up our nameless hero, puts him in a cowboy outfit and uses him as a stand-in so the filming of this Western can continue.  

A struggling publicist who's bribed his way on to the set to seek out talent spots him, and assumes his name to be a misheard coffee order, when the director asks for a "Latte, Pronto".  Soon the lead actor dies on the set (I won't get into how) and Latte is promoted to lead actor to take his place, despite the fact that he can't say any lines and has a bad habit of looking straight into the camera, the one thing that an actor shouldn't do, unless they're Ryan Reynolds in "Deadpool".  But for some reason, his breaking of the fourth wall is regarded as innovative by critics, the film is a hit, and suddenly Latte Pronto is booked on talk shows and cast to play a superhero, Mosquito Boy, again, all of this happens despite the fact that he can't speak, and you'd think that might be a requirement to be on a "talk" show, right? 

Soon he's got a team of agents to go with his publicist, his co-star is taking him out to parties, and showing him how to shoot out streetlights and get into drunken fights at parties, while his female co-star has a love affair with him, and they get married and adopt three foreign children.  I'm not saying this is based on any particular actor, but there may be certain similarities to Brad Pitt's career path, if I'm not mistaken.  JK. But there is a whole satirical comedy film, "Living in Oblivion", based loosely on a director's frustration after working with Brad Pitt on the film "Johnny Suede", just saying. 

After a few more movies, Pronto's career seems to be in trouble, he ends up in jail after fighting with the paparazzi, he gets injured on the set when he falls off a building, and is replaced by a stand-in who soon becomes more successful than him, his next film is a bomb and his agents drop him because of bad publciity, and soon his wife divorces him and takes up with their former co-star.  Yeah, sure, this sounds like every other Hollywood marriage, right?  Except again, this guy can't talk or really DO anything, he just lets all these things happen to him.  

His agents take all of his money, he loses the house and moves in with his publicist in a run-down hotel, and after his publicist finally admits that he doesn't know what he's doing at all, he has a heart attack from too many energy drinks.  Pronto stays by his side at the hospital, but when a doctor wants a selfie with him, he leaves the room for a while and when he comes back, the publicist has been moved to another room, but Pronto thinks he's died. Pronto is homeless for a while, but saves a man's life and the Mayor of Los Angeles awards him the key to the city, but it doesn't really open any doors.  

Or does it?  It opens a figurative door, as Pronto is encouraged by the Mayor to run for office, he's already got name recognition and now a record of doing good deeds, so there might be something there, except that, you know, a politician is expected to TALK from time to time, give speeches and such, so it's a bit unclear why anyone thinks he would make a good politician.  A couple of mega-billionaire brothers then kidnap him and threaten to kill him if he threatens any of their business interests (hmm, that sounds a bit familiar...) and they offer him another shot at a movie career if he'll only give up on politics.  Seems fair.  Finally he accidentally bumps into that publicist, they reunite and go to have dinner. 

It's weird, right?  It seems to be about so many things but then ultimately has nothing cohesive or coherent to say at all.  I mean, should we be wary of mega-billionaires funding politicians?  We already are, right?  Should be not go see movies that star actors who can't talk, or should we try to bring back silent movies and old slapstick comedy?  What's the message here, don't trust anybody who lives in Los Angeles?  Man, I'm way ahead of you there, that's so done and done.  Fame is a fickle mistress?  Yeah, no shit, if you don't keep making good movies or you mess up and get bad press, you're done, we know all this already, too.  But who in Hollywood hasn't been divorced a few times and is desperate for a comeback?  People are free to LEAVE the business any time, theoretically, so why don't they?  Once in a while you see a story about some actor or actress who buys a farm with their movie salary and tries to lead a simple life, or marry a tour guide somewhere but how exactly does that work?  

I think maybe the message is that it's good to have friends, and it's good to BE a friendly person because then you get friends, and with a bit of luck you might get to make a movie and you can put all your friends in the movie, and if you're hanging out with your friends all day and being creative with them, is that really work?  Well, yeah, sure, it's work but it's fun work if you can get it.  But ultimately life is short and pointless and has no meaning, so you might as well enjoy it while you can.  That's my take-away, anyway, but here you might have to come up with your own. 

Also starring Ken Jeong (last seen in "Ride Along 2"), Kate Beckinsale (last seen in "Contraband"), Adrien Brody (last seen in "Asteroid City"), Jason Sudeikis (last seen in "Colossal"), Ray Liotta (last seen in "Cocaine Bear"), Steve Coulter (last seen in "Oppenheimer"), Jason Bateman (last seen in "Air"), Edie Falco (last seen in "Avatar: The Way of Water"), Mary Elizabeth Ellis (last seen in "Licorice Pizza"), Drew Droege (last seen in "Me Time"), Andrew Santino (ditto), Artemis Pebdani (last heard in "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish"), Leonora Pitts (last seen in "Manson Family Vacation"), Jimmi Simpson (last seen in "Loser"), Lance Barber (last seen in "Gangster Squad"), Lindsay Musil, Aixa Maldonado (last seen in "World Trade Center"), Shane Paul McGhie, Andre Hyland (last seen in "The Death of Dick Long"), Julia Cho (last seen in "Girlfriend's Day"), Allison Paige, Dean Norris (last seen in "Unfrosted"), Scott Allen Perry, Glenn Howerton (last seen in "How It Ends"), Luvh Rakhe, Robert Belushi (last seen in "Valentine's Day"), Andrew Leeds (last seen in "Office Christmas Party"), Austin Zajur (last seen in "Clerks III"), Scott Pitts, Common (last seen in "Street Kings"), Jillian Bell (last seen in "Murder Mystery 2"), Benito Martinzez (last seen in "American Made"), Katherine McNamara (last seen in "New Year's Eve"), Brett Wagner (last seen in "The Happytime Murders"), John Malkovich (last seen in "Ava"), Tom O'Rion, Tom Beyer (last seen in "Dog"), Alanna Ubach (last seen in "Clockwatchers"), David Hornsby (last heard in "Minority Report"), Effy Shafir, Helen Geller (last seen in "The Onion Movie"), Lisa Schwartz, Romel De Silva, Jeremy Chu, Leandra Terrazzano, Lyndon Smith (last seen in "Secret in Their Eyes"), June Carryl (last seen in "Under the Silver Lake"), Moses Storm, David McClary, Justin Jedlica, Peter Mackenzie (last seen in "Term Life"), Christine Horn (last seen in "Blended"), John Ales (last seen in "American Fiction"), Christopher Macken, Harry Yi (last seen in "Balls of Fury"), George Lopez (last seen in "Blue Beetle"), Stan Divranos, Michael Ray Escamilla (last seen in "Hot Pursuit"), Edy Ganem (last seen in "Like Crazy"), Denise Koek, Sheila Korsi, Norma Maldonado.

RATING: 4 out of 10 nonsense chants from an expensive shaman

The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Year 16, Day 272 - 9/28/24 - Movie #4,857

BEFORE: Yeah, I'm not really looking forward to watching this, it's just not my scene.  Sure, I put it on the list, but I wasn't really that serious about it - and now it's going to serve as a crucial link here at the end of September to connect me to October.  Normally I'd be very happy about that, because that means the plan is working, to watch films only when they become important, or are necessary to keep the chain alive.  Yeah, mission accomplished, great, but now I still have to suffer through this damn stupid movie (I'm assuming).  

Jack Black carries over from "Kung Fu Panda 4" - I'd mention the other actor who carries over, but I'm not quite sure if they used archive sound for his character in yesterday's film, it was just a couple of screams at the end.

THE PLOT: A plumber named Mario travels through an underground labyrinth with his brother Luigi, trying to save a captured princess. 

AFTER: I've been reading about the proper order of adjectives, which is something that applies to English grammar that we all kind of just KNOW, even if we don't talk about it a lot or realize it, but we all put adjectives in a particular order, and if we don't follow the order, a sentence can sound wrong. Like you might talk about your beautiful new brown leather boots, and you maybe placed the adjectives in the proper order automatically.  If you said "my leather brown beautiful new boots" that just wouldn't sound right, it would feel OFF. 

So if I called "Super Mario Bros." a children's American brightly-colored new bloated crappy movie, that would clearly sound wrong, because I've purposedly changed the order of adjectives from the way that we're used to hearing them in regular conversation.  Rightfully, this needs to be called a crappy bloated new brightly-colored American children's movie for it to sound proper and correct. Are we clear on this?  Just remember "OSASCOMP", after you say how many there are of something, then you will describe, in order, your Opinion of the items, the Size, the Age, the Shape, then the Color, Origin, Material, and its Purpose, if any, so "Beautiful old Italian marble dining table" would be correct, but any other order of those words won't really work, try it. "Dining old Italian marble beautiful table"?

I'm deflecting here, because this movie just wasn't my thing. I haven't played a Mario-based video game in 30 years, probably. "Grand Theft Auto" and "Lego Star Wars" became my games, and I migrated from Nintendos to PlayStations.  So I'm way out of the loop here, I don't know Bowsers from Koopas and I didn't even know Donkey Kong had a father named Cranky Kong, but I did know there was a Donkey Kong Jr. and also a Diddy Kong, but I think that last one just got arrested, so you can probably forget about seeing him ever again.  

I know that there was some flap about the casting of two non-Italian Americans to play Mario and Luigi here, but then, if they hired two Italian actors and they maintained that "Mamma Mia!" overblown accent for the whole movie, that probably wouldn't have gone over well.  So the story needs to kind of bend over sideways and backwards here to solve the problem - should the movie reinforce the games' stereotype with strong Italian accents?  Or just change the characters over to American accents and pretend nothing is wrong?  Well, both and neither.  Mario and Luigi here speak with regular Californian American accents, but they do make a COMMERCIAL for their plumbing business where they over-emphasize their Italian accents.  OK, great, now everybody is upset, including all video-game purists AND Italian people.  What a terrible solution to a non-problem. 

Next question, should they be video-game characters or humans?  In this movie they're humans who get sucked into the video-game like world through a portal they find in the NYC sewers.  But they looked like cartoons from the start, how could they be humans if they didn't look real?  It's another non-problem that got turned into a narrative problem, but the solution doesn't really solve anything, it just makes things even more confusing than they were. 

More confusing things - the residents of the mushroom kingdom are called Toads, but they're not toads as in frogs, they're kind of like mushroom-shaped people who are CALLED Toads.  And then the one Mario befriends is also named Toad, yes, he's a Toad who is named Toad, however he's also not a toad. Ouch.  Princess Peach isn't a real princess, as in she's not royalty, she just showed up one day in the mushroom kingdom and doesn't remember where she came from.  OK, so I guess if you just move into a castle you can just start calling yourself a princess?  It shouldn't work that way.  She and Mario go on this quest to recruit the Kongs to help fight Bowser, and they make a big deal about her changing the color of her dress, then two minutes later she's wearing a cart-racing outfit, so why did we bother to show her changing her dress?

And Bowser is somehow in love with Princess Peach?  That's kind of disturbing, I think I liked him better when he was just an evil character who kidnaps her and keeps her away from Mario.  If he's also got feelings for her, that's just kind of icky and wrong, like "I love you so much I'm going to kidnap you and move you from one castle to another to show how much I care".  No, no, NO that's very wrong, even if it  sounds like what a psychopath would do, it's going to tell kids the wrong message about loving someone who doesn't feel the same way as you, like just kidnap her and force her to marry you, then things will be fine?  Yuck. 

Motivations are weird across this whole movie - Cranky Kong's random actions may even be worse than Bowser's, because he won't commit his army to the fight that will save the mushroom kingdom unless Mario can defeat his son, Donkey Kong, in a gladiator fight?  Then he stacks the deck against his OWN SON by putting power-ups around the arena, supposedly because he wants the fight to last more than five seconds, but there's also some deep-seated father-son negative energy if he set up Donkey Kong to fail.  

I'm probably reading WAY too much into all of this, because really, at heart, it's just a big stupid pile of nonsense, a story that goes nowhere and means nothing, like just go play some video games if you want, just leave these characters out of movies because they were never meant to be there in the first place?  It's not very often that I feel like I completely wasted my time by watching a movie, but I sure feel in this case that I wasted 90 minutes that I will never get back.  Sure, my linking can continue now, and I'll make it to October 1 on time, but the movie is a pile of hot garbage.  

That's a pointless, big, old, shapeless, American cinematic pile of garbage. 

Also starring the voices of Chris Pratt (last seen in "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"), Anya Taylor-Joy (last seen in "Amsterdam"), Charlie Day (last seen in "How It Ends"), Keegan-Michael Key (last heard in "Migration"), Seth Rogen (also carrying over from "Kung Fu Panda 4" - maybe), Fred Armisen (last seen in "Unfrosted"), Sebastian Maniscalco (last heard in "IF"), Kevin Michael Richardson (last heard in "Trolls Band Together"), Charles Martinet, Jessica DiCicco (last heard in "Over the Hedge"), Rino Romano (last heard in "Stuart Little 3: Call of the Wild"), John DiMaggio (last heard in "Minions: The Rise of Gru"), Khary Payton (last seen in "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood"), Eric Bauza (last heard in "Space Jam: A New Legacy"), Juliet Jelenic, Scott Menville, Kazumi Totaka

RATING: 3 out of 10 ghosts in "Luigi's Mansion" (one of the few references that I did get)