Pee-Wee as Himself (2025)

Director: Matt Wolf

Cast: Paul Reubens, Lynne Marie Stewart, Cassandra Peterson, John Moody

Have I Seen It Before: Nope! Bereft that it has taken me this many weeks to finally watch it. My parents had to tell me how good it was. Which feels like more of an injury than anything else.

Did I Like It: Any deep dive into the career of Reubens and the reign of Pee-Wee was going to be a must-watch for me right out of the gate. When Reubens died in 2023, I was more than a little sad, but I got philosophical about the whole thing after watching a few episodes of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse, I got kind of philosophical about it all: Paul Reubens was an incredibly talented writer and performer who passed away too soon. Pee-Wee Herman is an idea, and incapable of dying.

Pee-Wee was a vessel designed to show people that you could be so thoroughly weird that most people might find you annoying* and still be worthy of friendship, love, and celebration. Attempting to unravel the relationship between Reubens the actor and Pee-Wee the character would be a minimum requirement of the film, and it delivers on that in spades. There’s plenty of other honest examinations of Playhouse, the downsides of the success in Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (1985), and a defenses of the commercial failures of Big Top Pee-Wee (1988) too. It’s everything I could have wanted from a Pee-Wee documentary.

What elevates the film from the competent to one of the best films of the year lays in the friction between subject and filmmaker. One of the essential standards to measure the quality of a documentary is the degree to which the filmmaker has access to the subject. Not knowing that Reubens was battling the cancer that would eventually end his life, the filmmakers were resolute in not letting Reubens’ perfectionism and instincts as a storyteller take over the direction of the film.

Reubens withdrew his cooperation with subsequent interviews, but managed to try and say his peace the day before he passed away. Reubens tried to exercise control over the affair because after all of these years, the bifurcated nature of his identity, coupled with his intermittent legal troubles, and his sexuality, he wanted to be understood for who he was.

It turns out, the guy who needed a character like Pee-Wee the most was Reubens. It might be a sad end to a story about a man who was willing to give up everything for his creative endeavors. But now, after the end, Reubens may be a bit better understood. He got what he wanted, even if what he wanted was never quite under his control.

*I had a talking Pee-Wee doll when I was a kid. That doll talked a lot. Eventually, he talked so much that he wouldn’t talk anymore. I tried to nurse that doll back to health for days. It wasn’t until my 30s when I realized my mother probably just removed the batteries and got everybody on board with the con. I did not plan to make this review a lot therapy. But then again, Reubens didn’t really think the film would be confessional, so it all becomes of a piece.

28 Days Later (2002)

Director: Danny Boyle

Cast: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, Christopher Eccleston, Brendan Gleeson

Have I Seen it Before: Oddly enough, no.

Did I Like It: One has to wonder precisely why I have missed the film over twenty years later. The likeliest suspect on spec is my general aversion to the zombie genre. I’m fine with misery porn when its based on reality—presumably we’ve surpassed or are trying to surpass the ills that introduced said misery—but when its all hypothetical, my threshold is pretty low.

My antipathy isn’t helped much by my skepticism that Boyle* has spent years insisting that the film isn’t really about zombies. How many directors of zombie films—from Romero to Edgar Wright—have insisted that their opus isn’t really about zombies? More importantly: How many of them are right or even remotely believable in that assertion?

So, I’m happy to report that Boyle was right on the money** and joins the elite minority of those  who actually know what their film is about. The film is incidentally about zombies and more about how the institutions we’re supposed to rely on are bureaucratically and temperamentally unable to meet the needs of the future. Jim (Murphy) awakens in a hospital, but there is no care there. He immediately heads for a church, but there is nothing but frightening realization there. He eventually bands together with some fellow survivors and try to find a base of military officers who offer protection, and possibly, answers.

Answers are scarce, and whatever protection they have in mind is a parody of the concept they would want us to believe in.

If you can get over the pronounced British video quality of the cinematography—it is often distracting, and puts one in mind to watch some BBC sitcom of the era—then the film offers plenty to chew on, and even a little bit of hope by the time the credits roll. The Walking Dead couldn’t even manage that much and they’re still trying to bring that thing to a conclusion fifteen years later.

*Not that one. Har har har.

**Har har har.

Deathtrap (1982)

Director: Sidney Lumet

Cast: Michael Caine, Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon, Irene Worth

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. I honestly hadn’t even heard of the film before seeing a review in an old episode of Siskel & Ebert. As I’m not allowed to recommend movies for podcasts based on those two gentlemen from Chicago—with good reason—I’m still free to watch films like that on my own, right?

Did I Like It: There’s two very obvious observations one can make about this film. First, it’s clear that Christopher Reeve is having a great time doing this film. He’ll never not be known as Superman, he’d likely never have been a movie star without Superman, and I think he probably liked being Superman. But your guy needed a break. And I can feel the happiness he must have felt when he read this script.

I can also see where this film tripped slightly at the box office. Trying to hit the 1980s moviegoing audience where their red and blue clad hero is a sociopathic writer who is lovers with Michael Caine. I’d like to say that we’re more evolved now, but I can swing my arms and hit somebody on the internet who would set their hair on fire if Henry Cavill kissed a man on film today.

The film itself packs a fair amount of surprises, although most of those occur in the film’s first half. I legitimately thought that Sidney (Caine) had killed Clifford (Reeve). I figured the film wouldn’t have made use of a star only to off him in the first act, if for no other reason than Hitchcock got away with it the one time and it’ll never happen again. When he does return, I didn’t think that would be the shape of the film’s plot. Good on it, surprising me that effectively.

The rest of the film plays out a little by the numbers. Turnabouts are laid on top of turnabouts, only to have the whole film be somebody else’s play. It’s an unsatisfying ending, to be sure.

Friendship (2024)

Director: Andre DeYoung

Cast: Tim Robinson, Kate Mara, Jack Dylan Grazer, Paul Rudd

Have I Seen it Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: If you haven’t watched Robinson’s superlative Netflix series I Think You Should Leave, I wonder why you’re coming to see this film, and I wonder if it would work for you. Robinson has a comedic voice unlike anyone now or before. It can take a second to calibrate to his perfect picture of the modern man dealing with the frustration of existing via expulsions of non sequitur and rage. You should really go watch that show. It’s great!

I write those preceding sentences and realize that there should be plenty of moments to get eased into Robinson’s style. It probably still wouldn’t work entirely. It didn’t for me, sadly.

It’s entirely possible that Robinson’s persona doesn’t work in a longer form. The bubbling up of his ire and confusion can’t sustain itself, or at least can’t do so with consistently being as funny as he clearly can be. He works better as a firecracker of comedy. He may have been built for sketch comedy.

Maybe it’s because Robinson only performs and didn’t write any of the material here. I tend to believe that assessment more than the long term versus short term of it all. His sitcom Detroiters managed to capture that same level of magic. The writers are imitating his style, and while Robinson can play this character, there isn’t much more than a journeymen’s effort on display.

The film isn’t without its charms. It does manage to depict—if not quite elevate—the quiet desperation of middle class life in the the 21st century. It also makes a valiant effort at deconstructing the forever-young myth of Paul Rudd. Even if he wears a bald cap*, he’s willing to make himself the butt of the joke, and that’s always something nice to see from a movie star.

*Is it possible that what Rudd might actually look like?

Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning (2025)

Director: Christopher McQuarrie

Cast: Tom Cruise, Hayley Atwell, Ving Rhames, Simon Pegg*

Have I Seen it Before: Never, and maybe never again?

Did I Like It: Here’s a confession, if I haven’t already made it in previous reviews for the Mission: Impossible films. Most people are never more delighted during these films than when Ethan Hunt (Cruise) dangles off of increasingly precarious things. That’s the brand. That’s why the vast majority posters for this movie show a biplane flying upside down with Cruise holding on by one hand. That will gets butt into seats**.

I, on the other hand, am never more delighted in this series when they make references to the original Mission: Impossible (1996). I have a weird affection for that uneven first entry with the byzantine plot, even when I’m willing to admit that Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011) is likely the most satisfying entry, pound for pound. From Alec Baldwin’s muttering about the CIA Black Vault in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015) through the White Widow (Vanessa Kirby) being the heiress to Max (Vanessa Redgrave), all the way to the return of Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning (2023), McQuarrie either has the same soft spot for the first film as I do, or had an interest in making the story of Ethan Hunt one where what came before has an impact on what is still to come. A valid ambition in my eyes, either way.

The references to the original film abound here as well. I found the revelations that Jasper Briggs (Shea Whigham) is actually the son of Jim Phelps (Jon Voight) to be a little anemic, especially when it confirms finally and beyond all doubt that these films don’t share a continuity with the original television series.

But then there’s William Donloe (Rolf Saxon). The hapless mark in the aforementioned Black Vault, he was just a guy who knew how to manage a database. A man after my own heart, who go mistreated.

And he’s the secret heroe of the series, and steals every moment he’s in this film.

I am delighted, in that much at least, and that’s more than enough to recommend a movie.

Is this really the end for Ethan Hunt and company? Aside from dispensing with Luther Stickell in the first act, the film doesn’t seem like it wants to commit to a valedictory for the dangling man. This is as close as we’re going to get, and I hope it is the end. If for no other reason than I find it increasingly hard to believe that Scientology can give a man the tools he needs to do his own stunts into his 70s. This would be a good place to stop.

But if they want to do a spinoff series with Donloe, I’ll be the first one there on opening weekend.

*It took me all of my patience not to list Rolf Saxon in the main cast. More on that later. Also learned that he narrated the American broadcasts of Teletubbies. So there’s that.

**Enough butts in seats to cover a $400 million budget? One wonders, but maybe that’s a discussion for a different time.

Fantastic Four (2005)

Director: Tim Story

Cast: loan Gruffudd, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans, Michael Chiklis

Have I Seen It Before: The reviews were middling, and there was plenty of other great stuff to watch that summer, so I somehow missed it during its theatrical run.

Theaters five way to DVDs, and I have the oddest, strongest memory of renting this film, watching bout twenty minutes of it, getting distracted by the types of things college kids get distracted by*, and never quite coming back to it until nearly 20 years later.

How in the hell did I watch Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four (2015) before I watched this? The mind boggles.

Did I Like It: I can kind of see where I lost interest in this, though. Where Trank’s effort is perpetual motion machine powered by misbegotten ideas, this film is content to not make anybody mad. In that first large era of superhero movies, that can be absolutely lethal in an attempt to revisit the film. or visit for the first time since. There are pop songs, and quick edits, and enough product placement to virtually guarantee the film was going to get a sequel, even if nobody bothered to show up.

It's the kind of perfunctory effort that reminds one of Daredevil (2003) and less of the resolutely individualistic efforts that helped X-Men (2000) and Spider-Man (2002) break out from the pack... and inspire every movie studio that can get their hands on an IP to churn out this kind of movie.

With First Steps coming down the pike, I was suddenly inspired to take this one in, but I can"t say I'm particularly inspired to re-watch Trank’s film, or catch the sequel to this one.

Maybe it's finally time for me to watch Corman's version. It was at least created not to fill a studio's obligation for a summer weekend.

*Don't get too excited: I'm mostly talking about going over polling numbers in support of a political party that was all but extinct even then.

Male and Female (1919)

Director: Cecil B. DeMille

Cast: Gloria Swanson, Thomas Meighan, Lila Lee, Theodore Roberts

Have I Seen It Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: It seems like most films these days are slightly over-cooked, ultimately ill-considered attempts to appeal to the widest possible, least discerning audience. Some may blame the glut of Marvel movies devouring most of the budgets, ticket sales, and multiplex screens. Others might have seen no turning back after the release of Star Wars - Episode IV: A New Hope (1977). Still more might have seen the excesses of films like Cleopatra (1963) eventually leading to the major studios being taken over by large multinational corporations.

I think we were all in trouble the moment this one came running through the movie houses.

DeMille is more at home amongst an epic, so trying to force a production of his into the tight packaging of a what essentially amounts to a romantic comedy feels like a mis-step. Even the greats can occasionally have a misstep. The problem comes more from the fact that I can just see Paramount—or Famous Players-Lasky, the label used for this film as Paramount was still sorting out its eventual identity—seeing what is essentially a drawing room play* and feeling like they were not going to be able to sell a restrained version of DeMille. Hence, the extended dream sequence where all of our characters are suddenly in Ancient Babylon. For reasons. This reeks of a compulsory studio note, and perhaps the first example of such a mandate, and likely the first one to sour an entire picture. Additional reading indicates that the film tried to shy away from the J.M. Barrie source material—no, not that one—because the audience might hear the phrase “Admirable Crichton” and think the film takes place at sea. DeMille never had a chance.

*Even when its on the shore of a desert island, the mechanics of the story don’t surpass the limitations of a drawing room play.

Thunderbolts* (2025)

Director: Jake Schreier

Cast: Florence Pugh, Sebastian Stan, Wyatt Russell, Olga Kurylenko

Have I Seen It Before: Nope! Honestly, I was going to take a pass on this one. I’ve already missed so much of the post-Avengers: Endgame (2019) films and series. I still haven’t seen Black Widow (2020), and the ads on this one were insisting I’d be lost without having an encyclopedic knowledge of the Multiverse Saga. After my favorite theater wasn’t going to run this one**—that being the main reason I caved and saw Captain America: Brave New World (2025)—that would probably be it.

And then the reviews came back. It isn’t bad? All of these people are going to show up for the forthcoming Avengers: Doomsday***? Ok, fine.

That’s the spirit to start the summer movie season, right?

Did I Like It: More than a little bit, I’m glad to report. Injecting an actual theme into the proceedings help. It may be a bit on the thin side—making the sordid past and healing from that past the fundamental fuel of whatever CGI kaleidoscope is to follow—but it is at least something. Name for me the theme of, say Brave New World****. I’ll wait.

Sure, there’s the kind of table-setting that can drag down even some of the earlier films, and the second act flies on autopilot to the point I did not fear a nap in the middle of the movie if it were to come for me. But, you want to know the most solid praise I can give this film.

After five years, I finally want to go watch Black Widow. Maybe there is hope for Marvel yet.

*This movie came directly for the Party Now, Apocalypse Later style guide, didn’t it?

**I’ve got more than a few things to say about Disney’s theatrical distribution model, but those will probably have to wait for some other blog post.

***A film I’m feeling obligated to see, if for no other reason than I need to bear witness to just what Robert Downey, Jr. is thinking—beyond, you know, money—coming back to the fold when he was right on the verge of re-inventing himself with Oppenheimer (2023).

****And no, “what happens when the President turns into a Hulk monster in the middle of a Rose Garden press conference” does not count as a theme.

78/52 (2017)

Director: Alexandre O. Philippe

Cast: Marli Renfro, Alfred Hitchcok, Tere Carrubba, Alan Barnette

Have I Seen It Before: Probably not, and yet I feel like I’ve seen more than enough fawning retrospectives of Psycho (1960)—to say nothing of docudramas like Hitchcock (2012) or The Girl (2012)—that I can’t say so with complete certainty.

Did I Like It: That previous statement wound tend to think I have a bit of a withering view of the film, but I can say there will probably be no further deep dives on the shower scene of Psycho. This has done the job. A fawning fan documentary—that still manages to poke holes in both Anthony Perkins’ ADR reading and wig choices—we do spend more than a little bit of time watching people of varying levels of fame watching the scene.

The film is far stronger when it is interviewing Renfro—when you think you’re seeing parts of Janet Leigh that you’re not supposed to be seeing, you’re actually seeing Renfro—and marveling at her indelible impact on cinema and subsequent lack of fame.

It also manages to delight when it confronts the complete unraveling of the magic contained in Hitchcock’s classic, namely in trying to recreate the death of Marion Crane in Gus van Sant’s Psycho (1998). That later film has the dubious reputation of being a shot-for-shot remake of the original, but there’s a decent runner in here where we learn that a 1:1 transcription of the shower scene didn’t work in color, or with far more of Anne Heche than we could have ever hoped to see of Leigh or Renfro. The thread at the fine sweater already pulled, the scene had to be re-made to far diminishing returns. I didn’t know that. I usually judge a documentary by its ability to teach me something, and it is difficult not to view a documentary kindly when it teaches me something I didn’t know about something I thought I knew quite well.

Abigail (2024)

Director: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett

Cast: Melissa Barrera, Dan Stevens, Kathryn Newton, Alisha Weir

Have I Seen it Before: Never. I had nominally avoided it during its theatrical release last year, as Dracula’s Daughter (1936) was easily one of my least favorite of the Universal monster movies. But, then Beyond the Caving in the Woods comes a-calling, and one of these days I may have seen all the horror movies.

Did I Like It: I’m left mostly bewildered by the film. Had it committed to its original idea and indeed been a remake of Dracula’s Daughter, it might have accomplished a number of things previously just out of reach. It would have the been the best possible type of remake, taking a previous film that didn’t work and improving things. It could have also been Universal’s attempt—the fourth one, by my count—in recent years to make a shared monster universe.

But it isn’t either of those things. It barely manages to answer the pitch of “Reservoir Dogs (1992) but Lawrence Tierney turns out to be a vampire and also, there’s a little bit of Home Alone (1990) in there as well.” It accomplishes that excessively busy goal only so much as it ticks off those disparate elements in a perfunctory fashion. I didn’t think I’d get to the end of this longing to watch Dracula’s Daughter, but I definitely didn’t feel like I got anything out of the film that I wouldn’t have gotten from watching Reservoir Dogs, Home Alone… or any of the other attempts Universal has made to light the Dark Universe.

The humor of it all doesn’t quite connect, characters react in awkward ways to everything happening in the film, and at the risk of offering spoilers, I had to look at a plot synopsis to really understand that Joey (Barrera) wasn’t made into a vampire in the film’s climax.

It’s a mess. It may be a mildly likable mess, but it is still a mess.

The Breaking Point (1950)

Director: Michael Curtiz

Cast: John Garfield, Patricia Neal, Phyllis Thaxter, Juano Hernandez

Have I Seen It Before: No. It more than a little bugs me that this is definitely the first 35mm projection I've seen this year, and it even more bugs me that I can't honestly remember the last film I took in an analog format. That really must change, or 2025 will really get the best of me. I wonder if these truly are the twilight days for the format outside of big markets.

Then Christopher Nolan will release something and the whole debate will be restarted anew.

Did I Like It: As a film noir, all the elements are here. The thing moves along at a nice clip. There's just a little bit of tension as to who will get away with what, and who might unfairly suffer in their wake. What's more, the eventual resolutions of those plot lines manages to find answers that aren't as pat as one might think when they see the age of the film. It ends on a slightly unfair, melancholy note that raises it to be more memorable than standard examples of the genre.

As a Hemingway tale, I wonder if it is a little lacking. There's a fisherman (more than a few of them, in point of actual fact) in the mix, so if one squinted at the affair from a fair distance, the specter of Papa might flit through your mind. Beyond that, there's no elemental perspective on man as a creature of the 20th century. Harry Morgan is not contemplative of his relationship with a fish, or how that fish threatens to unravel him as he desperately searches for his own courage. No, he's just looking for an ever-increasing pile of money. Maybe To Have and Have Not (1944) got it closer.

Sinners (2025)

Director: Ryan Coogler

Cast: Michael B. Jordan, Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton, Jack O’Connell

Have I Seen it Before: No.

Did I Like It: A review like this is more than a bit daunting. I love the movie so much that I get the distinct sense that I’ll be chewing* on parts of the movie for years to come. A simple review won’t be able to hold everything I want to say about it. An episode of <Beyond the Cabin in the Woods> won’t be able to cover everything I want to say about it.

Ryan Coogler hasn’t missed yet, and shows no signs of stopping now. He made a seventh movie in the Rocky franchise into something not just watchable, but essential. His biggest hit Black Panther (2018 demanded a sequel. Fate took away his star, which would spell disaster for lesser mortals, and he turned the whole affair into a meditation on grief at a time when big budget fair is positively allergic to anything resemble a theme.

Here, Coogler has made what is quite possibly the best vampire movie ever made. By equal turns startling, dread-inducing, and sexy**. His cast is perfect. One could make a case for Jordan being the MVP here, playing two roles, having them both be distinct characters, and managing to have chemistry with himself. But don’t turn on either Caton or O’Connell. Caton is either a born blues musician who also has tremendous screen presence, or one of the authentic screen acting finds of this century who can also play the blues like you wouldn’t imagine. O’Connell would be forgiven for playing a typical vampire villain role, but even he too has charisma and pathos (and not none musical talent) so that it is impossible to find the weak link in the chain. Not that I’m of a mind to go looking that hard.

This is about the length of a typical review, and there’s so much more I want to go into. The spiritual implications. The depiction of cultural appropriation. The sexiness, again***. But you know what? The review may never be able to contain it all. Come find me and talk to me about, I’m sure I’d love to chat.

*Pun accepted, if not entirely intended.

**To my mind, this might be the most pro-cunnilingus film since—no judgments—Gigli (2003).

***Really, it may be one of the sexiest films ever made, and that’s before the vampires show up and start to ruin everyone’s good time.

His Majesty, The American (1919)

Director: Joseph Henabery

Cast: Douglas Fairbanks, Marjorie Daw, Frank Campeau, Sam Southern

Have I Seen it Before: Never. I slept through opening weekend because I wouldn’t be born for another 65 years.

Did I Like It: When the film is a pulpy, frothy concoction following Bill (Fairbanks) seeking thrills, it’s kind of fun. One wonders if Bob Kane and Bill Finger (mostly Finger) saw the death-defying adventures of a trust fund kid sliding down a fire pole to free-lance with first responders and thought there was certainly something there. Why, in this film he almost buckles swashes, even if his turn in The Mark of Zorro (1920) is still in the offing.

When it tries to be some sort of political drama or satire or… Something. It never seems to settle on what it wants to do in acts two and three. Whatever it wants to be, I think its safe to say that it is less than successful. The search for the heir to Montenac is so predictable as to be a foregone conclusion the moment it is introduced. The film then proceeds for another hour going through the motions of resolving that plot whilr still producing the number of reels that Fairbanks, Griffith, Pickford, and Chaplin needed to make their United Artists experiment work*.

One might write off such complaints as me not being willing to allow for less sophisticated audiences more than a hundred years ago, but I think that’s unreasonable. The players here an their contemporaries can make films that still resonate today. This may be a middling effort, and there is a reason that people know Fairbanks more for Zorro than anything else. I’m glad that the film is preserved as well as it is—the several generations removed digital projection was just fine—but I sure hope a better film didn’t disappear to the vagaries of nitrate film in favor of this.

*The one moment of impish magic that unassailably works is the film’s opening title that makes the case for UA, which a laughing Fairbanks interrupts before the film proper begins.

Coneheads (1993)

Director: Steve Barron

Cast: Dan Aykroyd, Jane Curtin, Michelle Burke, Michael McKean

Have I Seen it Before: Sure! Any real discussion of my awareness of the film will veer into what I actually think of the film, but I only add here that I have a strange memory of the film having a line of action figures—what movie didn’t have one in those years?—and I’m not entirely sure why. I also was under the impression that there was a day when Subway sandwiches didn’t exist, then this film came out, and those footlongs never left our lives.

Did I Like It: This movie either can’t or doesn’t try to answer or escape from a central question every film has to reckon with on some level: Who is this movie for?

it takes on the air of a family comedy with some sci-fi seasoning buried deep within the fry batter. On that front, it probably mostly succeeds. It’s inoffensive, and I remember as a kid being fairly amused by it.

A tame enough level of ambition undercuts other things the film might accomplish. An attempt to re-acquire the strange off-the-wall quality of the early years of Saturday Night Live mostly fails in service of the need to make a film the whole family can enjoy. Maybe most of the major players had kids. I’m told that can change a person, especially while those kids are young. Maybe Belushi died and everyone sobered up. It probably made their lives better, but the film does sadly suffer.

Another strange flex that the film can’t quite follow through on is the sheer tonnage of its cast. Almost everyone who has a connection to SNL or to well-regarded TV of the age brings to mind the over-stuffed cast of It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). Whereas that film expands its scope to accommodate giving everyone in the guild work, this film breaks apart at less than 90 minutes, again, likely in a an attempt to be the most risk-averse commodity possible.

Analyze This (1999)

Director: Harold Ramis

Cast: Robert de Niro, Billy Crystal, Lisa Kudrow, Chazz Palmentieri

Have I Seen It Before: Oh sure. It was one of those R-rated movies that my parents let me see in those scant few years before I could just bypass their authority altogether.

Did I Like It: Back in those days when watching the movie was a special treat, I thought it was tremendous, causing me to put the movie in the same class as Ramis' work on Ghostbusters (1984) and especially Groundhog Day (1993). I kinda wanted to be Harold Ramis, if I'm being honest. A purveyor of funny comedies whose scripts actually work plot-wise. This was before his eventual petering out with duds like Bedazzled (2000) and Year One (2009), and certainly before subsequent Ghostbusters movies became occasions to memorialized him.

As a critic, one doesn't want to let the variables of one's own mood or environment, but I'm going to say that it was probably a bad idea to watch this film immediately after watching The Godfather (1972). But it’s also not a great idea that the film wants to invite all of those comparisons. Sobol’s (Crystal) dream sequence where he is Marlon Brando and Vitti (De Niro) is John Cazale during the assassination attempt in the earlier film not only smacks of self-reference via identification only and forgetting to bring some sort of commentary to the proceedings. It also highlights that Coppola and his cinematography Gordon Willis can be frequently mimicked, but rarely captured*.

The rest of the film leans to heavily on the personalities of its two stars to really ever succeed on its own terms. De Niro leans into the monosyllabic and Crystal spills forth with schtick that I want to remind them both that they’re not suffering through a talk show appearance or hosting the Oscars.

For all the good it might do them.

*Boy, that one scene in Barbie (2023) really had my number, didn’t it?

The Odd Couple (1968)

Director: Gene Saks

Cast: Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, John Fielder, Herb Edelman

Have I Seen It Before: Sad to confess, never. Growing up doing speech tournaments, I probably saw scenes from this—and from other Simon plays—far too many times to think of it as anything other than the blandest possible material for generally untalented performers.

I understand those might be fighting words.

Did I like It: I always get a little leery of movies based on stage plays. Sure, converting a musical into a film can work, the visual flourishes and the otherworldly quality of the production practically yearns to become a film. But down-to-earth stories about two people talking in a room is going to have a hard time justifying itself beyond just a taped performance of the play itself. Even the classic theatrical adaptations that immediately come to mind struggle with this problem. Something like A Few Good Men (1992) still feels like a story that could be told with the barest of sets, and Dracula (1931)* never feels like anything other than a stage play.

So, you can imagine my utter surprise when I come away from The Odd Couple marveling at how good it looks. With some real photography skill behind it, and shooting on real film, the rather pedestrian setting of Oscar Madison’s (Matthau) apartment has light and depth and shadow. I mourn for the droves of comedies now shot on digital (even the above average ones) that all look like their only visual ambition is to meet Netflix’s technical standards.

You’re probably wondering by this point if I ever managed to get over the photography and actually learn to enjoy Simon’s work. I laughed more than a few times, and it was probably nice to see the whole thing come together, as opposed to just the scenes adolescents needed to try to remember so they could get an A in what they had always assumed would be a blow-off class. That might read as damning with faint praise, but that might be all I have for it, writing wise. It’s more than I thought I would have, going in.

*Which is much more of an adaptation of the ubiquitous theatrical play originally by Hamilton Deane than of anything written by Bram Stoker.

Deep Impact (1998)

Director: Mimi Leder.

Cast: Robert Duvall, Téa Leoni, Elijah Wood, Morgan Freeman

Have I Seen It Before: Set aside, for a moment, the reality that the summer of 1998 was just one of those summers where I made it a point to see everything I could (Hope Floats, anyone?), you didn't get out of that summer having an opinion about the two big asteroids coming for the Earth films*.

Did I Like It: And now it's time for me to share those opinions, too. The lore around this movie is that it is the "smarter" version of the story, as opposed to its brother from a different studio. That's ultimately true, but l also think that forces almost every person on the planet to give Deep Impact more credit than it ultimately deserves.

Sure, Deep Impact reaches for emotions, whereas other movies are content with manipulation.

Indeed, there's some attempt at real science fiction, where there's a moment in that other movie where a character solemnly develops Space Madness, which I believe was cribbed from an episode of Ren & Stimpy. This one also has a score from James Horner, which automatically makes it better than most films you get in any particular summer, and a good measure better than any film that is to come**

But the reality is that Deep impact can really only be called a smart movie when it is compared to one of the silliest, most ridiculous films to ever blow out the speakers at your multiplex. It is a movie-of-the-week, with a cast of dozens, and plenty of moments of movie emotions, but it is still a big summer movie built with the largest, least discerning audience in mind. When compared with that animal crackers scene, however, Deep Impact suddenly transforms into a film for serious grown people only.

Deep Impact is the cinematic equivalent of my father growing up. His older brother was a wild child. Notoriously, legendarily so. I think Bart Simpson may have been partly based on my uncle.

Was my father a particularly well-behaved child? I don't tend to think so, but when those comparisons come in, I can see why my grandparents thought he was the calmer one.

Huh. And I didn't think I could get through an entire review of this movie without mentioning Armageddon (1998). There. I ruined it.

"I have no trouble imagining many of the people with those opinions didn't bother to see both films. I'll leave you to guess which one they did see.

**Maybe the Avatar sequels. Maybe.

Black Bag (2025)

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Cast: Cate Blanchett, Michael Fassbender, Marisa Abela, Tom Burke

Have I Seen it Before: Never. Brand new. I really got to pick up my pace with the new releases. This year has been weird.

Did I Like It: I was probably going to like this film, however it ultimately turned out. I’m a supreme sucker for those times when Soderbergh feels the need to reach for something with a mainstream sheen. I had patience for the Ocean’s movies far longer than anyone else.

But there’s something oddly refreshing about the film beyond that which is worthy of note. Do I seem needlessly geriatric if I say that the mere act of going to a new movie that isn’t a cheap horror movie and/or comic book is refreshing enough? Probably not, as I do also enjoy those kinds of movies, but this experience was certainly nice. Also, the fact that it was only just-over ninety minutes long, it hardly had any time to wear out its welcome. That one makes me seem hopelessly immature. Trying to have all the right opinions is exhausting sometimes.

Beyond all that, the film has a fascinating concept at its core. A stylish spy thriller is always fun, but I’m bereft of another example of a spy story fueled by two characters who are pointedly committed to their marriage. Obviously one can ignore the Bond series*, or even the Mission: Impossible films. One can even set aside a film like Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) or True Lies (1994) would fit the bill, as they’re both about a marriage breaking apart under espionage and intrigue. Those who go up against George Woodhouse (Fassbender) and Kathryn St. Jean (Blanchett) come up short because their marriage is impenetrable.

*Incidentally, I think Pierce Brosnan is not getting enough credit (story of his life, probably) for not showing a hint of his Bond in a role we all might have forgiven him for doing so. As all my reviews for the Bond franchise up until this point are done, this may be my first opportunity to say this, but: With all due respect to him, if the new powers that be in the franchise want to do an “Old Man Bond” story, first, I think No Time To Die (2021) probably covered a lot of that ground, and I would really prefer a third Dalton movie in any event.

The Dead Pool (1988)

Director: Buddy Van Horn

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Patricia Clarkson, Liam Neeson, Jim Carrey

Have I Seen it Before: Never. And now I’ve seen all of the Dirty Harry films.

Did I Like It: I’d been looking so forward to this one, given the absolutely bananas cast on display, all before they became anything that would be featured above the title. Carrey is here before Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) made him a permanent light in the firmament, and even before Neeson because “that one guy in cool films who isn’t Bruce Campbell” in Darkman (1990). I honestly don’t think I’ve managed to overhype myself on a movie this much since The Flash (2023).

I was really wanting it to be bananas, all the while knowing that I was setting myself up for a goodly amount of disappointment. It never even occurred to me that Carrey is only here in the role of the guy that they find dead in the first few minutes of a Law & Order episode.

There’s probably a reason that both Neeson and Carrey had to wait for another couple of years before they could be considered stars, and it is probably the same reason that Eastwood swore off the prospect of another entry in the series*. This is not the triumphant conclusion one might think of. It’s not oddly funny like The Enforcer (1976), but it might be unreasonable to expect a part five of a series to reach up to the heights of previous entries. The real damning thing here is that Harry may simply not be the hero that the 80s need. Gone are the days where most Americans felt lost amidst a world that was growing too fast for them, and seemed like it had gone completely insane. That’s where Harry thrived: being grumpy but strangely fair among people he would never understand. Now he just seems grumpy.

*He could have gotten away with—and probably be forgiven for—making the main character of Gran Torino (2008) the Unforgiven (1992) for Callahan.

Heart Eyes (2025)

Director: Josh Ruben

Cast: Olivia Holt, Mason Gooding, Gigi Zumbado, Michaela Watkins

Have I Seen it Before: Nope. I’ll admit that it somehow missed my radar altogether, but a last-minute re-working of the Beyond the Cabin in the Woods schedule brought me here.

Did I Like It: I can’t readily recall the last time I’ve been on such a roller coaster with a movie. For the first stretch it feels like it is going to be a fun gore-fest, somewhere in the vein of the Evil Dead series (and likely competing with The Monkey (2025) for screens and audiences). It also wants to weave romantic comedy tropes into the trappings of a horror movie. It worked for Shaun of the Dead (2004), why can’t it work here*?

Then it settles into the comfortable slasher rhythm that has become ubiquitous in the wave of Scream (1996) and its more recent sequels. I’m sitting there not being terribly frightened (I might be past the time where a slasher elicits any kind of real fear) and I’m more concerned with trying to figure out who did it.

I’m kind of tired watching a horror movie and slowly realizing I’m watching less of a horror movie and actually watching what amounts to a cozy mystery**.

But then something happens in the third act that gave me a strange sense of hope. The mystery suddenly becomes incidental to the murder and mayhem. For a moment, I almost dared hope that the pure simplicity of John Carpenter might be heading for its renaissance.

Then the film goes on for another twenty minutes and veers right into being just another Scream clone. Disappointment abounds.

*Spoiler alert for the end of the review: The reason it won’t work is because few people are Edgar Wright. Shaun works because the horror works, and the romantic comedy works. This movie ends up being a mashup of the later Scream-quels and something like Crazy Stupid Love (2011), when I’d really love to see a mashup of You’ve Got Mail (1998) and Halloween (1978). But I get why film studios hesitate to make films they can only market to me.

**There are few terms in the world that set my teeth on edge more than “cozy mystery.” I have my reasons.