3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver

2024, Zach Snyder (Suckerpunch) -- Netflix

Did I rewatch Part One before watching this? Nope.

And surprisingly, though likely mood is to blame for this, but I really didn't enjoy this one. I guess that means I kind of sort of maybe enjoyed myself watching the first one? Part Two just irritated me, and mostly for all the reasons the first one should have.

Quick recap: The Seven Samurai in space. That's it. That's all you get. Except that the Good Guys think they have defeated the Bad Guy and return to the small village, hoping to find peace. That delusion lasts about ten seconds.

So, before i get into it, I just need to get this out. Why is the movie sub-titled as The Scargiver? Yes, its because people are now calling Kora (Sofia Boutella, Star Trek Beyond) such, but why?!?! You would assume she was given the moniker after she betrayed her adopted father during his coup, maybe .... giving him a big ol nasty scar? But nope, its because the Bad Guy, Admiral Noble (Ed Skrein, Game of Thrones; oh wait; BOTH Daario Naharis actors are in these movies?!?!? tee hee!!) who she initially assumes is dead, is resurrected by the Space Nazi Priest Scientists and chooses to leave a scar. But that happened like, ten minutes ago, not long enough to establish a legendary label.

It is this first minor, admittedly quibbley detail that gives me a hint that Snyder kind of rushed through this part, tweaking the fuck out of it for some unknown reason. Its not like there can be any Purple Suit futzing with his vision, as anyone who would now give Snyder gobs of money to make his petulant Star Wars replacement must be entirely onboard with it? So, did he get bored between one and two? Did he just not feel satisfied with the response to the first movie, and just want to rush this one to completion, and move on?

I don't have answers; just frustration.

So, given The Seven Samurai we know that the gathered weirdo vagabond heroes have to prepare the village for the attack by the Bad Guy and his forces. The Bad Guys want grain, cuz, reasons. I am still not convinced they would commit this much effort to one small moon, for grain. If they need food, why not just resort to their SOP which is taking over entire worlds? I am sure if they just resisted the urge to bomb the planet into dust there would be plenty of food for the taking. But, no, need excuse for Seven Samurai ripoff, so ... grain laden moon Veldt. 

And training, lots of training. It always strikes me as odd in these training sequences, where they have a limited number of weapons and ammo, but use up a fuck ton of said ammo shooting at badly made dummies or bottles, so at least one straw sucking village can prove an aptitude with a big gun. At least the movie removes the "go to Providence and buy more weapons, and hire thugs" element by saying, "the Bad Guy will return in ... five days!!"

Five Days. That's how long they have before the Bad Guys return to the moon, for their grain. The trope requires us to speed run the grain harvest -- at least this movie is built upon the movie that established most of these kinds of tropes. I won't dig into whether Kora and Friends have been gone long enough for the grain to actually have grown while they were gone. The dusty fields were just being plowed in the last movie. But no, they need to condense weeks, if not months or harvesting all those fields spread all the way to the horizon, into THREE DAYS. And then leave two days to the training sequence and DIGGING TUNNELS. Also, they feel a need to mill the grain into flour. The whole point of actually getting the grain out of the fields is to build a barrier between the village and the Bad Guy's guns. Not a physical barrier but a, "If you need this grain so badly, we dare you to destroy our village from orbit!!"

So, being the movie that it is, and we have collected a bunch of weirdos to defend the village, they feel a need to explain them to us. So each character gets a flashback moment. General Titus (Djimon Hounsou, Seventh Son) betrayed the Space Nazis and his own men were blown up in front of him, as punishment. Nemesis (Bae Doona, The Silent Sea) came from a peaceful village whose people had a dark past (that's different, not her dark past but her entire village's) and she cuts off her arms so they can be replaced with murdery robot arms that can weird the lightsabre replacement lazer sword. Tarak (Staz Nair, Game of Thrones), despite never wearing a shirt, does not come from a Conan the Barbarian primitive world but was quite the floppy hat wearing dandy, until his people all died. And Milius (Elise Duffy, debut) was just another victim of the Space Nazis, no real big backstory, but that she was saved by The Rebels -- the same rebels that was the whole point of the first movie, but who (well, those that chose to come to Kora's assistance) were all killed in the first movie; all but Milius. And that's the bunch of weirdos. The backstories, albeit standard-fare Snyder pretty-to-watch, are boring AF.

I guess that is what irritated me most about the movie. As it has to rely heavily on the format we have seen time and time again, it does nothing really interesting or new with the plot structure or tropes. And the plot holes and plot blunders just pile up, one after the other. 

For example, Nemesis is supposed to be the ultimate in bad-ass warriors, using swords when everyone has brought a gun to the fight. But she has one fight, gloriously (*extreme eye roll*) defending the village's elderly and children and women (?!?!?) against a small force of blue lazersword wielding Bad Guys. Sure, this Bad Guy force gets a name, implying they are likely an elite force, but there are about five of them. She kills a bunch but dies. One battle. Swords. Dead Bad Ass. And let's ignore that there is no fucking good reason the women of the village are holed up in there, and you can clearly see in the final scene of that fight, that there are a few young, not children, strapping lads hiding out in the barn. 

For example, the Bad Guys have spider tanks. They drop a bunch of them on the battlefield at the beginning. The farmers destroy one with a rocket launcher (do they? or was that a drop ship?) and Jimmy the Robot (WTF is up with that stupid name) destroys one, during his extremely brief appearance that entirely undermines his cool establishing scenes in the first movie. But the movie forgets the rest of the spider tanks exist until the final WAH HOO (!!!) Millennium Falcon scene when The Rebels finally appear and bomb the shit out of the remaining spider tanks. I guess they were just out standing in the fields, awaiting orders.

But there is one fun sequence, when Kora and Gunnar (Michiel Huisman, Game of Thrones) sneak onto the Big Ship to blow it up from within. Her presence is detected so that leads to another stand-off between Kora and the now resurrected Admiral Noble. She plants her bombs, they go off, but Noble intercepts her before they escape, so the battle in the crashing ship is pretty cool. It is after the destruction of this dreadnought that The Rebels arrive to just do a mop up, fly by, and yet it is considered a saving grace scene.

I don't have any strong, definitive reason why this part, as in Part Two, the entire movie, bugged the stuffing out of me, while the admittedly terrible first part got two (enjoyed) watchings from me. Maybe I like establishing stories better than closing ones? Or maybe I need a ReWatch (shudder) in order to get a better read?

That said, while it has not been stated out loud, this movie did setup either a third part, or more likely, a spin off series that is totally not going to be a Seven Samurai ripoff. I wonder whether we will even see that, as we still have to get some extended, super duper, R rated, Snyder Cuts. Yay?

Watching: The Gentlemen

2024, Amazon

Yeah, this is going to cause a problem. As the not-currently-being-pasted preamble paragraph to Watching said, we (I) watch way too much TV, as in, I should probably get off the sofa more often and go for a walk, level of TV watching, the dishes-can-wait level of TV watching. I admit its a problem. But now I have added to the problem by plugging in a bunch of stubs for series or seasons of shows I have watched recently (RECENTLY!!) and the sheer number of them is already starting the anxiety sweats. I may have to go back to either shoving them all in multi-part giant posts, or go back to Not Writing About TV. 

This is why this is more about blogging than it is about the media being written about; do you really need to endlessly hear about Toasty's anxiety over wasting his time all time?

Guy Ritchie is a prolific fucking guy. OK, looking at IMDB, really not so much, but it was the release of both Guy Ritchie's the Covenant and Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre and almost a movie a year before that which gave me that impression.

You know, a normal guy, a Media Review Guy would just delete that paragraph and write a new one, once he Had Facts.

*cough*

The Gentlemen was a fun little, classic Guy Ritchie movie. I had hoped that he was taking the premise of the movie and just literally reworking it into a TV series, but this was more taking the idea of the movie and.... reworking it into a TV series. As in, the inspiration, the general concept. Really, just the point about weed being grown on a posh British estate.

Seriously??

Edward Horniman (Theo James, Bedlam) is an officer in the UN Peacekeeping force who is unexpectedly called back to England, because his father, The 12th Duke of Halstead, has passed away. That should make Eddie's brother Freddy (Daniel Ings, The Marvels) the new Duke and heir to the estate, except Freddy is a major fuck-up. Eddie does not want to be Duke nor does he want to know about the sorry state the ... estate is in. And Freddy owes 8 million quid to a drug dealer (Peter Serafinowicz, The Tick). Just when Eddie about to sell the whole kit & kaboodle to a posh American (Giancarlo Esposito, The Mandalorian) who wants his own piece of nobility, he learns what dad was really doing -- growing weed for the Glass crime family, under the watch of Susie (Kaya Scodelario, The Maze Runner) while her dad is in (posh) prison. She does not want the arrangement sold, so she agrees to help Eddie out with the Freddy situation.

Posh posh posh (Spice!)

Then Freddy fucks up by killing the drug dealer he owes the money to.

Thus begins a Guy Ritchie style convoluted plot involving multiple crime entities and families and people with colourful accents and backgrounds and clothing. And the whole thing was a blast!!!

Kent already covered it in his useful 1-1-1 style. I was more enthusiastic than he was, so we mostly Agree.

Theo James is just great (and so tweeeeeedy!!) as the British aristocrat who would be happy to be done with his whole messy family situation, but is not afraid to step up when he is needed. That he still loves his brother after the many many MANY ways Freddy fucks up is astounding. He seems to have his own demons that he won't forgive himself for, and as the series progresses, circumstances seem to want him more invested in the crime world than he intends to be. His turnabout by the end should have been more expected, but I was flabbergasted, and more than a bit disappointed with him.

Kay Scodelario is wonderful as the posh-not-posh (a wee bit chav), smart, fancy, impeccably dressed, always in control crime boss. She's harsh, she's tough, she can be cruel because she has to be, but she also betrays what all crime leaders must feel --- a bit of fear that it can so easily come crumbling down around them when just one small thing goes wrong. I rather liked that the two of them kept a working relationship, that the show was able to keep such between two main leads without it all being about the "when will they have sex?!?!"

Giancarlo Esposito has established himself as the smart, capable, well-spoken, control-freak style Bad Guy. Here he is so enigmatic as the American who just wants his part of British aristocracy and will stop at nothing to buy it.

Bonus points for Guz Khan as Chucky, the money launderer who just wants his hotdog food gimmick to be acknowledged by Eddie.

All in all, love the show, cannot wait for another.

Watching: Fallout

What I Have Been (or Am) Watching, or now shortened to Watching, for what is life but for Change, comes from when we, admittedly, spend too much (almost all?) time in front of the TV. This time round, I will catch up in reverse-chronological order as I finish seasons of a show, as individual posts, not the usual kaiju-post broken into Parts. There are likely to be some collective posts, where I comment on incomplete seasons, or British panel shows, or whatnot. Herein ends the explainer paragraph. It will be resurrected only for said collective posts.

First up... 

2024, Amazon

Of course I watched this series, and pretty much binged it, against our better judgement. I usually try and stretch these things out a bit longer. I love the game, and I like what Jonathan Nolan does so I didn't have many worries this show would satisfy me.

So, a bit of background that you would glean from the show but also may be a bit confused by. Its an alternate reality, one where atomic power took off but all the other 50s style and technology became stagnant. Its not trying to make a lot of sense, but atomic power, robots, suits of power armour, old timey music, pinup posters, gelatin desserts, vacuum tubes, etc. And a Big Bad -- China. And China does Drop the Bomb all but devastating the US and the world. But people survived, both on the surface and in deep underground vaults, which were large scale fallout shelters meant to house entire societies, who would emerge to take back the world once the radiation levels had diminished.

Lucy McLean (Ella Purnell, Army of the Dead) lives in one such vault -- 33. Her vault trades goods and people with Vault 31 and Vault 32. After 200 years isolated underground, you have to spread the blood around or... well, you know what happens when cousins fuck. Lucy is perky, has high test scores and is the daughter of the leader of her vault, Overseer Hank (Kyle MacLachlan, Sex and the City). I was really disappointed her father's name wasn't John. 

The show begins as Lucy is meeting her husband to be, so you know, they can have sex and make babies. Exceeeeept, the people who come through the vault door are not vault 32 folks but raiders from the surface. Vault 33 is decimated and Hank is stolen away. Lucy has to get her father back, against the wishes of the interim overseers. So yeah, the entire show is her quest to rescue him but is also wrapped in a mystery to Uncover the Truth (!!) a truth Lucy doesn't know needs uncovering.

On the surface, pretty much everyone Lucy meets is trying to kill her. And her perky, all about manners, be polite and friendly and helpful demeanour is not helping things. She meets The Ghoul (Walton Goggins, Maze Runner: the Death Cure), a 200 year old man (from before the bombs dropped !), essentially a wandering cowboy with a big gun and the face of a desiccated corpse. And she meets Maximus (or Knight Titus as she thinks he is for much of the show; Aaron Moten, Emancipation), a member of the Brotherhood of Steel, militaristic zealots in power armour. And she briefly meets a scientist (Michael Emerson, Person of Interest) from some society or another that seems to have weathered the apocalypse rather well, considering his technology and white lab coat. He implants himself with a rice grain sized macguffin which has everyone chasing him. I said briefly, because he almost immediately dies, and Lucy ends up either carrying or chasing after his head. What's in the head is important to everyone.

Its a rather fun show, full of violence, gore and black comedy galore. The lore is probably basted on pretty thick but there is enough exposition to explain things to non-game-players, and soooo many easter eggs to make fans (real fans, not the whiney fanboys who will debate every inconsistency that comes with adaptations) squee. Of course, the entire season is setting up the world and the characters, with a juicy amount of pre-war background establishment, so the real meaty stuff can take place in later seasons. That is the way of TV these days.

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Only God Forgives

2013,  Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive) - Netflix

The new fangled word all the movie kids are using these days is vibe. As Patrick Willems says, quoting Tenet, "Don't try to understand it... feel it." We will ignore the fact that he uses the word vibe as an acronym for guys-in-suits movies, he still hangs it on the idea there are movies where plot & story are a step behind the feel of the movie.

Only God Forgives is a movie where the visuals, and the mood, and the pink/red colour spectrum are far more important than the violent, seedy revenge flick being played out on the screen. Scenes are constantly presented, frozen in motion, more photographs than moving pictures. We are gazing at art, striving to understand what the artist meant by it all.

The movie is set in Thailand. Julian (Ryan Gosling, Barbie) and Billy (Tom Burke, The Lazarus Project) run a Thai Boxing club, but we know its a front for something. Billy goes looking for underage sex, and ends up killing the girl. For whatever reason, he doesn't leave the room when discovered by police. The chief, Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm, Thirteen Lives), allows the girl's father to beat Billy to death in return for having an arm cut off, for making his daughter a prostitute. Julian and his thugs track down the father, but let him live, as he understands why his brother was killed. Then their mother (Kristin Scott Thomas, Mission: Impossible) arrives, enraged at Julian's lack of retribution. She sets in motion a plan to have not only the father killed, but the police chief Chang as well. It doesn't go well.

That's the plot, a rather simplistic revenge thriller, but that doesn't matter. Refn builds visual after visual, still lifes of colour and mood to elicit an emotional response. Pristine beauty is juxtaposed with ultra violence, wealth with poverty. Nobody is a hero here, nobody leaves the movie unscathed. 

In watching Poor Things, I commented on how I appreciated the movie but was not quite sure I enjoyed it. The same hesitance sits here with me. But I can say that I was moved by this movie, the right emotions were drawn from me by the visuals and colours: revulsion, admiration, rage. I know I wanted to see this movie when it first came out, knowing full well how much I loved Drive. But I think, even then at the beginning of the blog, I was moving away from That Guy and I waited, ten years, trying to recapture him.

ReWatch: GeoStorm

2017, Dean Devlin (Leverage) -- Netflix

The post for the original DL and watch was eaten by the Great Hiatus of 2018, cuz I guess it came available early in the year after it was released in ... cough ... theatres.

This is not a good movie. Disaster movies rarely are. This new blend of scifi actioner and disaster even less so. But, of course, it elicits the squee's out of me with its silly, bombastic, explodey heroism. This Guy has That Guy sitting in the corner shaking his head.

A few alternate realities ago, Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich were a producing team behind most of the last three decades of disaster movies. In this reality, its mainly Emmerich, but Devlin was there for Independence Day and Godzilla. But obviously he still has the bug for watching the world die.

Interesting how both those posts start with, "I hated this movie when it first came out." I think That Guy may be doing more than shaking his head with you days. I think he may be distancing himself from you entirely.

The fun thing about this movie, as it is with all scifi flicks, is that it was done in the 2017s, but is set not long after, when the world begins to suffer true disaster from Climate Change (foreboding music). The world comes together to fight it, and builds Dutch Boy, after the fictional kid who fingered a dyke. Jake Lawson (Gerard Butler, Reign of Fire) is the magician scientist engineer cowboy who brings it online, but only after pissing off all his bosses, cuz said cowboyisms. He is replaced by his brother Max (Jim Sturgess, Heartless) who has a government job, so that qualifies him to run a high-science space station and satellite network, amiright?

Then, when the US was handing off control to the world (not sure how they were in control considering the "multi-nation coalition" that built the thing, but sure, Go USA) things begin to go wrong. Weather Satellites begin freezing people and blowing shit up. And Max traces it back to a conspiracy. The only person able to fix it is his estranged brother, cuz reasons. 

Jake goes to the space station, which in this near-future is absolutely MASSIVE having actual hangar bays that a space shuttle can land in, to bring these nerdy scientist types in line with his cowboyisms! Rah rah, Go USA! Yes, they do make a comment that he is British, but no matter, he lives in a airstream trailer in the Florida Keys, so Go USA !

He and Max do uncover said conspiracy, but still, have to blow up the space station in order to stop a GeoStorm, a mythical phenomena where all the world's bad storms will come together and DESTROY THE WORLD ! Max and his Secret Service GF (Abbie Cornish, Sucker Punch) find out it is the vice-POTUS (Ed Harris, West World) behind everything because he's salty that the US of A had to hand over power to the rest of the world. Together they blow shit up and shoot people as Jake is blowing up the space station, eliminating the GeoStorm but escapes along with tag-along the German nerdy scientist hottie (Alexandra Maria Lara, Rush).

Rah rah, world saved, Go USA!

I cannot say for sure why these movies thrill me. They rarely strive to make any sense. Maybe part of me wants to watch the world burn. Maybe part of me wants to applaud big dumb heroism. But obviously someone in a purple suit (not Devlin or Emmerich; they have normal shiny suits and are still producing from a certain kind of passion) knows they fill a niche in the human psyche cuz they will always be made, they will always make a certain amount of money (just enough, I guess?) and will continue to find an audience of people like me.

1-1-1-KsMIRT: whatever times five

K'sMIRT is Kent's Month in Reviewing Television, where each month (ha!) I step through the TV series I completed watching each month in the 1 Great-1 Good-1 Bad format.  These are shows I finished (or was finished with) in the past four-ish weeks.

This Month:
Doom Patrol Season 4 pt 2 - CTV SciFi/Max
The Completely Made-up Adventures of Dick Turpin Season 1 - AppleTV+
Girls5eva Season 3 - Netflix
The Gentlemen DNF - Nflix
Hijack - AppleTV+

---

Doom Patrol Season 4, part 2 [6 of 6 episodes watched]

The What 100: The Doom Patrol are fractured, again. They've lost their immunity from aging and they're not dealing well. Rita's starlet egocentricity can't handle the rapid aging. Cliff's Parkinson's is only getting worse. Larry is so petrified not of aging, or dying, but being alone that he pushes everyone away, including Keeg. Jane has lost touch with all her other personalities in the underground. Rouge fears she can never redeem herself. Victor wonders who he is, and what he can contribute, if he's not Cyborg. And, of course, weird shit and lots of swearing.

(1 Bad): It feels like so, so long ago that we watched Doom Patrol Season 4 Part 1, because it was. We put off watching it for months after it aired, wondering if we even cared anymore. With the DP it's not even superhero fatigue, because it's not really even a superhero show. It's just a show about weirdos facing even weirder threats that grounds itself in deep rooted issues of mental health.  No, it was just that sense of everything falling apart, which, with the Doom Patrol, has been from episode one. This is a dysfunctional family. And after a while, especially when everyone is keeping to themselves and not interacting except with hostility, it's not fun to watch.  So it was hesitation that put off watching this last batch of 6 episodes. I think the worst of it was stepping back in, because Episode 7, the first episode back, picks up directly from Episode 6 and, like I said, it had been a minute, and to be honest, I felt that same sense of fatigue.

(1 Good): While overall Season 4 pt. 2 was a mixed bag, more than a bit of a rollercoaster for each character (and the viewer), it had two incredible highlights, the first of which was Episode 9 "Immortimas Patrol". As has been the thing for genre shows to do since, oh, the late 90's and "Once More With Feeling", "Immortimas Patrol" is a musical episode, and in Doom Patrol's weirdest of weird ways, their Christmas Episode (with nary a hint of Christmas).  It was watching the Oscars back in 2022 when performing in the ensemble for Encanto's best song nomination when I saw that Diane Guerrero was not only a cast member of that film but could sing, and yeah, she gets to show that off here. Also, Oscar winner Brendan Frasier sing-talks his way through a song about trying to masturbate without interruption.  And there's the chorus of Sex Ghosts that keep popping up.  The songs here are written by Aliza and Talia Berger with music by Clint Mansell and Kevin Kiner (just an incredible duo handling scoring chores this entire series), and they are all really, really fun while also being story and character-centric.

(1 Great): The thing about the Doom Patrol is they were doomed from the beginning. The original team Larry, Rita and Cliff, were on borrowed time to begin with. So that they each meet an end is only fitting. But holy shit, do we ever get some closure. Rita passed away, and it's so sad, until her ghost emerges to orchestrate her own funeral. Larry and Keeg find beauty in endings. Jane finds a new path forward as a whole person, and with Casey, who isn't even really a person.  Victor continues to make his mark, his way. And Rouge decides to embrace her dark side, but possibly used for good? And Cliff spends his final days with his family leading to one of the most beautiful, tearjerking, and abrupt endings of any TV show ever. I still get weepy thinking about it.  For a static robot face, the Robotman head has been so incredibly expressive for 46 episodes and the hold on it for the final frame as the light in his eyes goes out is just a little bit of magic given the moments preceding it.  This show, while not always great, was always something special. 

META: Yes, I cried multiple times during the finale. Shut up. Stupid show.

--- 

The Completely Made-up Adventures of Dick Turpin [6 of 6 episodes watched]

(The Plot 100): Dick Turpin wants nothing more than to be a glamorous highwayman. He's not been much else in his life. He certainly does not want to be a butcher like his father.  So he sets out on finding a gang, and then gets to robbing stage coaches. But as a gentleman.  He leads with compassion and robs with kindness. Things don't always go well for him, but he can always hold his head up for being his authentic self. This attitude gets people's attention, and a scribe starts writing brochures of his adventures making him a celebrity.

(1 Great): Where each of the first four episodes was pretty much a stand-alone adventure, with a little continuity of world and character building, the latter two episodes are a two-parter, in which an even more decadent, charming, congenial, fancy highwayman, Tommy Silversides, turns up and out-Turpins Dic Turpin in every way possible. While almost every character in Dick Turpin is really fun, Connor Swindells who plays Silversides gives a next level performance. He's clearly dastardly, and up to something, but he is also incredibly charming and irresistible. It's not just the show telling us these things, but Swindells showing us them.  And then, in the second episode, there's the turn, and it's hilarious, giving Swindells yet another layer to his performance.

(1 Good): This feels like a sister show to Our Flag Means Death, as both are period-set comedies about relatively hapless, but good-natured men who want to participate in what are commonly seen as ruthless and violent criminal activities. Steed Bonnet from Our Flag... and Dick Turpin here are both in over their heads in their quests for excitement and adventure, while also retaining a positive outlook on life, and enforcing their own moral codes of gender and sexual identity positivity and inclusivity. They just want everyone to be their best selves.  It's hard not to be charmed by these shows ... unless you're one of these "anti-woke" toolboxes who can't see anything beyond their own limited perspective.

(1 Bad): I found Dick Turpin to be great fun. Solid cast, whimsical production, fantastic earworm of a theme, but it's a little...tame.  It's not trying to be edgy, and I get that, but it is rather... fluffy.  Where Our Flag... had some heft to it that grounded it in something tangible and emotional, Turpin is just a silly light comedy. I like the characters, but I don't feel terribly invested in them. 

META: I know Our Flag... has been canceled, and that it was on HBO/Max and Turpin is on AppleTV+, but I really, really, really would love a crossover between these two shows. They're so complimentary, it only makes sense. It won't happen, but I wants it.

---

Girls5eva Season 3 [6 of 6 episodes watched]

The Plot 100: A pregnant Dawn, a starved-for-attention Wickie, a newly empowered Summer and a very horny Gloria have forged out on their own, with all new material, really trying to will a resurgence into existence. But they find a tiny modicum of success in Fort Worth (singing a song about Fort Worth) and are nervous to leave even that glimmer of stardom behind. A bold move, Wickie takes all their money and books Radio City Music Hall as their big tour finale...a finale for a tour that hasn't even been planned.

(1 Great): Renee Elise Goldsberry as Wickie is a freaking force to be reckoned with. While all the cast are enjoyable, Goldsberry is next level, all the time. She's best know for being a key player in Hamilton but she's got incredible comedic chops that she shows off non-stop. The energy on screen doubles every time she's in a scene.  Wickie is reliably self-involved -- a generous archetype for comedy -- but Goldsberry plays Wickie's ego as a mask, and she's aces every moment she comes out from behind it (and nails even hard the mad dash recovery to get back behind it).  The spotlight episode of Wickie returning to her supportive, upper class family home is the season highlight.

(1 Good): Like the Tina Fey/Robert Carlock-produced 30 Rock and Kimmy Schmidt before it, Girls5eva is a joke machine. Just densely packed joke-after-joke-after-joke in such a manner that it's hard to take them all in. I find myself still processing one joke when two others have flown past me.  My favourite joke is the Mariotte Divorced Dad Suitelets as a setting and all the delicious comedy nuggets within (like the last minute, pre-wrapped birthday present vending machine and the "#1 Weekend Dad" coffee mugs). It is a show that begs rewatching for all the comedy nuggets.

 (1 Bad): I'm not going to complain about Netflix resurrecting Girls5eva after it seemed like two seasons, 8 episodes each, was going to be it. But I will complain about only giving it a 6-episode order, and what looks to be an extremely tight budget.  It's not necessarily the stripped-down sets or even the sparse extras casting (no crowd ever feels like a crowd), as a sharp director and production staff could definitely make it work. It's clear that the budget limitations extended to the shooting time, and there wasn't enough to do more elaborate camera setups to hide the flaws, or to do more takes and edit the scenes tighter.  This season, frankly, doesn't look very good. It looks like...Hallmark...just with dirty jokes.

META: I don't know enough about the production of this Netflix season, but it just doesn't hit as hard as the prior seasons. One of the key things is the songs just aren't quite up to the same bar as the previous two seasons. Where I would actually listen to the soundtracks to Seasons 1 and 2 on Spotify (oh, I'd do the Splingee) I haven't even been tempted by Season 3. But maybe upon rewatch I'll start getting "Inside My Sweater" stuck in my brain.

---

The Gentlemen Season 1(?) [4 of 8 episodes watched]

The Plot 100: UN Peacekeeping officer Eddie Horniman is called home after the death of his father. He inherits his father's title of Duke of Halstead, much to the chagrin of his complete fucktwit of an older brother. Eddie learns that his father had leased out the property to criminal organization, and now he's also in bed with them. Eddie endeavours to get them off his land and out of his life, but seems to just get more entrenched the more he does to try and get them out.

(1 Great): Kaya Scodelario as Susie Glass. She's the "handler", the "fixer", and the woman-in-control (but not in charge) of the weed operations. She's ultra-competent, calm/cool/collected at all times, and perfectly styled without being showy about it. It's a ridiculously charming and enjoyable performance, which makes it all the more sad that I didn't enjoy the show enough to stick it out for more of her.

(1 Good): The show looks good. Like, real good. It's got the same feel as any of Guy Ritchie's films about cheeky British criminals, which have, since Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, all had a visual pinache. Ritchie directs the first two episodes, and you can tell. Surprisingly, when Nima Nourizadeh steps in to direct the next two episodes, you can't really tell it's not Ritchie behind the camera. So cudos to the production team for maintaining a consistent sensibility. 

(1 Bad): Honestly, there was nothing outright "bad" about The Gentlemen, but it just wasn't clicking with me. Okay, maybe when they introduced Peter Serafinowicz (nailed it on the first try) as a very distinctive character only to promptly [spoiler for the first episode], I was quite deflated by that. That was bad.  Part of my lack of enthusiasm is Eddie is a bit of a nothing character. He has one goal, which is doing whatever it takes to get these criminals off his land, so there's not a lot else to that character. Everyone else seems to have something going on but Eddie's just this stoic, handsome, rich, military twat who isn't particularly skilled at anything. He's not exceptionally intelligent, or a great fighter, or quick on his feet, and that should make him a compelling lead, but Theo James plays him with a sense of authority that the show seemingly backs up, rather than it being the misplaced authority of a man in over his head. I also wanted more flirting between him and Scodelario, but it all stayed weirdly businesslike in the first half.

META: I loved Ritchie's first two films, then stepped away from his Swept Away vanity project and never really came back to him full time. Sure I saw the Sherlock Holmes movies and enjoyed them enough, and I did see Aladdin (a real "why bother" film), and I do really love Man From U.N.C.L.E.  but the thing that drew me to him in the first place, his stylish British crime flicks I've avoided completely. Rocknrolla, Revolver, Wrath of Man, Operation Fortune, and event the show's disconnected namesake The Gentlemen I haven't seen... but Toasty has... and it seems like he enjoys them.  I dunno...maybe I'll do a Director's Set on Ritchie and go through it all. 

---

Hijack [7 of 7 episodes watched]

The Plot 100: Idris Elba plays Sam Nelson, a guy on a flight from Dubai to London that gets highjacked by British nationals for unknown reasons. Elba's background is as a high level mergers and acquisitions closer, so he's used to high pressure situations and talking to/manipulating people. On the ground, meanwhile, is a series of people, including Elba's family and various officials, trying to discern if there is actually a problem.

(1 Great): This show is seven episodes of intensity. It's the first show in months that we just flat out binged out of a need to know more, tossing aside other, better shows, just to get through this compelling story.  It takes place in nearly real time, but never, ever calls attention to that fact. It very capably negotiates at least three, maybe even four dozen characters both on the plane and on the ground - passengers, flight crew, ground control, Sam's family, police, and government officials.  It's probably in no way accurate to real life, but it's an immensely engaging journey.

(1 Good): The show has one mystery, which is the "why". Why are these people hijacking the plane? It's a good mystery they tease out over the first four hours before the list of demands are revealed and then we spend the next half of the series being very aware of the additional threats posed beyond the airplane. As if things weren't intense enough. 

(Good 1.5: I liked that Sam is a guy with "a particular set of skills" but in this case it's not the answer to this problem. Sam is a negotiator, a talker, and he uses that skill a LOT to insert himself into the situation, sometimes unbelievably. But I like that Sam's negotiating skill is just as often not the solution as it is, and that he's not "the guy in control" of the situation, really, ever, and the real fact is no one is. It's just kind of chaos.)

(1 Bad): Peril fatigue. That thing when the main character is put into too many life-threatening situations and the audience starts to check out of the idea that he will actually be harmed. The final act goes maybe two unnecessary steps too far with Sam and the flight, and then there's additional perils happening on the ground. It's all a bit too much, and unnecessary. I think an epilogue as opposed to the additional bits of danger would have been better, even if it kind of broke the "real time" structure.

META: Famous handsome man Idris Elba is not just known for being famous and handsome, but also being incredibly charming and a pretty good guy. He's likeable, and I like seeing him in things. I don't see everything he's in but I am certainly drawn to things because he's in them.  This came out mid-2023 and didn't really move the needle on anything, but it went on my lengthy "to watch" list. I put it on to be background while working on the 2000th Post Spectacular, and got sucked in and distracted quickly.  

It's not a completely successful show, but it moves briskly and is very, very engrossing.

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): The Retirement Plan

2023, Tim Brown (Treasure Hounds) - Netflix

This utterly terrible movie is a product of a Darius Films signed deal to make movies in the Cayman Islands. It is an action comedy about a retired hitman / assassin / govt stooge hiding out, drunkenly, in the Caymans until his estranged daughter comes to him, wrapped up in a problem with Miami mobsters. The entire movie comes off like a Hallmarkie purple suit made a crime thriller. But in a beautiful locale. I fully suspect it will be rolled into the recurring dream I have where I am a caretaker of an estate who lives in a shack on the beach. Maybe that's a good cover for a retired hitman?

Anywayz, Ashley (Ashley Greene Khoury, Twilight) and her husband run afoul of Miami gangster Donnie, and Ashley sends her daughter head to the Caymans to hide out with her estranged father Matt (who also has another name to add comedy, and make his character seem well-rounded; he is not) but she is caught before she can follow. Donnie sends a pair of goons, who Matt kills one of, while the other runs off with the granddaughter. So Donnie sends more guys, who also die, so Donnie and the rest of his goons fly to the Caymans. Meanwhile... oh never mind, suffice to say that the movie attempts to add in a double-cross and triple-cross sub-plot that just falls entirely flat. Eventually all goons die and family is reunited.

This movie is so bad. In other hands, non-Hallmarkie-directing-style hands, it could be a serviceable cookie-cutter thriller, but the movie does nothing with nothing. Sure, it has Nick Cage and a handful of other "that guy(s)" character actors who at least try not to phone it in. Nick Cage is even dialled back a 100-fold so you don't often get to see him just being his bug-eyed, rambling self.  There is nothing worth watching in this movie other than looking at the drone & copter shots of the Cayman Islands.

KWIF: Wonka (+3)

 KWIF = "Kent's Week In Film", so...stuff he watched in a week, or so. Just not this week.

This Some Week:
Wonka (2023, d. Paul King - Crave/Max)
Extraction 2 (2023, d. Sam Hargrave - Netflix)
Die Hard with a Vengeance (1996, d. John McTiernan - DVD)
The Hunt for Red October (1990, d. John McTiernan - DVD)

---

I have yet to find the person who wanted Wonka to happen.

Seriously, who asked for Wonka to happen?

We, Toast and Kent, know this answer: The Purple Suits.

Wonka is a result of Hollywood's IP-driven landscape, where origin stories for popular characters are seen as a necessary vehicle to both perpetuate a property and potentially reboot it while providing the opportunity to recast a role or three or ten.  

It's happening all the time (a trailer for Transfomers One, which tells the origin of Optimus Prime and Megatron has just dropped the day that I write this) and I don't know if audiences are as cynical about it as the more cinephilic are (as I am) but they just seem so tired.

But, lazy film idea doesn't have to mean lazy film. And Paul King, poached from a plum Paddington gig proves the point with Wonka. I had a surprisingly good time. All it takes is putting the right people in place.

My review for Paul King's Paddington 2 lives over in Letterboxd, as it was a film from The Dark Year of the blog (what, you didn't read all 7600 words Toasty and I just spilled about our 2000th post?) but I, like many, had my pants utterly charmed by that movie. I have not revisited Paddington 2, despite the pants-charming, and my stab at watching the first Paddington was interrupted and I never returned to it, but King's thumbprint is clearly very prominent on the two films. I only just learned that King's TV work includes some directing of Garth Marenghi's Darkplace and The Mighty Boosh, two very arch and weird series that I wished I had spent more time with in my younger years, because I don't have the time now. Both Darkplace and Boosh are the product of their creators, and not necessarily a result of King's guiding force, but that's not to say that King didn't bring anything to the table, and also not to say that things didn't rub off on King.

Much of the same magic of Paddington is found here. There's a timelessness to the storytelling, not that it's set in a specific time period, but that there's a lack of era-specificity that unmoors it from our specific reality. Thought there's a wide-eyed naivete to the characters of the world, it also contains a message about class structures and capitalism-gone-wrong, and even about police and how they really only protect property and the wealthy. Well, it's in the subtext, anyway.

I don't love the Gene Wilder Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, but I've seen it enough in my life, and I like it okay (the Johnny Depp one I haven't seen, but from what I recall of the trailers he was playing Wonka by way of Michael Jackson), so I'm not necessarily hung up on any specific interpretation of the character or needing anything specific out of this film.

Timothee Chalamet, I have to say, I was wary about. I hadn't hopped aboard the Chalatrain up until this year, but between Dune Pt. 2 and Wonka, I am sold on his star power. Can he believably be a cult leader/warrior/politician as a wistful, fanciful chocolateer? Yes, indeed he can. He brings an unending hopefulness to Willy here that echoes Paddington without the bumbling. Willy is hyper-competent and utterly creative, but he's not without his flaws which see him set back more than a time or two.  Especially when three rival chocolateers, in secret collusion with one another, seek to drive Willy out of their very locked-down marketplace.

It's not a full-on musical, but there are musical numbers. It's Mary Poppins-esque.  It's a film meant for everyone, frowning only on the selfish and greedy.  That bite of darkness that Wilder had in his performance is not at all present here, and while some bemoan its absence, it's a more uplifting film without it. 

I don't know why Paddington, just as much an IP-driven movie as this one, was given such leniency but Wonka so severely scrutinized (I could guess at length but I have other films to write about), but under King's guidance the flavours are not as far apart as one would suspect.  It was a surprising smash success, given the scrutiny, and I suspect a sequel, but not likely another direct Dahl adaptation. 

---

Tyler Rake, Rakestraction himself, is back!!

He got shot a whole heap back at the end of Extraction 1: In Which Tyler Rake Does A Rakestraction, but he's not dead, just severely wounded. He fell into a very gross looking river, and likely got sepsis. Good thing he's got gobs of money and Chris Hemsworth's good looks otherwise he wouldn't have made it. But he did make it, but he's become a sad, wounded puppy, retires to his Austrian(?) cabin and sulks about his dead son some more. 

I shouldn't be pithy about the dead son bit... Hemsworth brings a genuine emotional center to Tyler Rake as a traumatized man but it's got nothing to do with his physical wounds.

Rakestraction is approached by fellow handsome man, and Hemsworth's good pal from the Thor movies, Idris Elba to do him a job. Rake's handler and business partner in Rakestractions Inc., Nik (Golshifteh Farahani), is not happy that Rake has accepted the job, but she will be by his side wherever he goes. Rake does his Rocky 4 training montage and gets back into fighting shape. No long-term side-effects for him!

Farahani does an awesome job at playing a badass mercenary as well as Rake's best friend. She straddles the line very well of never telling the audience exactly how she feels about rake, whether it's a deep platonic love or something more that she knows he's unable to reciprocate.  A romantic side-plot is not part of this action-heavy (action-only?) series, but Rake's personal life is really drawn out when his ex-wife, Olga Kurylenko, makes herself known.  It's her sister and her kids that need extracting from a very, very bad situation.

Rakestractions Inc. gets everyone out in loud, violent, pulse pounding, anxiety-inducing long-take sequences, first through a prison riot, then a car chase, then on a train. But then, when seemingly resting comfortably in Vienna, only for the very bad people to come hunt them down. It gets really messy.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say I liked Rakestraction 2 more than Rakestraction 1, but, if I'm being honest, both of these films kinda left my brain the moment they were done. They are thoroughly engaging in the moment, but they're so light on character and plot that they don't have a stickiness to them. Hemsworth is a very likeable and attractive presence to follow around and his physicality (and physique) are very impressive to see in action... and these are action-centric showcases, spinning out of the John Wick mold. Unlike Wick, which was a series that built a world around its killing-machine-of-a-central-character-who they-barely-explored-over-four-films, Rakestraction drops its character into a setting, has him fight his way out, and gives a bit of space for the character to breathe in the middle, drop some character nuggets, then continue fighting.  It works, but it's not enough to really sell us on Tyler Rake as our next John McClane or whatnot.

But boy, those action sequences are amazingly well orchestrated and look intense. I wish they would just do a G.I. Joe movie in this vein, a tactical force of specialized individuals dropped into a situation fighting their way out, showing off their stuff.  But I digress.

The only thing I don't like about the Rakestraction films is the unacknowledged collateral damage. Because you know there are people everyone just taking bullets or having their cars flipped unexpectedly (does anyone ever have their car flipped expectedly?).  I just can't help but think about what might be going on just out of frame and in the world outside that the extraction is just plowing through.

[we agree, toasty's take)

---

Speaking of John McClane, it's been at least 20 years since I last watched Die Hard with a Vengeance. I watch Die Hard every so often, because it's a stone cold classic (and a Christmas movie) so it gets play, but DHw/aV doesn't get the same treatment because it's juuust *that* much a derivative product that it doesn't beg for revisiting as much.

But it remains and incredible action movie and the only worthy sequel to Die Hard (I rewatched Die Hard 2 recently, and while it's enjoyable enough as an action movie, Willis' performance could have been any character...this feels like John McClane).  What works so well is, well, everything. The premise, the casting, the directing, the action, the twists... they all collude so perfectly...right up until the end.

The final moments of DHw/aV are kind of unmemorable. There's a Canada/US border town and a helicopter, and you would be excused for mistaking it for the much better sequence in The Long Kiss Goodnight. There's a quick action beat, some gunfire, then it's over. It's so abrupt. It's not unsatisfying, but it's not totally fulfilling either.

Samuel L. Jackson is the perfect pairing with Willis, in that golden age of the 90's when, well, Sam Jackson was the perfect pairing for anyone (see also The Long Kiss Goodnight). That man knows how to deliver every time, all of the time.  The racial tension is far from ignored, which is surprising for the 90's era of supposed "post-racial harmony" that was sold so hard to sweep uncomfortable conversations under the rug, never to be seen from again...until someone moves the rug.  I like the addressing of it head on and the two men finding that they're both just men.  Jeremy Irons is not Alan Rickman, and he doesn't get to be as tricksy and weasely, but I like the facade he puts on. Is it strange that he delivers a better performance over the phone than in person?

---

A second John McTiernan film, because, well, podcast coverage of the direct had me intrigued.  I had intended to do a "Series Minded" on all the Jack Ryan movies, but I don't think I have easy access to the Chris Pine or Ben Affleck ones. And I'm not watching the TV show.

I honestly can't recall if I've ever seen The Hunt For Red October before. I think I have, but I may be mistaking my recollections for Crimson Tide. All submarine movies look the same to me.

Based off the Tom Clancy novel, this is a very 1990 movie but set as a period piece in 1984, really only because Russia got decommunismed (for a time anyway) in the time between the book and the movie.  The film posits that an experimental Russian sub, with the ability to move unseen by radar/sonar in the water, and armed to the gills and able to decimate the Atlantic coastline with nuclear warheads has been stolen by a celebrated Russian naval captain, played by Sean Connery.

Jack Ryan, played here by Alec Baldwin, is not the action hero he will be known as, but instead an competent analyst for the CIA. He suspects that Connery's captain is trying to defect. Elsewhere there's another American sub led by Scott Glen, where their sonar operator Courtney B. Vance is obsessed with an errant signal they picked up then lost. Meanwhile, on the Red October, Connery has a small subset of the crew loyal to him and his plan to defect, but the rest of the crew aren't entirely aware.

The genius of the film is in planting the seed that Connery's captain, having suffered a devastating personal loss, may be suicidal and intent on taking the world down with him.

For a film that largely takes place around consoles or tables, it's absolutely gripping. Set as a period piece, it still holds up as a period piece, and McTiernan's direction, with some ace editing, has the feel of an action movie even though there's very little actual action. It's pacing, and timing, a similar magic trick pulled off by Oppenheimer. 

There's a genius trick on McTiernan and co.'s part, where it starts off with the Russian crew speaking Russian, but after a little time with them, McT does a pull in-pull out of the camera in between a beat of Connery talking and it switches from subtitles and phonetic Russian to English. Even Connery's accent can be explained away as being different from the crew as he's said to be Lithuanian. That facade only comes apart in the final moments of the film when Connery has to speak with the Americans and still just speaks like Connery, but at that point in the film, who really cares. 

Ga-Ga-Gamera #1: Gammera [sic] the Invincible

[Oh crap, another stupid boy project from Kent continuing the Kaiju thread. This time, all* the Gameras, the giant space turtle who's friend to all children.]

[*maybe]

Director: Noriaki Yuasa, Sandy Howard
Year: 1966
Length: 85 minutes (note that the version on Tubi says 68 minutes but it literally just cuts off at the 48 minute mark, and the Rifftrax version is 72 minutes)

The Gist:
A Japanese scientist, his assistant, and a news stud (erm photo journalist?) are researching the indigenous life of the Arctic while a joint American/Canadian venture to map the Northwest Passage. Overhead they are disrupted by fighter planes rocketing past... Russian fighter planes. After a couple of low-level military types sexually harass the only female member of the staff (a Sargeant no less), base General Arnold orders a couple of American planes to fly out in response. A conflict ensues and a Russian plane is shot down, exploding a low megaton atomic bomb. Dr. Hidaka warns his new "Eskimo" friends to steer clear of the area given the radiation it would kick off. But something even more dangerous emerges as the ice cracks and spreads, a giant turtle, a legend of death and destruction the "Eskimo" chief calls Gammera. The turtle attacks the coalition ship and destroys it, killing all men on board. Only Dr. Hidaka, Kyoko and Aoyagi survive since they were with the tribe at the time.

The Russians claim electronic interference caused their planes to veer off course. The ship's destruction comes with reports of a giant turtle causing the destruction, and news spreads out in the world causing debate and controversy.  A network talk show finds a zoologist, Dr. Contraire (played by future Skeletor voice actor Alan Oppenheimer) butting heads with the network science expert Dr Manning over the plausibility of Gammera all while prolifically smoking.  And now sightings of UFOs are popping up everywhere, further dividing people.  The military is tracking these reports of flying saucers and estimate it will reach Tokyo next.  General Arnold is reassigned to "Operation Gammera", first validating and then tracking this beast.

Toshio is a lonely boy obsessed with turtles. His teach expresses his concern over this obsession, and his sister and father tell the boy he needs to let go of his pet turtle and have human friends. This quirky boy obsessed with turtles also lives in a lighthouse. This is not a Wes Anderson project.  Just as Toshio frees his turtle, near the ocean, Gamera appears. Surprisingly, the kid doesn't believe somehow his pet turtle has turned into a gigantic one. He's at first frightened by the beast but he loves turtles so much he wants to get a closer look. He runs to the top of the lighthouse to get a look but Gammera swats the blinding light, though it saves Toshio from falling to his death.  He's now obsessed with Gammera and believes the creature is his best friends.

Dr. Hidaka is now famous worldwide and immediately ambushed by more journalists upon his return to Tokyo but he's called to action by the Japan military as Gammera is spied near a geothermal power station. Dr. Hidaka advises the military to attempt to electrocute the creature but it fails. The facility catches fire in the ensuing barrage, but Gammera consumes the fire like slurping a strand of spaghetti.  The military calls their American allies for nuclear weapons, and debate ensues. But then...lunch.

Dr. Hidaka and company consult with Col. Sanders impersonator Professor Murase who advise that the atomic weapons will only fuel the creature, not destroy it. They determine that freezing Gammera is the only option. Experimental freezing bombs appear to have an effect, and they explode the ground under him, sending Gammera onto his back, effectively immobilizing him, but Gammera pulls himself into his shell and rockets away like a flying saucer stunning everyone.

A UN Council meeting is assembled and though everyone is in agreement of needing a plan to destroy Gammera before he destroys civilization, the Russians and Americans conflict over who will lead military operations. 

Toshio, his sister and father come to Tokyo and meet with Dr. Hidaka. Toshio says Gammera doesn't mean to be destructive, he "just goes overboard because he's so big and clumsy". He thinks that Gammera could be trained to be a good boy but Dr. Hidaka explains to the boy (off screen) just how dangerous the creature is.

Plan Z is announced to the world by Dr. Hidaka. They plan to draw Gammera, using fire - the nom-nommiest of giant turtle food - to an isolated island. There they have laid a trap, an iron coffin they contain Gammera in and rocket him off to Mars. Toshio tries to interfere in these plans, to save Gammera, but he's is merely a 9-year-old boy and he really can't do shit. The plan succeeds and Toshio resolves to become a scientist so he can study Gammera on Mars.

Gammera, Friend or Foe:
Foe, I suppose, but the seeds of being friend to children everywhere are sown.

The Samesies:
Compared to Godzilla, here we have a creature awakened by nuclear weapons, who is reported to come from a long-ago age where the earth environments were dramatically different, and who may appear to be a giant version of a creature they know, but is physiologically very different.

Gammera, like Godzilla, winds up in Tokyo and begins wrecking the joint.

Just like with the original Gojira, Gamera, the Giant Monster was brought to the US by heavily editing the film and inserting Americans into it. 

We get the requisite assembling the army and the futile attacking of the giant Monster, but these scenes mercifully don't last anywhere near as long.

The Differences:

Gamera/Gammera was, from the first film, very clearly meant to appeal as much to kids as adults. Knowing that Gamera pivots from threat to saviour between the first and second film doesn't seem as drastic a reversal as when Godzilla does it. Here Gamera seems more like a lost creature, than one of wanton destruction, and Toshio is clearly an audience surrogate.

The story, even with all the American footage cut in, is pretty straightforward. Far more straightforward that most Godzilla films,

The American footage here feels more uniform. It's mostly men-in-rooms-debating but they all feel of a piece. In a way it's the Japanese story footage, the stuff with Toshio mostly, that feels out of place as a result. If there had been more men in suits arguing over what to do this could have been a proto-Shin Godzilla.

Like Godzilla, Gamera consumes hazardous material, but instead of radiation, it's fire...and instead of atomic breath, Gamera does spit fireballs.

The miniature work here is not even close to being on the same level as even the earliest Godzilla films, but it seems less the point here. Where Toho Godzilla films seem built as a showcase of the kaiju suits and resulting destruction, I don't think anyone at Daiei had any pretension that they were keeping pace with their rivals so much as cutting off a slice of the pie for themself.

Anyone worth caring about?
The American cut pares out a lot of the characterization of Dr. Hidaka, Kyoko, Aoyagi and Toshio, so we don't get much from them. It certainly gives almost no characterization of its figures like General Arnold, but there's a consistent purpose to everyone's scenes here, and the only thing that feels so wildly out of place is that J.T. Standish news segment.  

The Message:
Where Godzilla was originally a representation of the fears and anxiety of nuclear proliferation, there's not much of a message to Gammera. 

Rating (out of 5 Ms): MM

Given that I hated, hated, hated the American versions of Godzilla and King Kong vs Godzilla, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the cut-in scenes of men-in-rooms-arguing. The TV news show with Contrare and Manning was my favourite scene in the movie. I love what both Alan Oppenheimer and Mort Marshall are doing in that scene. It's completely extraneous (I think it's cut completely from the Rifftraxx version) but it's an absolute delight.

I have a super cheap 2-disc set of the first 6 Gamera films (with their American titles) and the transfer of Gammera the Invincible is so, so washed out as to render so many details invisible. It's not a great looking movie. The version on Tubi (the first 48 minutes that are there) look only marginally better.

Sleepytime Factor: Oh, I started falling asleep immediately. I nodded in and out of consciousness nearly the entire time I was watching the film, mostly because I was up late, and then woken up early and in need of sleep. I woke up with maybe 20 minutes left and finished it off thinking I had seen it all. Then I watched some of the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version of Gamer only to fall asleep through that entire film. I rewatched Gammera later in the day and stayed pretty awake through until the latter act where I had woken up earlier. Then I started drifting off again. 

 

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Poor Things

2023, Yorgos Lanthimos (The Lobster) -- Disney

We Agree?

I would use that nomenclature in the title, especially after the MegaPost (kaiju post?) commenting on how we don't actually use it all that often (y'know, weird considering the name of the blog) but while I agree with everything you (you = Kent) said about the movie, wow, I did not like it. And I know you (uKent) did.

Previously, years ago, we turned The Lobster off. It was far too opaque to me. I didn't have the patience. Going back and re-reading your (urKent) posts about Lanthimos, I realize I will never like his works. I can respect them (barely) but I won't ever like them. They are like an exotic dish that looks delicious in the IG post but the combination of scents and flavours just turns me off.

I almost turned this off, numerous times, but I am glad I persevered through, so I could have a complete thought about it. It still took many sittings (both morning and WFH) to move my way through to completion.

The movie is a marvel. It looks utterly spectacular, and I can only imagine what it must have looked like on the big screen. The surreal world reminded me of those Jean-Pierre Jeunet's films, but nothing but the visuals captivated me; maybe the performances somewhat. It kind of makes me wonder if I should go back and rewatch Jeunet to see if the appeal still exists. Part of me believes I should leave them under the rose coloured view of memory.

The premise is  appealing; I am always up for a rework of the Frankenstein myth. Myth? Is he mythology yet? Anywayz, Godwin Baxter (Willem Dafoe, Spider-Man 2) is a Mad Scientist who makes weird franken-beasts, that cutely wander around his estate, their stitches still visible. He finds a pregnant woman, victim of suicide, in the Thames. What he does is most horrific from a human standpoint, but from the mad science viewpoint, rather fascinating -- takes the brain from the stillborn child and places it inside the head of the dead woman. Thus, his daughter, Bella Baxter (Emma Stone, The Amazing Spider-Man 2) is "born".

When Bella comes "of age" she discovers her own body (*cough*) and becomes quite the sexual beast. This was the focus of much discussion of the movie, and to be fair, is much of the focus of the movie. Its unseemly. Bella is a child in mind and yet the men of the movie treat her per her adult appearance, even those that know. But surprisingly, despite the constant nudity, none of it is done for titillation. Lanthimos presents it as unseemly (be honest, he wants it to be a bit titillating) as it is -- the men are seen as leering beasts. Even later, when Bella has progressed (after weeks? months?) to ... teen years (?!) and is really exploring the whole sex thing, she turns the tables on the men (especially her suitor, Duncan Wedderburn; Mark Ruffalo, Begin Again) who would be using her.

The movie is about sex, but it is also about growth. Bella is never quite normal from this pseudo-fantasy-Victorian world's aspect, but she does learn her own mind, her own morals, a greater vocabulary and eventually.... her own origin. Its all rather fascinating to see unfold.

And yet, I can't say I enjoyed myself. I liken it to listening to Laurie Anderson music -- fascinating, complex and interesting, but I don't think I can describe as enjoyable. That is, until the closing credits, that I kept on having to remind the Disney app that I wanted to continue watching. Whoah, all those credits laid over close ups of the set dressing, the design, the decay and colour from the movie! I love those credits! So beautiful, so terrible, so evocative! 

The 2000th Post Spectacular

Yes, this literally is our 2000th published post. Go back and count. We dare you.

Toast, I feel like we should just leave it at that. It would be funny.

Sure. 

<deletes rest of post>

!!!

[Kent is in italics. Toast is in bold. That's the only way to tell us apart in life]

Bold is not a word I would use to describe myself, but 'lower case' won't come across as clearly...

If we look back on 2000 posts across 13 years and one month we can see we spilled a lot of words, sweat and tears over our mutual desire to ruminate on the moving pictures we've engaged with. There's been a lot of movies, a lot of TV, some video games, maybe even a play or two and some stand-up comedy. Have I missed any media that we've dipped our toes into writing about?

For me, a few audio drama podcasts and, weirdly enough, a few books? I feel I could write a few more posts on book I read, given I read at the rate the universe is expanding, it would only be on the rarest of occasions. what else could we shoehorn into this place? Cookbooks? Could I write about my ever expanding collection of cookbooks, where the "That Guy" lamentations are replaced with the repeating commentary that I buy cookbooks, but don't use cookbooks as often as I should?

I want to know what a cookbook review would look like?

Presentation, balance of yummy vs not, clarity of recipe writing, volume of content vs thickness of book, etc.

Toasty, you and I met through blogging circles in the early 2000s and we became fast friends over a shared love of movies, music, and general pop culture ephemera. Even though blogging basically dissolved win the wake of the Facebook juggernaut, I guess we weren't ready to give up on the forum so quickly. We also were not ready to do this through any other type of medium. What are your recollections of starting the blog? Was it really Battle: L.A. that spawned us starting this, or was it a film we saw immediately prior. 

Fictional, actually. False Memory Syndrome! A recollection from an alternate reality!

I recall the blog beginning in the back of a streetcar during the debate about Source Code. 

That's what I thought! But I then second-guessed it because  our Battle: L.A. reviews published before Source Code. Probably because it took us so long to do the back-and-forth writing of it? Some things never change....

As you say below, you were still trying to convince me that we needed to do a podcast, but I hate (haaaaate) the sound of my recorded voice (almost as much as I hate seeing my image on screen) but words. I can do words. Somewhat. Kinda sorta. And it was that debate that told me we could have something to say, even as "blogging" was waning. But even then, I worried I could not properly do "movie reviews" as going beyond the elements we would blather on about, actually discussing the structural elements, the good's and the bad's, would not be my strong suit. 

Doing this in another format is something I think about often. If you recall Toasty, our dear departed friend Jeremy really wanted to produce a podcast with you and I talking movies... but the idea never found solid footing given various life fluctuations.  The idea still sits in the back of my brain as a lost opportunity, but now I don't feel like it would be what it could have been without hearing Jeremy's laugh and "oh snaps" in the background. (Way to bring the celebratory mood down Kent).  Just as a provocation, would you ever consider doing a YouTube  (I note that Blogger's parent company, Google, autocorrects youtube and google with upper cases) channel or podcast talking about movies and junk? I know the answer, but I just want to immortalize the response.

Bittersweet memories. I still like to think that one of the five clicks I ever see on my posts is him.

*sniff* */wipes tear*

Look at above comment about my face on the screen. I can do silent background work, where I am pretending to be someone else. But me, being me? Nothankyougoodsir!

But maybe. I don't so much as evolve as become someone I don't recognize. Who knows, maybe That New Guy desires to mug it to the camera.

I have it...just do the podcast in character. Different character every episode.

Throughout this blog, you seem to have been more motivated to write individual entries than I have, which gives the appearance (and probably is the reality) of you being pretty prolific in your film watching and writing. What motivates you to keep writing these after 13 years (we'll talk about The Dark Times/The Gap Year towards the end)? 

The expected answer? Because I still feel a need to tell you, tell someone about what I am watching, what I am enjoying, what I am not enjoying and the vast amount in between. I will always feel compelled to put words to media, whether it be typed or written in one of the ten thousand (mostly) blank notebooks I keep on a shelf.

Obviously we share this compulsion.

I still enjoy the concept of watching movies, the idea of being wrapped up in a story, in a visual, in a mood, in a ... what is the word all the kids are using these days... a vibe. But I rarely get it these days. Though you & I are getting out to the cinema more in the last six months than we have in years (post-pandemic, new glasses help) I still don't feel as deeply immersed as I used to, and the whole sofa watching, with mobile phones always screaming for attention, and cats, and housework, changes that dynamic. BUT I still enjoy, and I still try to watch a lot, and I still have such a vast backlog.

BUT the real answer is that I hate endings. I hate stopping doing things. I have abandoned sooo much in my life, let dozens of interests and loves and desires just drop to the wayside, I just tenaciously hang onto this one, as part of my identity. I might not be That Guy anymore, but I still want to be the guy who writes about movies on a blog.

I feel like I keep trying to push you in different directions ... podcasts, letterboxd, substack... and your resistance, well, it means we're still here, and I'm grateful for it.

I recall that I quickly slapped the blog together in a format and layout that's remained relatively unchanged since 2011. The only difference is the name. Longtime readers (hah) might recall that this started life as "Graig and David Sometimes Disagree", but I think it was during our double feature watching of Prospect and Fast Colour [Toast | Kent] that you mentioned that we refer to each other as "Kent" and "Toasty" when writing so I decided to shift the name, as well as give you the lead spot for a while.  The whole "sometimes disagree" thing is just my sense of humour...and you never complained.

I never called myself Toast, but you did, and I love the playful affection, especially when you say "Toasty!" But I literally did give myself a nickname, added the 'toast' moniker to my online personality way back in the pre-blog days with a website called Boy de Toast, which became my first ever weblog. TBIT (thisboyistoast) is what most people call me online, which makes "toast" or "toasty" more special.

As for "sometimes disagree", of course we do. And considering that's how we evolved this thing, the disagreements, I still love it. But we have never painfully felt the disagreement. We have never disrespected the other's opinion. I mean, just go back and read the Suckerpunch posts below.

On that note, I did kind of wince at the vitriol in your comment on Babylon -- "utterly repulsed" woo wee. But keep em coming!

So I have to ask, over the past thirteen years, do you feel we've disagreed on much?  Does anything stand out to you as particularly fraught or one that you can believe I didn't like (or did like)? I know Suckerpunch was our first big shared writeup, and was supposed to be the template for what we were intending the blog to be. I also recall us being at odds about our double feature viewing of  The Raid: Redemption and Lockout. [Toast | Kent]

I need to think about this one. Yes, there have been many. But more likely, more a, "I kind of wish you did like that stuff," like I wish you liked swords & sorcery / fantasy as much as I did.

Hahaha. Fantasy/Swords'n'Sorcery have never been my bag. I keep trying. Every now and again something clicks, buuUUuut....

I am not wading through 1999 posts to find something that spoke volumes on our level of disagreement, but considering nothing stands out, nothing stung, I would say we do chalk it up to "to each his own". I am the horror guy, you are not. You are the comedy guy, I am not.

We've had so many intentions for this blog over the years. Like my first "review" was actually just a rebuttal to Roger Ebert's review of Battle: Los Angeles, and my second post was just a "thinkpiece" about Tarantino based on a conversation I had with a video store owner, shortly before Netflix terminated its existence. We've had so many different subheadings or "features"... let's run them down:

We Agree/We Disagree

This one we still use from time to time when we remember. It's one of my favorites to use because it makes the title make sense.

I see this one used when we are both seeing a movie, either together or apart, within the same close time period. Then we can bounce off each other. I always loved the rebuttal, back-n-forth posts, like this one, but they are hard to time considering my pendulum swing of attention span.

I try to remember to look for your reviews if I'm doing something older but sometimes forget. Toast and Kent sometimes forget....

DOWNLOAD/netflix'd/dvd'd

Early, early on we weren't sure how to highlight how we were watching things. By month three, it looks like you settled in on the "Year, Director -- format" structure for the "pertinent information" we put at the top of each review.  It's stuck ever since.

Yah, given the original intent was SEE ALL THE MOVIES (!!!) in the cinema, but that got frittered away by Life, there had to be a way to reference the different experiences. And considering you don't download, I needed to show how I could see something that may not yet be on "legal" media.

In the years hence, as forms of media have been altered by the Purple Suits, changing the timelines and the access (i.e. buying / watching physical media is going away) it does provide a way to record the HOW. 

Also, I like how you caught onto me alternating between sharing a well-known movie they did and something rare/gawdawful/better forgotten, in both the Directors and the actors.

It's one of my favourite running gags of yours. I tried it once or twice but I often even forget to credit the actor nevermind a past credit.

City Theatre 

Remember when we planned to make a visit and do a write-up on every theatre in Toronto? Or maybe that was just a Kent thing...?  I wish I/we had followed through with that.  I/We got as far as the Humber (no longer here) and I think I started a post on The Fox that never got published.

That would be a fun one to pickup again. Rather than doing our usual locations in downtown Toronto, find something different, out of the way, maybe one of the few remaining rep theatres in town for a unique viewing? 

3 Short Paragraphs

What I imagine is your favourite "feature/subheading" and no doubt the most-used one on the blog. I know I tried it for about a year (even hacking it into "3 short prgrphs") but it didn't stick with me. What about it works for you, and can you speak to the fact that, so often you use the heading but deliver 4 or even 5 fairly long-ish paragraphs instead?

I am rather surprised I picked up the format in the first few months. I guess I realized rather quickly I was not always going to be able to commit to the Long Format Post. I just don't have as much to say (about movies) as you do. I originally intended there would be two primary posts: the 3 Short Paragraphs (originally, I did intend on actually being short) and the Primary Post; the latter being saved for big movies that I had a lot of thoughts about. But of late, since I adopted the "Or Not", it has become my defacto.

31 Days of Horror

Another perennial Toasty favourite in which you and your partner, Marmy, watch a horror film every day in October. Or attempt to. At the start of each year's "31 Days" you tend to do a recap of what it's all about (see last year's, for example). Was this something you and Marmy were doing before the blog, or did it become tradition because of the blog?

I always surprised we started that at the beginning of the blog. It was a Marmy idea, which may have been spurred by my desire to watch more movies so I could write more. At the beginning we debated "what is it to be a horror movie" and ruled some things out firmly, but eventually eased into what we consider Halloween, not just Horror.

You also attempted a 31 Days of Xmas in 2011 but didn't quite make it and made a one post effort at X Days of XMas in 2013 and 2014. We've started our own joint X-mas tradition since then (which I love) but care to reflect on the aborted X-Mas version of 31 Days?

Xmas is just a hard season to dedicate to watching so many movies. And since we added in the Hallmarkie feature, which allows us to alternate, and curtails the season to end at Xmas, I think we are doing it justice.

I still wouldn't mind trying it again. There are many Xmas related movies, movies that beg the debate of "what makes it an Xmas movie?" such as Die Hard or horror movies that take place at Xmas.

DOUBLE FEATURE | Tenuous Ties | Double Dose

This is one of my many, many abandoned subheadings. "DOUBLE FEATURE" was literally made for times where I watched two films in the same day (which is not all that odd an occurrence anymore) while "Double Dose" was for reviewing any two movies loosely tied together (same director, actor, general plot, whatever). I keep forgetting about "Double Dose" as a concept, and should try harder.  You, on occasion, take a stab at these little experiments I'm selling, Toasty, but not this time. "Tenuous Ties" lasted two posts in mid-2016 and was abandoned.

I have, on occasion, done a double post which had the movies loosely tied in some fashion. But not as an intentional concept, just as a matter of timing. 

What I Am Watching

Another Toasty favourite. This is your TV catch-up pile, which you've been doing since 2012, though a little more sporadic these days. Do you recall the gestation of "What I Am Watching".

I watch too much TV; I admit it. Instead of giving time to watching a movie on The List, I will often just find a show to watch or re-watch. And not a lot of it is good TV. So, if I write about it, and tell people about it, then maybe it validates why I am watching it?

That said, I took a specific break from writing about TV for the past 12 months or so. Not for any particular reason, but partially because I wanted to think about what I was watching. That said, I think that particular hiatus will come to an end soon. I mean, I just have to blather on about the latest video game adaptation, so I can pair it with the actual game post (pt 1, pt 2 and pt 3).

There is soooo much TV available to me. There are the streaming channels I have (Amazon, Disney and Netflix) with their own shows, their imported shows and their legacy shows. There are shows from services I don't have, but I can download on a whim. There are the shows that everyone is buzzing about, and there are the shows that are in my particular wheelhouse of genre(s), and then there are just those shows I know are not very good, such as light drama cop procedurals that just fill a back tooth in the comfort food zone.

In December 2012, you started Catching Up which may have been your movie version of "What I Am Watching". It was short-lived (basically Dec 2012 & Jan 2013). I did a couple because I liked it as a vehicle to just crank out as many quick-thought write-ups in one post as possible. For me it was me abandoning "3 Short Paragraphs" and the start of my big group-of-stuff posts which would evolve into I Saw This!!, then 10 for 10 and now KWIF.  Just so you know you're to blame for those.... You did some "I Saw This"es and even maybe a "10 for 10" or two. Do you recall testing these waters?

Yah, Catching Up was just abandoned for your I Saw This(!!) which is was a way to jam everything I had not written into their own posts, into a single, wipe the slate clean post. There is so much unneeded desire to do this blog justice stuck in my head, that I always felt guilty when I didn't write about something.

The 10 for 10 is just something I couldn't wrap my head around. I tried, I really did, but to no great success.

Both "I Saw This!!" and "What I Am Watching" have lived on in one form or another and at one point I started getting confused about the different purposes of these two headers.  "I Saw This!!" was for things that sat in our "to review" pile for too long, sometimes a year, while "What I Am Watching" was specifically for TV, right?

Yes; and I think it was my fav thing, to mash-up I Saw This (!!) and What I Am Watching with the key focus on, "if I don't write about it now, I will forget I even watched these things!"

Double-Oh

Also in December 2012, I decided I was going to run through every Bond film, of which there were 25 of them at the time, I think (not counting the original Casino Royal or Never Say Never Again). In the first post, I thought it was only going to take me a few weeks, but I got through 14 films by April 2013, then took a good long break until picking it back up in January 2014 for four films before taking another hiatus.  I recall these being absolutely arduous to produce. I had created a template for myself and in order to adhere to it, I needed to make notes as I watched the film. I'm notoriously bad at being able to do something and listen at the same time, so it was a nightmare. Hours upon hours of effort each of those posts were.  And you know what? I'm probably never going to read them again, at least not in total. I got to 22 (Quantum of Solace) by June of 2014 with only Skyfall left in the hopper...which I wouldn't do in the "Double-Oh" format until years later.

These formats of writing out the plot are such a burden, it's absolutely crazy I decided to do something similar again with watching all the Godzilla films with Go-Go-Godzilla, the attempt to do a weekly Mandalorian thing, and even the A Toast to HallmarKent (but with that at least misery has company).

I love your "projects". They show forethought and dedication. I have considered doing a bunch, but... oh look, new shiny (and less dedicated) thing !!

One Episode

Do you remember "One Episode"? I think we should have done that more. You did quite a few in this feature in 2014 and 2015. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you still do a "One Episode" from time to time.

I could do more, in fact, it will probably be part of the resurrected writing about TV, when I look back at the last 12 months or so and hand-pick what I want to write about.

Notes for the End of the World

This one was all you, three posts circa June 2014 covering Po-Ap films. I don't think it ever came back. Any regrets?

What? I don't recall that! 

<clicks>

Oh yeahhhh, I was just on a kick for some PoAp stuff so I decided to give them a tag-line but it was never an intention to start a Kent-style "project". I could easily resurrect that into a proper tag-line, but do we really need ANOTHER tag-line on this blog?

['other voice' usually speaks in italics, but since that's your schtick in this particular post, let's let him talk properly with a, "yes, yes we DO need another tag-line! we can never have enough tag-lines!"]

I spied another in April 2015...that I did this time. That was a surprise.

Rewatch

I think you used this a few more times than I did, but we never really did figure out a really good vehicle for commenting on films we've seen before (or love). Over the past few years, I don't even bother with writing about rewatches unless I have something new to say about them. 

ReWatch is something I could do sooooo much more of, but it always feels like I am cheating on the blog if I actually acknowledge it (a rewatched movie) and write about it. ReWatches for me are stress-reducing, distraction-minded filler. They are not even often movies I particularly love. For example, last night, I rewatched GeoStorm which never even got a proper original post. Gah, now that I have said that, as an example, I am thinking I need to write about it, so it gets a proper post, even if the original watching got ate all up in the Great Hiatus of 2018.

Series Minded

This is one I started in 2015 and wish I did a few times a year. I would love to just watch all the films in a particular franchise and then just write one long entry about them. I had planned to do the original Planet of the Apes and Lone Wolf and Cub last year but attentions had been divided when I was farting around writing about toys on my Substack. Remember when Substacks were a thing? Seems so long ago now. 

Projects! I could write so much about series from The Shelf. But again, like...

10 for 10

Toasty, are you on the record as hating this format? I mean, I'm not sure I'm exceptionally enamoured with it either, but I was the one who kept using it starting in 2016 thru to 2022, though I tried to kill it a few times. The idea of only having 10 minutes to write anything meaningful about a film is absolutely daft, and I fudged those numbers so, so much in those posts...often pausing my timer. They were marathon writing sessions... I mean 10 films at 10 minutes a piece is an hour and forty minutes and I guarantee you at was at least two and a half hours working on each of these only to have utter mediocrity at the end of it.  It was a stupid format and I'm glad its dead, but it served its purpose as a frameworks for just getting films off my "to write" docket.

Not hating, just not subscribing. Its far too confining for my weasel loosed from a cage brain. Much of my writing is spread out (this is the eighth time I have come back to writing this post) so the, "Timer started, WRITE!" aspect doesn't work for my brain. 

Moving Comics | 20/20 

By the end of 2016 I had really tapered off in my reviewing and was having a hard time writing anything. A look at the last three months of 2016 and most of 2017, you were pretty much holding the fort down, when I'd just chime in here or there when the mood struck, vomiting massively long "10 for 10" posts or making little projects out of it like my three-part look at the glut of comic property media "Moving Comics" in March + April 2016, my "20/20" backlog clearance where I gave myself 20 days to do 20 reviews with 20 minutes each per review, and then just a bunch of random things like "A Netflix Thursday" or two-fers that should have been "Double Doses" or whatever. If there's a common theme to this blog, it seems to be watching things, not reviewing them in a timely manner, and then trying to figure out some way to still write about them even though time has passed.  What for you has been most effective, or are you still figuring that out?

The most effective method is the most recent one. Instead of adding the movies to a "to be reviewed" draft post, I immediately create an empty post. That way, every day I sit down on the Throne of Writing, I can filter to Drafts and see what's due. The other tactic has been to NOT write, which is always something I have returned to. Not writing about TV right now, and not writing about rewatches is helping.

It's a good strategy, and I should probably adopt it. Get it started, and I'm more likely to finish it... 

The Dark Year

If we look along the side at the Archive links, it handily tells you how many entries were posted each year. We're in the 130-ish posts range for the first 7 years and then 2018 drops to 32.  This is The Dark Year, or the Gap Year. Do you have a different name for it? 

The Hiatus. There have been many hiatuses but this was the active one, when my life outside the blog just didn't allow for any brain space for much else. It was a year of watching utter shite, and not caring if I didn't watch anything or even paid attention when I did. But there are regrets, and another tag could easily be "I didn't write about that?!?!?"

You had gone on a self-imposed posting-everywhere hiatus at the end of 2017, so I had decided to start posting things in Letterboxd in 2018.  But Lbxd it didn't have the same charm as ye olde blogge, and most of all it didn't have Toasty. The blog is very self-serving in that I need to write down these thoughts about movies and TV and such because I won't remember them a year later. I put them here to have a record of them for when I want to recollect how I thought or felt about a film or TV show. But a very, very close second is the comradery, the audience of two, myself and Toasty.  If nobody else ever commented on a post (and it's rare that anyone else does) it's still always a joy getting a Toasty response, every time.

It was, I think, doing "31 Days of Halloween" again that reignited the spark. You still pretty much took November + December 2018 off, but you were back at it regular time in 2019, and brought me right back with you.

I need to comment more. I mean, its the point of this place, for us. Maybe I should let The Other Voice do the commenting, as he always has a lot to say, but then again, have you seen comments sections of other blogs?

Horror, Not Horror

This was an experiment for myself as a tourist in the horror genre. I think a lot of films labelled "horror" aren't really all that scary and are more thought exercises in genre than something that's actually meant to scare anyone. I like those kind of "scary" movies.  I did a lot of these in 2020 and throughout the pandemic, but I've kind of forgotten to keep doing them, and when I watch a horror flick I've been forgetting to think about this aspect of it. It's amazing I can walk and breathe at the same time, it really is.

It kind of made me beam that you at least considered the idea of watching some (not) horror movies.

So many "horror" movies are really horror/something genre movies, be it sci-fi/fantasy/paranormal/western or whatever. It's hard to just write it off as a singular genre. 

Men With Guns | Women With Guns

Now the "Men With Guns" header you've only used a couple of times, very sporadically, and back in the pre-Dark Times era of the blog. But the "Women With Guns" you've used a bit more.  Do you ever feel like your "3 Short Paragraphs" gets in the way of using features like "Women With Guns"? I can't specifically point to an example but just wondering if you ever deliberate between going the 3-para route or if you think about the various dumb features we seem to keep coming up with around here?

Sometimes I want to write about something in the context of me watching them, and other times I just want to write it down. For me, "Women with Guns" is a distinct micro-genre I enjoy, and while the John-Wickian "Men with Guns" should dominate, I realized really quickly it takes a certain kind of movie for my brain to fit it into that mould. Not many come up.

That said,  I really need to go back and finish the "Women with Guns" collection, with a handful of rewatches. And I don't think there has been any new entries into the collection of late.

Toast and Kent's X-Mas Advent Calendar

Not sure about you, but this is my absolute favourite feature. I love each year picking out a list of movies to watch and then anticipating each other day what you're going to write about.

THIS. This is why we created the blog, I think, these days, of late. If ever there was a project that sang to my heart it was the dumb dumb heartfelt nature of how we watch these movies. The mix of genuine enjoyment, vitriolic dismissal and heavy-dosed ironic watching is just perfect. You made a template for our watching, as you are wont to do, which I do my best to keep to, and while our enthusiasm has waned for the project over the years (the weight of the Hallmark banality can break shoulders) I still love we have done / are doing it.

Oh, my enthusiasm for the Advent Calendar has not waned at all. My enthusiasm for Hallmark, though, has. I talk through my feelings about the state of Hallmarkies each year in the Advent Calendar, but I'm really loving exploring older (and newer) Christmas movies, because, I was never a Christmas movie guy growing up, and I was a bit of a Grinch.  (Not really true, I still enjoy hunting for indie XMas songs.)

Of note, I always considered "Angel of Christmas" as the inspiration for this project... but did you ever actually write about it?

I'm surprised to find that, no I never did write up Angel of Christmas, but then all you need to know about that movie is... this...

T&K Go Loopty Loo

What do we both love?!? Time loops! It's something we discovered as much as a result of writing the blog together as hanging out. It was your brilliant (not facetious, it is brilliant) idea to do a shared post back-and-forth style project to go through ALL THE TIME LOOPS as a pandemic project. I was definitely on board.  We batted back and forth a few different stabs at the template before we settled in, and I think it is so great.

We went full guns a-blazin' for a couple months in 2021 (I think we were absolutely craving the creative outlet at first) and then it waned into a bit of a slow, irregular trickle. I get it, they take a lot of time and energy, but I would love to get back to it.

I think it was the 90s TV show that derailed me. Or was it the Mickey Mouse post? I cannot remember. But I definitely want to get back to it, especially since I binged two seasons of "The Lazarus Project" and didn't write about it. The show pretty much spins off all the questions we ask in our format.

But if we were to kick it off again, I suggest we do it with a proper rewatch of "Groundhog Day" as it is the source of the genre, in modern parlance, or maybe even a rewatch of "Source Code" in nostalgic self-referential style considering its place in this blog?

WFH

Speaking of the pandemmy... I counted about five entries with a WFH header in the summer of 2021. Do you remember the purpose of this header?

I don't WFH well. During the heavy days of The Pause, I was most often in the office supporting a new CEO and the other C-levels who were coming in. But then said C-levels buckled to Lockdown pressure and I was told to go home as well. At some point, I just decided to sit down and watch movies during my usual 12pm lunch time. It would take more than a few sittings, once you factor in making lunch, and eating it, so the writing style would be impacted by the start-stop-start manner.

Lockdowns ended, I am back to most often going in, but still, on occasion, I have taken to watching movies in that manner. Its probably not the best method to watch em, as the disconnect does cause a loss of thread, but... its still going on, less when WFH and more often as I wake up, sipping coffee, sick of the morning "news" shows.

New Year's Countdown...

I try to take a bit of time off at the end of each year, and my little pandemic pet project was to watch ten movies in five or six days leading into New Year's Day.  After the back and forth of the Advent Calendar, I still wanted the dopamine hits of daily.  It was my version of your 31 Days of Halloween. I tried to come up with a theme for what to watch. Horror, one year, and classics the following.  But I switched jobs in 2022 and the new job meant to time off until the New Year, so there went that "feature".  

I think I normally just end up taking a break at this time, and reading you :)

3-2-1/1-1-1/KWIF/KsMRT

At the start of 2023, I tried to coax you into joining me into transitioning the blog to a Substack, another of my stabs at trying to push you into something new. You had a poke around and didn't like the setup there. I was messing around with new formats, like 3-2-1 Great/Good/Bad, which was meant to make my posts really structures, but instead proved really, exceptionally cumbersome, and my posts were taking even longer than before.  Switched to a more simple 1-1-1 Great/Good/Bad, and while less cumbersome but also not always conducive to letting me say what I want. I relegate 1-1-1 to TV reviews now.

The Substack I built for us became my Toy Blogging page, until Substack was revealed to be if not endorsing, then not admonishing the neo-nazi and extreme right wingers using their platform, and using Substack's algorithm to help promote their content, which Substack was capitalizing off of the subscriptions there. So your instincts were good there.  Since I didn't really want to do movie and TV blogging without you, I happily stayed put, but I needed a new format to entice me.  "Kent's Week In Film" and "Kent's Month Reviewing Television" as mentioned before have become my regular outlets to just poop out write-ups everything I've been watching in a given period. Of course, I never stick to a schedule, so I'm really not doing these things weekly/monthly, so I wonder exactly how long they'll last before I try something new.

I think I really should try your tactic of just starting a post for everything and just recording thoughts as they come to me.

These are your formats. I find them rather too opaque for my brain to wrap around. You have structure, and forethought, and care in feeding your posts. I see mine as more being word vomit, which I then push around with my finger tips until something looks good... or complete, or I have just had enough of it.

I did make one attempt at the 1-1-1 but I didn't do it justice.

I have to admit, I always read the "kSMIRT" and "KWIF" as words, not acronyms. Both sound mildly naughty, and make me giggle, and I eventually ended up forgetting what they stood for.

---

Before we close this out, we need to talk about the meme: The Purple Suits, which has become shorthand for the producers, studio heads, bean counters, anyone way behind the scenes who are pulling the strings on creative decisions for non-creative reasons.  Detail the origins of this tribe of peoples, and how would you race/classify them in D&D?

The Purple Suits are lost legion of angels that came down from the nether regions at the beginning of film. Prior to that, they were invisible entities that leaned over the shoulders of poets and convinced them to add in more rhymes.

TPS enjoyed earthy bodies and suits of silk, satin and polyester and eventually forgot their own origins. They started working to bring a divine vision to Mankind, but eventually their own agendas won out, and they ended up not giving a fuck about what people actually want to see, what creators actually want to create, and just focused on the meddling for arcane... reasons.

So, now they are CR 8 creatures, neither divine nor infernal truly, but still magical in nature with an ability to influence, capable of elevating what they meddle with, but more often just completely fucking ruining it. They have a high AC due to the suits, but low damage rolls, as in the end, the are cowards. They are most often found in elevators, sunlit cafe patios in West Hollywood or lurking in the shadows of movies being made, whispering toxic suggestions into the ears of second-unit directors and producers.

Any other memes of the blog that you would like to highlight. I have to admit I'm terrible at memes. As much as I love comedy, I'm awful at callbacks and recall, especially for my own jokes. My brain just isn't wired right for 'membeburying things.  Like, I totally fell off our joke of "The Flash Ranking" ranking of every movie as better or worse than The Flash.

You already pointed out the great "Cast Member, Obscure or Irreverent Credit" citations you do. Any other injokey bits you recall, or think we need to resurrect? Of course, pointing them out will probably only kill them faster.

There are a few quirks of my writing that appear here and there, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them memes. There is [that other voice], the more irreverent version of myself who just wants to say what is on his fucking mind instead of coaching it all in well-thought text, but he is an odd duck, only seen here and there, as I am pretty irreverent in my thinking on the usual. And for a few posts, I was adding in fictional bylines, more stream of consciousness filler text and I did because... oh, I have no fucking clue -- better they die forgotten.

Final words?

Keep writing. Keep adding new things, new projects, new ideas, challenging me, inspiring me, impressing the ever living Hell out of me. I don't evolve. I am a pretty static mind. I don't strive to get better, but you do, and please, keep doing that and I love that about you. But also, should you just feel the need to, don't worry if its just three crappy short paragraphs.