The Monkey (2025)

Director: Osgood Perkins

Cast: Theo James, Tatiana Maslany, Christian Convery, Colin O’Brien

Have I Seen It Before: Never.

Did I like It: I really did. The cynical part of me wants me to think that my tragically reduced diet of new fare this year so far, I just really want to like whatever is coming my way. That might account for review of Captain America: Brave New World (2025) that didn’t just collapse in on itself from unrelenting boredom, but I don’t think that’s the case here.

The film blissfully maintains the balance between a gore fest and a knowing comedy of the here and now. Many were the moments where I was caught between a wince and a laugh. The scene at the Hibachi Restaurant is a particular delight, although from the first scene in the Thrift Store, all to the last appearance of the Cheerleaders, the film is more than content to not let up on the audience. One might blink twice at the growing numb reaction of the characters to the insanity around them, but don’t get too judgmental: You’re probably joining them in that regard.

All this is to say that I now I feel strangely compelled to read the original Stephen King story* from Skeleton Crew, if for no other reason to see if that sensibility comes from the source material or if it is original to Perkins and company. That’s probably the best possible thing can say about any adaptation, that I feel inexorably compelled to seek out the source material.

*Incidentally, the only thing about the film that grates on my nerves isn’t even really about the story at all. Apparently Frank Darabont had the rights or was attached to the project for a number of years, only for it not to come to pass. Now, I ultimately think that a Darabont-led version of this story wouldn’t work (unless he were to tap into the same energy from early in his career that made A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)) as well as this did, but I’m perpetually confused as to why Darabont isn’t allowed to make movies anymore.

Mystery Team (2009)

Director: Dan Eckman

Cast: Donald Glover, DC Pierson, Dominic Dierkes, Aubrey Plaza

Have I Seen it Before: Oh yeah. Although I can’t quite remember if I saw it before or after Glover hit it big on Community*.

Did I Like It: The biggest mystery of Mystery Team is why the team of Derrick Comedy doesn’t exist anymore. I can see them becoming less active in posting videos to Youtube after Glover became not only a network TV star but one of the most interesting rap acts in recent years, but they could have done so much more. This film is pretty good. It’s filled with gags, most of which work. The supporting cast is rounded out by enough future sitcom starts that I spent most of the film quietly marveling, “Oh, he/she is in this.” It’s concept also offers a heartfelt attempt at a meditation on the often excruciating need to trade in the last vestiges of childhood for the promised freedom of adulthood.

But the film doesn’t quite hang together like one might have hoped. I’m willing to chalk that up to experience. The film doesn’t quite know how how to get out of a scene before it wears out its welcome, and thus while most of the laughs land, it always feels like they could have been maximized just a little bit more.

One can’t help but wonder if Glover had instead gotten on Saturday Night Live instead of Community, would he and Derrick Comedy might have become the new Lonely Island on the show, producing shorts and then, when the time came, producing features as well. Samberg and company keep getting better at what they do. Derrick never got a chance to come into their own. I wish they might have, while still giving Glover to do all the other work that he would come to produce.

*Dear Hollywood: Community movie. When? Your Pal, Mac.

Bowfinger (1999)

Director: Frank Oz

Cast: Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy, Heather Graham, Robert Downey Jr.

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. It feels like one of those movies that everybody had to see in the summer of ’99.

Did I Like It: There’s an easy criticism of this film that compares in unfavorably to Ed Wood (1994). It’s easy because it is, fundamentally, true. The story of Ed Wood and Bobby Bowfinger (Martin) are roughly the same. The down on their luck scurrying creature of Los Angeles stops at nothing to make a movie—any movie—and brings the people in his orbit along with him. Ed Wood is the superior film, but between being a black and white movie about a transvestite (complimentary), there was never any hope that it would play in Poughkeepsie. Reaching to make everyone funny, and filming it in the same colors everybody expects to see in any other movies, means that the film is ready for all time zones.

The film is lucky that it is quite funny, owing to able and steady direction from Oz. The film winds up taking skillful shots at both Anne Heche* and Scientology**, thanks to a wry script from Martin.

But the real secret here is Eddie Murphy. Certainly the most popular comedy movie star of the 80s—even Bill Murray often needed backup, and even Chevy felt compelled to make Oh! Heavenly Dog (1980) and National Lampoon’s European Vacation (1985)—Murphy spent most of the 90s quietly becoming less and less funny. Here, he is back in fine form, thanks in no small part to the fact that he is able to let go of his well-earned leading man ego to alternately be the least cool guy in the room and make fun of his own image.

*Don’t believe me? Martin didn’t even try to hide it all that much.

**How is Tom Cruise expected to complain about the cracks, when MindHead is depicted as being almost too into psychiatry. People really should take lessons from him in how to make fun of someone not only to the point that they don’t know that they’re being made fun, but that the mockery actually reinforces their prejudices.

Inside Out 2 (2024)

Director: Kelsey Mann

Cast: Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Kensington Tallman, Liza Lapira

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. I felt like I saw the trailer last summer about 150 times, but have yet to get around to it until now.

Did I Like It: There’s a certain amount of inevitability about the movie. The original Inside Out (2015) was such a uniquely clever idea, and all came to the ominous conclusion that puberty was rapidly coming down the pike for Riley (Tallman, replacing Kaitlyn Dias). The audience starts to write the sequel in their own head. There’s not much here that isn’t covered by those passing thoughts as we were leaving the theater after the first film.

New emotions are an interesting layer, to be sure. I may just have a problem believing that any child of the twenty-first century only starts to experience Anxiety (Hawke), Embarrassment (Paul Walter Hauser), and Ennui (Adèle Exarchopoulos) in the summer before they go to High School, but maybe I’m in the minority there.

The thing I’m most delighted by is the eventual fate of the aforementioned Anxiety. A simpler film would be content to make Anxiety into a villain that must be vanquished for all time. I know plenty of people who treat their own anxiety like that, and it more often than not renders them into something between a sociopath and a mere bore. Here, Anxiety is relegated to another part of the tableau. Anxiety can run away with the whole show and is inherently explosive and unpredictable, but then again so are any number of fuels we might use. Anxiety doesn’t have to bring down the entire operation. It doesn’t have to lead to a never ending chorus of “I’m not good enough.” It can—when properly harnessed—lead one to try to do better.

Captain America: Brave New World (2025)

Director: Julius Onah

Cast: Anthony Mackie, Danny Ramirez, Carl Lumbly, Harrison Ford

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. Somehow I’ve made it halfway into the month of February and this is my first film both released this year and seen in theaters.

Did I Like It: Giving it a moment’s thought, I’ll say this was a nice little action movie that will soon be forgotten and have a relatively benign place on any number of lists on Disney+. There is some action, a couple of dodgy special effects moments, and a tag scene that hardly seems worth it anymore. The film may truly be suffering from the moment it is unleashed and/or a pronounced deficit in the wow factor, as the money shot in this film of the President of the United States (Ford, still feeling like he’s awake for all of this, which is something) transformed into the Red Hulk and standing on top of a slightly demolished White House elicited a bigger laugh than anything I saw in Deadpool & Wolverine (2024).

It is weighed down by some of the same problems that would weigh down any series approaching its 40th—yes, you read that right—film. As a public service announcement, I’ll list here a couple of the touchstones this film hits and some feelings about how lost you, the viewer, might be if you missed them in the glut of material from the franchise:

1. I’m real glad I somehow bothered to watch The Falcon and the Winter Soldier or nearly every second of the first hour—and let’s not kid ourselves, pretty much the entire movie—would be desperately searching for some semblance of context. I might have just given up and accepted that Isaiah Bradley (Lumbly) is important to Wilson (Mackie), but just accepting that Wilson is now Captain America coming off the events of Avengers: Endgame (2019) is too much. The film would have had to have a cameo from Chris Evans to set us all right, and even with that context present, I think we still could have used him thematically. It’s not like he’s above still showing up for these films, right?

2. I’m also infinitely glad that I have both seen, mostly remember, and kind of liked that mostly forgotten entry in the series, The Incredible Hulk (2008). The film ultimately is a direct sequel to that entry, but a cameo (spoiler) by Liv Tyler at the end really doesn’t have the same hit it might because a) she isn’t reuniting with Harrison Ford, she just met him, and b) I’m now wondering more about how she might relate to Mark Ruffalo. Honestly, both of the actors she worked with in that film were recast for various reasons, did we have to have her back?

3. I’m apparently not at all bothered that I still haven’t seen Eternals (2021). It seems like it might be a charming film, but as long as I accept there’s a whole mess of adamantium in the Indian Ocean (and I do) the film remains on my watchlist.

But, ultimately, this is held together not by an idiot plot, where people aren’t communicating with each other in an effort to keep the story moving along, but instead populated by idiot elements, where things that simply don’t add up are injected into a film with confidence that the audience would not notice.

I noticed. Yes, they are mostly related to the Presidency and the politics of the whole situation.

Why is the Secret Service agent (Xosha Roquemore) also a close adviser of the President? That seems like an unwise conflict of interest.

Never mind that every single person on planet Earth and beyond—including and especially Secret Service agents—should probably know that shooting any particular Hulk isn’t going to do much. They probably shouldn’t be shooting the President anyway, even if the cabinet somehow has had time to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Finally, and most importantly: It’s established we are hovering around the end of Ross’ first 100 days in the White House, but when Bucky (Sebastian Stan) shows up for a cameo, he has to immediately leave for a campaign stop, because he apparently is running for Congress now. Really? You’ve both announced and are running a full-time campaign for a House seat less than six months since the last election? I don’t believe that, and neither should you. Had he tried to shake down Wilson for campaign funds, then maybe.

Magnum Force (1973)

Director: Ted Post

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook, Mitchell Ryan, David Soul

Have I Seen it Before: Never.

Did I Like It: First of all, in my review of Dirty Harry (1971) I noted that since Harry (Eastwood) spent the final moments of that film throwing his badge into the water, the opening minutes of this film pretty much had to have him wading into the water to go retrieve it.

No such luck. By all rights I should get over that little oversight, but thematically it’s a little hard to account for Callahan’s utter—and arguably justifiable—disgust with the system in the context of this movie. Not to spoil the plot of a fifty year old movie, but when it becomes clear that the real bad guys in this film are forces within the San Francisco Police Department*, Callahan has to throw away a quick line about how much he still hates the system, but has to live with it until it changes.

It’s an awkward—and unfortunately load-bearing—moment in an otherwise skillfully constructed thriller. Harry is a hero that I’m increasingly less dubious about headlining a multi-movie franchise. Those shots that are going to be the first up in obituary reels for Eastwood make Callahan seem like the kind of cop one hopes to not meet in a darkened alley, or in bright daylight, or really anywhere. The truth, though, is that Callahan might be a grump, but he is a decent man. He’s not interested in hurting anybody that hasn’t already gone out of their way to hurt other people. He’d even like to gently stop somebody who might hurt somebody from indulging in their worst impulses. He doesn’t kick ass when McCoy (Ryan) starts betraying his meltdown. He tries to talk him into hanging it up before something terrible happens. He doesn’t even sleep with McCoy’s wife, when the runway was absolutely clear. Are all cops bastards? I’ll leave that for other people to decide, but I would at least submit that Dirty Harry Callahan is at least a bastard for the angels.

*An odd paradox in this genre of kick-ass guys with guns starring guys who would be perfectly welcome at the Republican National Convention: They are weirdly, and pointedly, anti-police, or at least eager to admit that police corruption exists and is inherently difficult to route out. I’m surprised that the left haven’t adopted both this film and First Blood (1982) as their own.

Predator (1987)

Director: John McTiernan

Cast: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, Jesse Ventura, Kevin Peter Hall

Have I Seen it Before: Heck, you’re talking to the guy who started a Facebook group in support of the idea of Carl Weathers becoming Governor of Oklahoma because, apparently, the cast of this movie is where we need to get Governors.

Did I Like It: There’s a problem that happens when a long-running film series has a complete revelation with a later entry. I’m looking in your direction, Prey (2022). The original film can start to feel a bit stripped down, a bit tame. I have a real hard time really getting into A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) when I know that Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994) exists.

Can this film possibly hold up?

Yeah, pretty much. It accomplishes what the series lost to certain degree as time went on (and especially when they were set up on a series of blind dates with xenomorphs for a couple of movies. The Predator films are at there best opportunities for seamless genre mashup, and accomplishing this by simply giving us a well-made example of one genre*, and then injecting the Predator into the mix. Prey did it by giving us a well-crafted epic in the pre-colonial world of indigenous America… and then threw a dreadlocked alien into the mix. Here, this film would work perfectly well as the group of paramilitary soldiers enter the jungle with a mix of motivations and understanding about their mission, only to reach disaster. Come to think of it, what the hell was Schwarzenegger’s name in Commando (1985)? Is this a sequel to that? I’m sure someone would have noted that before I did, but it sure as hell could have been**.

*Probably doesn’t work for every genre, though. And, just as soon as I type that a Kindergarten Cop (1990) riff where one of the students is a Yautja would be watchable as hell.

**I keep lamenting that Rambo: Last Blood (2019) didn’t follow the rumored plot line of Stallone squaring off agains a malevolent alien. I had apparently forgotten that this film is essentially that, and way better than we could have expected if Stallone had gotten control of the works.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: Liam Hemsworth, Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Maika Monroe

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah. I’m not sure why I felt compelled to see this when it came out back in ’16, especially when one considers how it took me about a year to get more than a little sick of Independence Day (1996). Maybe it was one of those years where I just felt compelled to see everything.

Did I Like It: Relax, the film easily passes the criteria for sequels: it is just as good as the original, or at least pretty cool. If you think otherwise, I submit that you might be remembering Independence Day through the lens of someone who was a child in the 1990s and thus, far easier to impress. It’s just as much of mindless special effects sizzle reel as the original.

There are fewer memorable special effects shots as the original. Nothing quite matches that shot of one of the alien saucers obliterating the White House, but I think that means the trailer for the original film is better than the trailer for this film. That much I’ll grant you. Also, I’ll admit that where the first film at least had the sort of heartwarming thought that the only thing that will unite humanity is the knowledge that there is something else out there for us to hate. Here we have… :checks notes: the realization that the aliens have a queen who is far larger than any of the others. Where have I seen that before?

The film’s ambitions are minimal, but I can’t say that I can completely dismiss any big tentpole film that fundamentally has little to offer when it offers me this much of Jeff Goldblum being as much Jeff Goldblum as he can be. It got me through Jurassic World Dominion (2022) and it made this a relatively easy way to spend a couple of hours, too.

Everybody might want to complain about the absnece of Will Smith, but it honestly didn’t even occur to me. I don’t think he would have improved anything.

Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

Director: John McTiernan

Cast: Bruce Willis, Jeremy Irons, Samuel L. Jackson, Graham Greene

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. I wonder sometimes what was the last movie I saw before starting these reviews in 2018. There’s a better than even chance that it was this during my last march through the sequels to Die Hard (1988).

Did I Like It: In my head, I’ve always viewed this as not just the best sequel in the series, but the only one even remotely worth a damn. I wondered, though, after my recent re-watch of Die Hard 2 (1990) if I would start thinking differently. Ultimately, though, I still think this is the strongest aside from the original, even if I finally found the charms in Die Harder.

It might be a fairly run of the mill 90s actioner. Indeed, it started out life as a completely unrelated original film intended as a vehicle for Brandon Lee. Abandoned after he died during the filming of The Crow (1994), it was then dusted off as a potential sequel for Lethal Weapon (1987) before eventually becoming what we have now.

One presumes that Simon (Irons) was not Hans Gruber’s brother the entire time, but that would certainly have been a choice. Come to think of it, the film seems so quintessentially New York-based (I don’t dare say that the city is like another character, so relax) it feels like it would have lost something had it followed Riggs and Murtaugh in LA, although I have no trouble imagining that the opening sequence with the sandwich board was written for Mel Gibson first.

It allows John McClane (Willis) to no longer be a fish out of water. Shedding the trappings of the first movie, it feels like this series can go pretty much anywhere.

Let’s just ignore where the series did go, shall we?

Conclave (2024)

Director: Edward Berger

Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, Isabella Rossellini

Have I Seen it Before: Never. Having been waylaid by the Oklahoma Flu for the better part of a month, I’m sad to admit that I’ve missed most (read: all but Dune: Part Two (2023)) of the best picture contenders for this year. Luckily, Peacock had me covered and only jammed two minutes of commercials into my eyes at the top.

Did I Like It: I’ve found myself, and really only since my recent viewing of The Exorcist (1973), strangely admiring of the Catholic clergy. I mean, I haven’t gone completely insane. I’m not going to take an entirely new theological viewpoint, and I could really spend the rest of the review talking about all of the bad things that the Catholic church has perpetrated through their myopia. But the best among them seem intellectually curious and ultimately confront doubt with some regularity.

On that front, I immensely enjoyed the film. The deep dive into papal politics kept me rapt with the same level of interest of any political drama. My sympathies naturally went with the more liberal cardinals, and that’s only partially because Stanley Tucci can’t avoid being likable*, even when he’s engaging in some underhanded machinations.

My only real reservation about the film lies with the third act. There’s a twist, I suppose, in just who becomes Pope at the end of the titular conclave. I won’t spoil it for you, but some might clutch their pearls at the turn. The turn itself isn’t my problem, though. It’s that the twist doesn’t seem to come from anything else that happens in the film. It almost feels like the ending of some other film about gender politics in the Vatican found itself grafted onto this film. I far more enjoyed the road to that twist than the twist itself.

*Truly, they had to pit the man against Tom Hanks to make him anything less than likable in The Terminal (2004).

Salem's Lot (1979)

Director: Tobe Hooper

Cast: David Soul, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, Bonnie Bedelia

Have I Seen it Before: Never.

Did I Like It: I worry I went into this with the wrong mindset. People have enjoyed it, right? I’m pressing play on the blu ray, and I can’t get the reality out of my head that It (1990) is a 4 hour exercise where maybe two minutes of it work. Maybe the network boradcast treatment of horror novels—and especially King’s work—is destined for failure. The movie really had to win me over.

And didn’t quite get the job done. Here there might be scant seconds that work, and each of those seconds are jump cuts. The entire film is not kept together by any performance that gives the film real menace, a la Tim Curry in It. James Mason has a little bit of menace to him, and Bonnie Bedelia is always a welcome a presence, but neither of them are given enough to do to even remotely make a three hour run time not feel like a chore.

I’d say the film ages poorly, but I’m having a hard time imagining that the people of 1979 could reach for dread when confronted with only occasional appearances of a vampire that looks less like Count Orlock in Nosferatu (1922) and more like the Blue Meanies from Yellow Submarine (1968).

Even those few and far between jump scares wear thin as things proceed. I realize as they pile up that not only is a vampire suddenly jumping into frame, but that frame freezes in place, to really drive home the fact that I’m supposed to be scared. Throw in some act breaks that were originally designed to sell me an Atari 2600 doesn’t help matters much.

Then again, it could be worse. I direct the curious to Salem’s Lot (2004). At least this version didn’t force Rob Lowe to leave The West Wing.

Tillie's Punctured Romance (1914)

Director: Mack Sennett

Cast: Marie Dressler, Mabel Normand, Charles Chaplin, Mack Swain

Have I Seen it Before: Never. As big a fan I am of Chaplin, I’m a little surprised about that as well. But this is certainly a different thing, so I think I can be forgiven.

Did I Like It: Not only the first feature length appearance of Chaplin, but the first feature length comedy of any kind, I’m also willing to forgive the Keystone comedy for not quite knowing what to do with something that was supposed to last over an hour. Sennett brings all of his slapstick tricks to bear, but there’s a reason that if you went out onto the street and asked random people if they have heard of any of the people involved in this film, most would say yes to only one name.

I really do believe that if Chaplin had somehow died young and never fully become the Tramp that we know today, it would be impossible to take your eyes away from him in this film. He’s already thinking about what this form can do. He’s unpredictable. He’s dynamic. He’s graceful. Above all else, he’s funnier than anybody else in the movie, and even funnier than the movie itself. There may be moments where he—and everyone—really, feel an inexplicable need to look at the camera and speak so that no one can hear them, but considering a few short years ago the entire cast was performing on Vaudeville stages, this, too, can be forgiven.

You might have a different reaction as the film unfurls. Seeing Chaplin in garb other than that of the Tramp might cause one to dismiss the entire film before realizing that Chaplin didn’t even direct it. But let me offer a perspective that might be only really of use to moviegoers of the 21st century: In my head, this is an origin story. Charlie, the City Slicker here wears clothes that don’t quite fit (it makes him funnier) and eventually acquires a bowler hat. This is an origin story of the Tramp for me. Canonical concerns be damned, but from this moment on the funny little man feels the need to atone for his ways here, leading him all the way through adopting a child,   all the way through having a breakdown in the middle of a factory, all the way through to impersonating the dictator of Tomania.

Spaceballs (1987)

Director: Mel Brooks

Cast: Mel Brooks, John Candy, Rick Moranis, Bill Pullman

Have I Seen it Before: Yeah. And I’ve never really cared for it. While the majority of the human race immediately proceeds to tune out of this website forever, let me say that I’ve always liked some of his other movies—chiefly Young Frankenstein (1974)—far more.

Did I Like It: But this time was going to be different! Perhaps I’m too precious about the science fiction genre to see it spoofed. I managed to even find flaws with Galaxy Quest (1999) when everyone else on the planet thinks it’s the best thing since 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). I’m fully willing to admit that I may be the problem, and if I can just get out of my own head, I’ll enjoy the film as much as you do.

No such luck.

The film just doesn’t work for me. Many of the film’s Brooks mocks in his work are timeless, even if they are very much part of the age they were made in. Every time “Spaceballs” by the Spinners is needle dropped in the third act, it is impossible to think of this film as anything other than something made in 1987.

Funny actors like Candy and Moranis are largely stiff (Candy more than Moranis) when they should be given free (or at least more free) reign to play to their heart’s content. This saps the film of many of the laughs it by all rights should have. I’m not saying the film is completely without laughs, but I didn’t laugh more than I did when we’re waylaid by the kind of exposition the serious versions of these films tend to insist on, and Moranis turns to the camera and barks, “Everyone got all that?”

Why do things not come together here? I think it can absolutely be a byproduct of the fact that Brooks has no real feelings for the Star Wars or Star Trek (or any of the other sprawling sci-fi epics of the age). He loved the James Whale Universal Horror films. That’s why Frankenstein is his best film. He loved Hitchcock movies, that’s why High Anxiety (1977) connects. He loves westerns. Hence, Blazing Saddles (1974)*. Here, I imagine that his kid loves sci-fi movies, and he has a mild fascination with them. That’s it. And so, the experience here is far more hollow then many of us want to admit.

*I’ve said it in other reviews, but no matter what my feelings about this film are, the fact that he was able to do both Frankenstein and Saddles within a year makes him an unassailable legend.

Vegas Vacation (1997)

Director: Stephen Kessler

Cast: Chevy Chase, Beverly D’Angelo, Randy Quaid, Ethan Embry

Have I Seen it Before: The film holds a certain amount of legendary status in our family, although not for any reason beyond the circumstantial. Between 1994 and 2000, my family and I made at least four, and potentially more (I remember one summer alone we made three trips alone) to Vegas. It was that period—Chase even mentions it in the film—when Vegas was experimenting with being a family destination. We could ride roller coasters while Pop engaged in what might be called a gambling addiction if he didn’t seem to be somewhat skilled.

Our average rate of visiting the city was so frequent, that it was almost inevitable that we were there when this was filming. The film itself is sort of weird memory burned into my brain, but the moment I looked across the casino at the MGM Grand and saw the man who once was Fletch and would one day be Pierce Hawthorne between takes near the Keno room, dressed in full Clark Griswold regalia.

The legend continues from there. I had all but forgotten about the film and my brief brush with Chevy. Cut to last fall and I’m visiting the parents. Apparently, they had bought copies of the DVD in bulk to hand out as prizes when friends come over to play poker. Rolling my eyes, I got a copy for free.

Did I Like It: The film is perhaps a perfect example of medium ambitions not remotely fulfilled. Clearly, it would not be a controversial opinion to say that National Lampoon’s Vacation (1983) and National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (1989) are the ones we’ll see in obituary b-roll for Chase one day. I’ve never been that enamored of the Griswold’s all together, so while I can’t share that disappointment, I can understand it. The franchise has certainly taken a step down when John Hughes is nowhere to be found in the credits.

But it goes beyond that. Produced by Jerry Weintraub, this feels like the first pass at a commercial for the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, before he finally found the right vehicle for such an endeavor in Ocean’s Eleven (2001) and its sequels. I honestly think Chase could have reached for a comeback with a return to Fletch, but given the film on display here, a return to any character at this point would have been similarly anemic.

The film isn’t without its charms, though. There are several points where Chase seems to be emulating my father. A general audience might find a family breakfast interrupted by a sudden trip to the Craps table to be not terribly relatable, but I’m not one of those people. My dad may not have Tarzan-ed his way across the Hoover Dam, but that’s more because we didn’t really go see the sights when we were in the area. We laugh in my house about Rusty’s (Embry) adventures as Nick Poppageorgio, but we laugh because had I found my way into a fake ID, it’s only a mild exaggeration. “I do not require them” is a line repeated often growing up. A film can move beyond the realm of criticism if it can hit a group of people at the right time.

And yet, a couple of laughs do exist. Primarily they rest with supporting players. Wallace Shawn as a pernicious blackjack dealer is worth a chuckle or two, but I can’t help but laugh at the brief moment we’re treated to Toby Huss as a Frank Sinatra impersonator with a plan.

The Net (1995)

Director: Irwin Winkler

Cast: Sandra Bullock, Jeremy Northam, Dennis Miller, Diane Baker

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. I’m beginning to realize that we got HBO in my house in 1996, and that just meant my instinct to see just about anything that got released the year before, and with the help of VHS, doing so multiple times.

Now that all of those films are hitting their 30th anniversary, I feel increasingly dusty and am finding these films (I’m looking in your direction, Tommy Boy (1995)) at a rock bottom prices online, and can’t help but wonder, “Does this one hold up?”

Did I Like It: No. This one doesn’t hold up. There are some mildly interesting moments in the film’s first act where Angela Bennett (Bullock) is clearly living her life that seemed like science fiction in the 90s (probably the film’s main draw) but are almost depressingly mundane now. She works from home, to the point where no one she has worked with has ever seen her. She lives nearly exclusively online, patiently enduring sexual harassment from complete strangers. She orders her meals—including a large pizza she apparently eats all by herself—entirely with the aid of her elite level of computer skills.

Now that all of those activities are completely within reach of even the lease skilled among us, is there anything left to recommend the film? Not really. All we have left is a warmed over Hitchcock plot that never seems terribly interested in working on its own terms. There’s one brief sequence where Bennet tries to take back control of matters by actually going to her place of employment, but the rest of the rest of the plot listlessly wanders, hoping desperately that Bullock’s charm will paper over the lack of the kind of plot mechanics that a film like this needs to work. That might all be forgiven, but this thing is barely held together by the kind of scotch tape editing choices that drive me up the wall. Bennett takes the wheel of a car being driven by a fake FBI agent, and he has to scream from the safe confines of an ADR session, “My seatbelt!” I was able to follow that the guy wasn’t going to make it in 1995, and I definitely don’t need the extra bit now.

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

Director: E. Elias Merhige

Cast: John Malkovich, Willem Dafoe, Cary Elwes, Suzy Eddie Izzard

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. It’s hard to think of a movie in this era that was more coming for me directly than this one. It’s a little strange to think that it has taken this long for us to get around to it on Beyond the Cabin in the Woods. That being said, it’s weird to admit that my DVD has quite possibly not seen the light of day since I originally bought it in 2001.

Did I Like It: There’s a lot to like here, but not without some disappointments. Dafoe is swinging for the fences with his performance, and chewing scenes in the best possible way. Of particular delight is the scene where Schreck/Orlock is on his own and manages to take in a rush of a sunrise, and is absolutely transfixed by the mere possibility of film. It reminds me of a scene in Chaplin (1992) where Robert Downey Jr. is similarly transfixed by the celluloid possibilities in front of him, and even that scene had to be propped up by voice over narration. It also reminds me of the sequence in Interview with the Vampire (1994) where Brad Pitt is similarly distracted by the possibilities of going to the movies. Here, all we are given is Dafoe’s face, and the film of the sun. The point is made all the same, and honestly gives the only good argument for vampirism that I’ve yet to hear. Somebody comes around and tells me they have a way for me to see films released even beyond my lifetime, I’m going to need someone to talk me down.

And yet, there’s something so singular about his face that the great makeup job can’t quite erase Dafoe from the character he is playing, like the makeup job in the 1920s did for the real (or is he?) Max Schreck in Nosferatu (1922). It’s a minor complaint, given that Dafoe’s face is almost a special effect in its own way. Just try to continue staring at the hypnotic opening titles that tries to make something human out of Dafoe’s face and Art Deco elements. It’s easily the most unnerving sequences of this or any horror movie.

My real reservation about the film is structural, though. Searching for a new cinematographer after their first one is waylaid by the downsides of vampirism, Murnau (Malkovich, playing himself) disappears from the movie for some time. This renders the second more than a little aimless and disorganized, robbing the film of its central tension between Murnau and Schreck when it could use it the most.

Die Hard 2 (1990)

Director: Renny Harlin

Cast: Bruce Willis, Bonnie Bedelia, William Atherton, Reginald VelJohnson*

Have I Seen it Before: Sure, I mean, I’m not stopping everything around certain major holidays to force whoever is in my proximity to watch it like certain other films. But I’ve probably seen it twice or so over the years.

Did I Like It: Oddly, yes? Sure, this might not be the little sequel that could that became Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995). There are parts that are a rehash of the original, sure, but there is an obligatory and appropriate expanding of the scope here. Where Die Hard (1988) is an oftentimes claustrophobic journey up and down the Nakatomi Tower, this spreads out the action and raises the stakes.

The cast surrounding Willis—a little more dour, as somebody bothered to tell him he’s a movie star—is also a delight, with the main threat coming from William Sadler and John Amos, two actors I’m bound to be delightfully surprised to see in things. The Grim Reaper and Chairman Fitzwallace causing trouble for John McClane and America? That’s pitch enough for a movie.

I’m even willing to overlook the fact that most of the plot hinges on the image quality of faxed fingerprints. I think I am, anyway. At least this isn’t one of the bloated, inept sequels almost completely unrelated to the original that we got in more recent years.

*Right out of the gate, this review is already running havoc with the in house style here on the site. You might want to call the movie Die Harder, but that’s not the real title of the movie. Also, the first three cast members credited after Willis appear in the film for a combined 15 minutes and each appears less interested in being in the same place with Willis for longer than they have to for more than 30 seconds.

Star Trek: Section 31 (2025)

Director: Olatunde Osunsanmi

Cast: Michelle Yeoh, Omari Hardwick, Sam Richardson, Kacey Rohl

Have I Seen it Before: Never. Brand new. Weird moment when for a day or so—although it happens more and more frequently these last few years—when somebody could ask me “Have you seen all of Star Trek” and I have to answer “not yet.” Even weirder still is the brief moment  when someone can ask me, “Have you seen all of the Star Trek movies?” and I have to say I’m working on it.

Did I Like It: Assessing any Star Trek movie begs more than a few questions, although as I continue to write this review I find those questions to be more than a little bit inter-related. First—and this question really ought to be used to judge any film—does it succeed on its own terms? On this front, yes, I think it does. It wants to be a fun, light adventure a la Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), and while one might be able to quibble with just how naturally a bunch of goofballs on a heist format onto Roddenberry’s utopia, it’s clear that the movie has decided what it wants to be and follows through on that.

Second question: Does the movie work for someone who isn’t already steeped in the lore of Trek? Frankly, all of the great Trek films straddle the line, bringing in elements of what came before but making it accessible to a wider audience. Here, Section 31 works pretty well. Explaining just who Georgiou (Yeoh) is and her previous activities is dispensed with as quickly as possible without just directing viewers to the first three seasons of Star Trek: Discovery. But other than that, these are new characters who we are just getting to know. A fan like myself will see Rachel Garrett (Rohl) and know fate will take her in the future*, but Joe Everybody off the street will just be able to see her as the archetypical Starfleet officer, futilely trying to bring order to the chaos on display. This might be something I would recommend to someone just coming in to the franchise.

Finally, and this question can plague many of the other Trek films: Is it worthy of being a feature-length story, or is it really an extended episode? Star Trek Insurrection (1998) is often maligned for being an extended episode and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) started life as a pilot to an eventually abandoned second series with the original crew, and never quite outruns the gravity of those constrictions. This, too, was originally to be the first episode of a spinoff starring Yeoh, but after she won the Oscar, cooler head prevailed, and we are left only with this “event movie.” There’s room to check in with this rag-tag team in the future if this film works, but it definitely feels like a pilot for things that will never come. I was prepared to answer this question and only view Section 31 as something of a mixed bag, but then I remembered what this really means for the future of Trek. After a whirlwind few years where we were treated to a number of series, the streaming wars appear to have ended with no real winners. By committing not to multi-year series with inevitably diminishing numbers of viewers, changing the way Star Trek comes to us may yet widen the lens. We could see more 24th Century stories a la the hinted Picard sequel, Legacy. Indeed, the limits of what could be done may no longer exist. If that ends up being the case, Section 31 may end up being a noble experiment, indeed.

*In addition to being the only real clue that this story takes place roughly forty years after Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) and about forty years before the beginning of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Tommy Boy (1995)

Director: Peter Segal

Cast: Chris Farley, David Spade, Bo Derek, Brian Dennehy

Have I Seen it Before: Experiencing the main crux of my adolescence in the mid-90s, it was essentially required viewing. At some point, I had recorded an airing off of HBO, and I probably watched it more than I strictly had to.

Then again, I have the strongest memory of being no more than twelve, seeing Farley during an appearance on The Tonight Show and saying out loud. “Well, he’s not going to live very long.”

I was a weird kid, though.

Did I Like It: Generally accepted to be Farley’s greatest movie, I couldn’t help but wonder if that said more about the shortness of his career than anything else. Could it hold up after all of these years? Could anything?

Probably not. The film is 90 minutes of warmed over Capra-esque aww-shucks-ness with a few moments of Farley being Farley to fill the trailers and get the opening weekend grosses up. Farley can be funny, but after being on a bit of a Saturday Night Live jag lately after the one-two punch of the show’s 50th anniversary coupled with last year’s Saturday Night (2024) I think I’ve come to the conclusion that Farley’s manic energy could never be correctly captured by a feature film. It needed to be on display in live TV, where one could see him become a tornado, and then have to ask themselves whether or not they really saw what they just saw. Farley excelled at that. It’s what elevated him from just another featured player on the show, and that quality might have had some part in killing him.

Then again, I could be wrong. Had he lived, Farley might have found layers we never knew he had. If that had been the case, this film might have been forgotten altogether. It certainly wouldn’t hold up.

Funny Farm (1988)

Director: George Roy Hill

Cast: Chevy Chase, Madolyn Smith, Joseph Maher, Jack Gilpin

Have I Seen It Before: Yes, and to a weird degree. When I was a kid and fancied myself a novelist (not to be confused with the various times in my 20s and 30s that I’ve done the same thing) I actually managed to finagle an interview with Jay Cronley, author of the novel. By then he had become a weekly columnist for the local paper. He was nice and enthusiastic, far nicer and more enthusiastic about Mac Boyle: Novelist than he had any obligation to be to a 15-year-old kid who took some time out of his day. Even so, there was a bit of world-weariness to him that made me always fairly certain that the story was a self-insert. Andy Farmer is Cronley. Cronley is Andy Farmer.

Did I Like It: As I watch it now, the thing I’m most struck by is less the fundamental Cronley-ness of Chase as Farmer but that this might be the perfect vehicle for Chase at his prime. You might prefer him as Clark Griswold in the Vacation films, but me and mine will always prefer him in Fletch (1985)*, Andy Farmer seems to be the perfect blend of those two disparate poles of Chase’s on-screen persona**. Oddly enough, when he’s his most manic, he’s tapping into his Griswold side, and when he’s more wry and detached from the absurdity transpiring around him, he’s more Fletch.

It may, indeed, be the ultimate 80s Chevy Chase movie.

*Even if Jon Hamm played him more like Gregory MacDonald wrote him, but that’s a matter for other reviews. Also I think that Bill Murray would have been better casting for the role back int the 80s… I know, I know. Different review.

**The third pole of Chase is his off screen persona, which tends to be what he plays more now. On yet another unrelated note, when are we getting that Community movie?