Dog Day Afternoon (1975)

Director: Sidney Lumet

Cast: Al Pacino, John Cazale, James Broderick, Charles During

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure. I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, but it’s been so long since I saw it, that some where in the back of my head I thought Pacino and Cazale played lovers in the film. How did I misremember the final act so thoroughly?

Did I Like It: I’ll go a little beyond the question of just liking it—Cazale is in the film, ergo it’s a classic, and your cinematic education is likely incomplete until you’ve seen it. It’s a perfect picture of the collective American psychosis decades before it ever took hold of us all. The irretrievable fusion of rationalization and desperation. Violence as heroism. Masculinity never quite being what it appears on the surface. The media as a willing accomplice for… well, whoever is willing to use them at the moment. There is nothing about the story of Sonny (Pacino) and Sal (Cazale) that couldn’t happen today, other than the fact that I don’t think the FBI would take so much pains to not put down a hostage situation over fourteen hours.

So many people I talk to blanche at the idea of classic movies. I even had a friend who proclaimed that he never watches movies released before he was born. After they brought me back to consciousness, I eventually got to the realization that people like me might oversell such cinematic staples*, so let me try to make this a little more attractive to you:

It seems like it’s the kind of drama that people in the 70s used to keep themselves in a state of perpetual depression. Or maybe it’s a thriller. Stories about bank robberies are often thrillers.

It’s really a comedy. Pacino even says as much. Dramas usually end in catharsis: This doesn’t. Thrillers—especially the ones about bank robberies—are about plans that go wrong. This is about three guys with no plan, and their scheme almost works.

*I refer you to the top of the last paragraph.

Tomorrowland (2015)

Director: Brad Bird

Cast: George Clooney, Hugh Laurie, Britt Robertson, Raffey Cassidy

Have I Seen It Before: I think it might have indeed been the last film I ever saw in 35mm outside of the Circle. There was definitely some grain there, and some cigarette holes.

I’ll admit that it might have been that the second-run theater* was really having some trouble with its digital projection.

Did I Like It: I’m kind of heartened to re-visit the film, if I’m being honest. It’s total failure means that I can sit, enjoy the film for what it is, have my opinions about it, and not have to engage in some kind of half-assed tribalism in the internet about it, and most importantly, I don’t have to sit through half a dozen sequels that have no rationale for existing beyond the fact that it’s been a few years since the last time we had a Tomorrowland film, and George Clooney would like to buy a new villa**.

That being said, I think there are some real reasons the film failed. It wants to have lofty ideas*** but only manages to put together a tame adventure story that pretty much ends exactly where you would think it was going as you’re watching the film’s first few minutes. Trying to grab the world’s problems with both hands is noble, sure, but if the last ten years have taught us anything****, its that focusing on what you think are the world’s problems to the exception of everything else tends to create new problems.

*Kids, ask your parents.

**I may still be working through some issues leftover from recently watching the Pirates of the Caribbean. Come to think of it, what other possible explanation would there be ofr making a point like that?

***If we broaden the definition of “lofty ideas” to include the gentlest possible version of Ayn Rand-ian self-absorption possible.

****Fairly confident we haven’t learned anything; call me an optimist.

This is 40 (2012)

Director: Judd Apatow

Cast: Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, John Lithgow, Megan Fox

Have I Seen It Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: I’m not sure why I waited until I was 41 (or 41 1/2, technically, and even more technically eight hands and an extra finger and a thumb) to watch this one, but it seemed like there was something sort of ominous and defeatist about watching it in my thirties.

And that feeling was probably unwarranted. There are things about reaching your forties that are unavoidable, and most of them aren’t even that bad. I think middle age is probably mostly something of a cakewalk, as long as one doesn’t burn through money at a rate that might otherwise cause someone to become a ward of the state. If you’re like Pete (Rudd) and Debbie (Mann), the early portions of that fifth decade are a rapidly combusting race to becoming their own fathers (Lithgow, and Albert Brooks). If Apatow makes good on his threats and some of use feel compelled to sit through a This is 50, I’m assuming they’re going to have to mainain emotional distance and borrow money from Maude and Iris.

There’s no way to view the comedy as glutted in its runtime can be consistently satisfying. Write it up to too much praise over a short amount of time for Apatow, and so we’re subjected to a two-hour plus home movie. It’s occasionally funny, because it is made by funny people. But that doesn’t make a great comedy. A great comedy obscures the author to become something a little more in service of a story, and a little more in service of engendering the sympathy of the audience.

And, above all, it needs to be a lot funnier. Some chuckles over two-plus hours? Your average is way, way down.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

Director: Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg

Cast: Johnny Depp, Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Geoffrey Rush

Have I Seen it Before: Maybe, probably? I have a vague inkling that I saw Bardem’s character before, but I may have just seen an ad at some point during the initial film’s release.

Did I Like It: I’m more than a little stuck trying to come up with at least 300 words more to say about this series. The <first film> surprised everyone. It did this largely by being made despite the studios seemingly better judgment and actually making a simple action movie that was mostly about a lunatic pirate who was willing to do absolutely anything to get his ship back.

Three more movies ensued, and the Mouse House—as they can occasionally do—gave us more of what they thought worked. More byzantine plots, more water-logged monsters, and more and more special effects.

This film shaped up to be something of a course correction from the previous sequels, with Jack Sparrow (Depp) back in the position of an underdog pirate captain with no ship to captain. That gets us through half an hour, during which we have a fairly fun action set piece involving Sparrow and his crew largely failing at a bank robbery. Then we are lost in a sea (pun not intended, but I accept the responsibility for it) of cascading plot developments, to the point where the boredom of the previous sequels are back with a vengeance.

We’re now nearly ten years since this film, and the entire time we’ve been living under the threat of one more entry. Could you even bear to look at Sparrow in his 60s* trying to swagger his way through a laundry list of “We need to go get the item from the place!” lines?

Yeah, me neither.

*No worries there, Disney is plenty willing to de-age him, as evidenced here.

Office Space (1999)

Director: Mike Judge

Cast: Ron Livingston, Jennifer Aniston, Stephen Root, Gary Cole

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure. We all had a good laugh when I started the day job that still drags on 40 hours per week and every cubicle had a brand new red Swingline stapler.

I’m not sure if everyone got the joke at hand…

Did I Like It: As with any cult comedy—and Mike Judge is certainly hit the target twice on that with this and Idiocracy (2006)—it’s the lines people tend to remember. You took my stapler. O face. That’d be great. TPS reports. Even silent moments live in the collective consciousness, like the scene where our heroes exact their righteous vengeance on the fax machine* that had so thoroughly stymied their days.

What we don’t really talk about is how insanely relatable not only the drudgeries of life at Initech are—regardless of whatever field you may have conned into pretending to give you a living wage. Whatever problems I—and, from what I understand, Judge himself—has with the too-tidy ending, there is something profound in the film’s meditation on how not only most people don’t like their jobs, but a job is fundamentally unreliable as a source of any kind of real happiness.

I kind of wish I had internalized that lesson before the proverbial they handed me my own red stapler way back when. Might have made the last fifteen or so years a little easier to swallow. At least I think I’ve worked out what does work about life for what may end up being the next fifteen.

*Because killing Lumbergh (Cole) would have been a lot harder to slink out of in the third act with only a positive attitude and a deus ex machina to guide them.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

Director: Rob Marshall

Cast: Johnny Depp, Penélope Cruz, Ian McShane, Geoffrey Rush

Have I Seen it Before: Yes. I’m almost sure I did. I have a fairly distinct memory of watching Depp escape from London. Lora and I talked about it, and although the memory is dim, we were together and almost had to have gone and seen it.

Did I Like It: Remember when I said, in my review of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007) that, at the very least, I could always attach myself to the fact that Geoffrey Rush always seem to enjoy being in these movies.

So much for that. Barbosa gets his moments as the film ramps up to its conclusions where he can shed off the inexplicable obedience to the crown, where glimmers of fun start to come back up again—it’s as close as any character gets to having a character arc—but they are diminished indeed.

Beyond that, the franchise feels supremely out of gas. Whatever chaos made him so watchable in Curse of the Black Pearl has become so predictable that it spent most of the last decade seeping into every character he plays other than Sparrow. The brilliant scenes of ships at sea are restricted to the barest of minimums. The story is bereft of any sort of forward momentum, leaving us with a relatively short runtime, but I can’t get the sense at any point that we’re being treated to anything other than a handful of long pre-determined action set pieces lightly glued together with some padded runtime.

I might close the book on the series—and maybe films based on theme park rides at large—by saying that this might be a textbook case of a film being created simply because it has been a while since we’ve been subjected to an entry…

But then there’s always the ominous clouds of a fifth movie, and the ever-present threat of a theoretical sixth, spinoffs, and beyond.

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple (2026)

Director: Nia DaCosta

Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Jack O’Connell, Alfie Williams, Erin Kellyman

Have I Seen it Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: Is it entirely possible that my favorite zombie movie of all time is resolute in its desire to feature the least amount of zombies possible and still be called a zombie movie?

I think it’s certainly possible. My favorite—and it really should have been your favorite—part about last year’s 28 Years Later was Fiennes masterful performance as the simultaneously slightly insane, but also deeply kind Dr. Ian Kelson. On that front, this almost-immediate sequel doubles down on Feinnes and his character. It even let’s Jack O’Connell slowly cement himself as the 21st century’s answer to Donald Pleasance* after last year’s Sinners with another suitably villainous turn.

It’s well made, often very surprising, and as is so often not the case in this genre, the ending is both tragic and satisfying. It is truly a synthesis of the best of last year’s horror.

So, why do I feel so muted about the whole experience. There’s at least something to saying my theater experience attempted to ruin the whole experience. With a screening delayed over half an hour and a concession stand drowning in late stage capitalism, I’ve long since wondered if the multiplex is prepared to live much longer. Now I’m sure their days are numbered.

Really, I think this film is giving me too much of what I wanted from it. O’Connell doesn’t really surprise me here. I know what he is capable of. Kelson as a character isn’t a refreshing bolt of humanity in a genre and film series that could be understood if not quite forgiven for abandoning the human qualities. It’s exactly what I wanted out of it, and I guess I’m looking for films to take the wind out of me.

*I said what I said.

Demolition Man (1993)

Director: Marco Brambilla

Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes, Sandra Bullock, Nigel Hawthorne

Have I Seen it Before: Lives with that long line of R-rated actioners that were waiting for me when I turned 17 and not even the MPAA could stop me. It might live a little interchangeably in my head with Judge Dread (1995). Yet another reason to view Rob Schneider (uncredited but positively pockmarking the film) with suspicion.

Did I Like It: You, know I’m almost willing to say that I do. It is at or near the top of Stallone films in the 1990s. even though that isn’t exactly the decade he shined most brightly. It’s made with a brisk pace, and while it’s humor might be confused for being just on the wrong side of winking, but it’s all in service of its fundamental concept, introducing admittedly stock action movie characters into a classic sci-fi dystopian utopia.

And yet, I’ve got some issues, too. Had the film been set centuries ahead of the 1990s-set prologue, instead of decades, they would have been able to sell the whole thing a lot better, and all they would lose for the tweak is a small moment between Stallone and the one cop (Bill Cobbs) who had been around in Spartan’s time as a rookie, but now is an old man. I might be willing to cede that this becomes all the more glaring as I am writing this just a stone’s throw from the future the film depicts, but am I supposed to believe human society changed that much in the span of thirty years? The pop culture of the 1990s has all but disappeared? Language has changed that much? Sex* and going to the bathroom have changed so much that there’s barely even the language to be aware of the differences?

Not quite.

*Which Spartan seems all too eager to jump into just hours after realizing his wife is dead.

The 4:30 Movie (2024)

Director: Kevin Smith

Cast: Austin Zajur, Nicholas Cirillo, Reed Northrup, Siena Agudong

Have I Seen it Before: Never. It appealed to me more on spec than any Kevin Smith film since Clerks II (2006), and yet I couldn’t quite bring myself to go to the theater.

Did I Like It: When the film is about characters falling in love while trying to sneak into what is obviously, but legally distinct from Fletch (1985)*, it’s very possibly Smith’s most heartfelt, honest, and charming film. Kevin Smith’s got a good fifteen years on me, but I’ve got my own story about the slings and arrows of young love, and one of the ancillary pieces of trivia from that moment in time is a VHS copy of Chevy Chase’s best movie.

That would have been more than enough to sell the movie, but apparently it wasn’t enough to satisfy Smith. When the film is a shooting gallery for “reference to just how much a sacred cultural cow of the 1980s is viewed differently in the mid-2020s” it begins to become something groan-worthy. I leaned into a bit of a headache when Sam Richardson stops the movie cold to go on a little Bill Cosby rant. Not because Cosby doesn’t deserve it, but because there was more winking at the camera in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001).

Then there’s where the film really started to lose me, mostly in its final minutes. Plenty of people have probably moved on from the point where they were most into Smith’s work. So, a film that decides to unravel from being a lightly autobiographical romp to a full blown attempt to make Bluntman Begins. There’s an extended scene—after the main plot is exhausted, you’ll know it when you see it—where it is 100 percent clear the entire time what the reverse angle is looking at, even though you hope against all hope that Smith won’t go there. The scene goes on forever, just holding that other shot at a distance.

Then Smith goes there. Oh, well. I guess we’ll always have Fletch.

*Which, incidentally, was not rated-R, but these are minor quibbles.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

Director: Gore Verbinski

Cast: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsgård

Have I Seen It Before: I remember it ending. I remember Keith Richards. I had to have been here.

Did I Like It: It’s the same plot-gorged drudgery that weighs down a lot of trilogy closers. So many people are switching sides, seemingly at the drop of a hat, that the screenwriters are seriously over-estimating our desire to keep up with these matters. That might be enough to treat simply as white noise, but the real let-down here is the complete surrender to CGI. Did any of us realize that the secret sauce of these movies up until this point was not Johnny Deep looking like a lunatic, but in fact that in a year beginning with the number 2 a major studio would have any interest in—or the negligence to—allowing a movie to shoot on the actual ocean. Those days are long since gone, even by the third movie. I mourn when I might actually watch the following films.

We’ve all spent some time re-evaluating Johnny Depp, and rightly so. He’s maybe/probably not guilty of everything he’s ever been accused of, but he does seem like a lot, and that he’s long since lost whatever spark made him unpredictable in these films, and legitimately great in stuff like Ed Wood (1994). You know who’s not talked about enough—especially since he was almost completely absent from Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006)—in these films? Geoffrey Rush. Even when things were far better than they had any right being—in the first Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (2003), all the way through any future films with which we might be threatened by this series, he never looks like he is having anything less than fun. These movies might have always been a bit beneath him, but he will never, ever let us know. I admire that much at least.

Marty Supreme (2025)

Director: Josh Safdie

Cast: Timothée Chalamet, Gwyneth Paltrow, Odessa A’zion, Kevin O’Leary

Have I Seen It Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: I missed—and continue missing—the whole Uncut Gems (2019) thing, so there’s a part of me that felt like I missed the beginning of the Safdie party.

So I didn’t know what was getting into. I was probably going to be annoyed by Paltrow and Chalamet, who have annoyed me in the past*.

And as such, it winds up being the perfect vehicle for them. Their characters might be the worst people who were ever imagined. They are generally surrounded by a series of equally terrible people, except for Koto Endo (Koto Kawaguchi), who is perfect pure, and in a simpler time would have warranted a film all his own. This terrible-by-design quality makes the ever-increasing series of awful events that befall them at least mildly satisfying. Its a well-shot, well-cast film that never makes me dis-believe its early-1950s setting. If somebody were to put this film above Sinners (2025) as their favorite movie of the year, I wouldn’t judge them too terribly harshly in their fundamental incorrectness.

But that miles of established behavior also makes the ending, where Marty’s (Chalamet) heart suddenly grows several sizes and he is moved to absolute tears by the fact that the child he denied the entire film winds up getting birthed. What am I supposed to feel at the end of the movie? Marty’s a good person now? He’s going to be a good father and husband, or even a somewhat competent one? Will he never pick up a ping-pong paddle again? Will he ever be able to make a dime doing anything? Will he spend the rest of his life in prison? All are possible, some are even plausible. I enjoyed the ride, but I still feel like everyone’s getting off a little light in a world that easily lets people off lightly.

*They don’t annoy me like Jared Leto annoys me, so don’t get too excited.

Night of the Living Dead (1990)

Director: Tom Savini

Cast: Tony Todd, Patricia Tallman, Tom Towles, McKee Anderson

Have I Seen it Before: Never. What with my well-known apathy towards the zed-word, it’s entirely possible I wasn’t even aware a remake of the original Night of the Living Dead (1968) existed, until it was put on the schedule of season-premiere for Beyond the Cabin in the Woods.

Did I Like It: While I felt like the last act of the film descended into the kind of zombie-sameness that works better than a horse tranquilizer* that keeps me from being a complete convert, the first half works far more effectively. Savini wastes no time just starting the action apace. This no-nonsense approach to the genre very nearly lulls me into a false sense of security that this will be a breathless chase against the forces of Judgment Day. If things had kept up with this pace, the characters might not have had any time to slow things down and slowly realize that the non-dead are just as much monsters as the undead.

But it was not meant to be. Had things stayed with just Todd and Tallman, we could have had an almost perfect minimalist entry in the genre. But there just had to be more people in the cellar…

And a group of rednecks who are just itching to domesticate the ghouls.

And a news broadcast that tells us about the unravelling of human society that can only be ebbed by destroying the reanimated’s brain.

And a beloved character who is turned before the end credits, followed immediately thereafter by another beloved character who is prepared to re-enter the world, unbitten but no less dehumanized.

*It’s probably unfair to judge it too harshly for these sins. The Walking Dead may have completely killed in me the thing that allows people to like depictions of zombies, but Walking Dead was just aping Romero’s work in beating that undead horse.

The Death of Stalin (2017)

Director: Armando Iannucci

Cast: Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell Beale, Paddy Considine, Rupert Friend

Have I Seen it Before: Never. It feels like a film I’ve always been orbiting around watching, but kept missing it for one reason or another.

Did I Like It: I remember being very down on Ridley Scott’s Napoleon (2023) for a myriad of historical sins, the most egregious of them being that not only did every figure depicted speak English, they also appeared to be writing in English as well. Now, this film engages in a lot of the same chicanery as displayed in that film, with a cast that is blissfully content to either sound 100% American or British while they bicker their way to a post-Stalin politburo. Here, I’m fine with it.

Why? Because it’s a damn comedy is why. From all accounts, this is a fairly accurate depiction of a pointedly preposterous series of events. I don’t know what Ridley Scott’s excuse is, but Armando Iannucci is absolutely running laps around him with this one. My favorite gag in the entire film is when the politburo decides to pause mass executions, after which we cut to one final guy getting shot by a firing squad, and the next guy in line realizing he can just walk away. An absolutely perfect depiction, if ever there was one, of the insanity of a government out of control.

I don’t think the film would have hit the same as it did when it hit wider release in 2018. Applying the same sense of open-eyed cynicism Iannucci brought to American politics in Veep and British politics to the horrors of the peak of the Soviet system. We live in a time where it’s easy—and plenty rationale—to be afraid of the faceless horrors of our current system, but there’s more than a little bit of comfort to remember that it’s run by a bunch of childish fools who are just a few moments away from being completely removed from everything they reflexively hold dear.

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)

Director: Adam Marcus

Cast: John D. LeMay, Kari Keegan, Erin Gray, Allison Smith

Have I Seen it Before: Never. It’s definitely one of those horror movie posters that captures the imagination of a kid who didn’t know any better. Did Jason Voorhees (Kane Hodder) always have some kind of weird snake demon living behind his hockey mask? Why haven’t the films been more about the snake demon this whole time?

I guess that’s a pretty good poster, if there’s more mystery on display there than anywhere else in the film.

Did I Like It: Knowing that the fanbase of the series views this film with a great degree of suspicion, I had to catch myself before expecting something great, or even above average from the ninth in the series.

While the Friday the 13th series started as a cheap, calculated knockoff of the Halloween franchise, something simultaneously interesting and depressing happened as the series progressed. As its classier ancestor almost immediately weighed itself down in a glut of mythology and continuity, eschewing whatever made it unnerving in the first place, the purveyors of the semi-annual outings with Jason Voorhees were content to just give the people that would pay money to see a Friday the 13th movie exactly what they want. Pre-marital sex, and chopping. Continuity is meaningless. At one point I think Corey Feldman was meant to play the Jamie Lee Curtis of the series, but it never took. Jason could die in all sorts of pretty conclusive manners, and the next film isn’t even going to address what might have happened. I think any number of films began with him at the bottom of Crystal Lake several times over the course of these films, but I honestly don’t remember a single ending of a film that involved him being thrown in that lake.

And as this film opens up, things appear to be still on the the “who gives a shit” track. While Friday the 13th: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989) ends with hockey man melting in the nightly rush of toxic waste pumped under Times Square, he’s back to his whole self here. No explanations needed, offered, or particularly wanted.

But then things fly off the tracks. Jason isn’t Jason, he’s the evil that lives within him. That evil can be reborn fully with the help of a blood relative, or it can be destroyed forever with the help of that blood relative…

Now where have I heard that before?

Does he got to hell? Is this truly the final Friday? You can guess the answers to that with some accuracy. I’m just disappointed the snake demon thing is only arguably part of the film.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Director: Edgar Wright

Cast: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Chris Evans

Have I Seen it Before: Oh, sure.

Did I Like It: There are two forces at work here in the film. The first is the creative force of Edgar Wright at the height of his cinematic inventiveness, amidst a Hollywood system that would still allow him to let loose those talents. He comes here as close as anyone will to translating any kind of non-superhero comic directly to the screen. The influences seep in through every moment of the film, from the 8-bit tweak to the Universal logo, to the floating tiles, all the way to using the coins that appear after defeating an enemy for the bus. One would have been forgiven for assuming a property like Scott Pilgrim was never going to be adapted with any kind of faithfulness, but we were all* pleasantly surprises.

What’s more, I wondered if Wright’s magic could be implemented outside of his collaboration with Simon Pegg, but I was pleasantly surprised, just as I continue to be.

Then there’s the matter of the material itself. Enjoyable, yes. But how much can we root for a hero like Scott Pilgrim? He’s insensitive to the point of psychopathy. He’s just barely on the right side of some statutory stuff for most of the film. His grand catharsis doesn’t really make him much of a better person, it just makes him slightly less of an asshole, no matter how many special swords he might get for his efforts.

It’s almost as if the film is more about the characters surrounding Scott than Scott himself. Some might complain that makes the story about a callow jerk, and refuse to engage with it.

I’m not bothered by those problems.

*At least, those of us who knew what we were doing and watched it during its theatrical run.

Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025)

Director: James Cameron

Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang

Have I Seen It Before: Brand new.

Although…

Did I Like It: There are few directors who’ve had the track record that Cameron has. On a recent episode of Beyond the Cabin in the Woods I made the proclamation that even his worst film* was a cut above most films produced by most people.

Fire and Ash might test that assertion, but I tend to believe that it still holds up. It’s nice to look at, but I’m getting too much of a sense of deja vu here. Aside from the occasionally intriguing performance by Oona Chaplin as Varang**, the leader of the Ash People, there is almost nothing in this film that wasn’t covered already in Avatar: The Way of Water (2022).

Is it possible that Cameron has spent too much time on Pandora, and unlike Jake Sully, gotten bored of the whole thing? The fact that I can’t honestly remember where that magnetic anomaly in the ocean comes from during the film’s climate is certainly a sign that he may have lost a step as a storyteller. The way he’s been talking on this press tour—semi-threatening us with a Schwarzenegger-less Terminator sequel—I do start to wonder. I’d like to see him create something new, if he has it within him. But as this film already drifts on momentum alone towards the 1 billion mark, I imagine I’m probably going to politely show up for Avatar 4 and 5***.

*I assumed everyone would be on board with his worst film being The Abyss (1989), but had to revise when I realized many people weren’t as eventually charmed by the original Avatar (2009) as I was.

**I will admit that I can drop the names Jake Sully (Worthington), Neytiri (Saldaña), and Pandora, but the rest of the Avatar mythology melts into a ball of blue-skinned noise for me. (I may not be as charmed by this series as I’ve been insisting up until this point in the review.)

***Are we taking bets yet on the titles? Avatar: Up In the Air? Avatar: More Water Because Uncle Jim Never Really Gotten Over Titanic (1997)? Avatar: You’ve Already Bought a Ticket For The 2:45 iMAX 3D Showing, So You might As Well Show Up?

Can't Hardly Wait (1998)

Director: Deborah Kaplan, Harry Elfont

Cast: Ethan Embry, Charlie Korsmo, Lauren Ambrose, Jennifer Love Hewitt

Have I Seen It Before: Never. I was 14 when it came out, so the idea of graduating from High School seemed like a completely different planet. Which is weird, considering that 1998 was one of those summers (there have been a lot of them since) where I insisted on seeing everything I could get my eyes on. I looked up the box office figures from its opening weekend in search of a point I make later in the review, and realize without much doubt I opted to see Dirty Work that weekend, and remember enjoying it immensely.

Maybe I have seen it, and completely forgotten it.

Did I Like It: Which would explain a lot. Look at the film stacked against the great teen comedies, and it is left wanting. It reads like a shopping list of things one might want to include in a teen comedy. Throw in a soundtrack album someone might want to listen to, and you can make back your money as counter-programming to other summer fare (see above). That’s all that needs to happen, and that’s all the studio and the filmmakers are either capable of or interested in.

I’m left with questions after watching this film. No, not questions like one might have after finally seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) on the big screen. There are more fundamental question that betray a film not terribly thought through.

If Denise (Ambrose)—the character I most identified with—never bothered to get her senior pictures taken, why is she showing up to the party? I once got into a verbal argument with a parent moments before my own graduation, when she wanted to stamp my hand for the official graduation party, and I insisted that I was not going, and that she really should not be grabbing my wrist*. I didn’t get my senior picture taken, and I wouldn’t have been caught dead at any party graduation night. One wonders why I didn’t watch the movie for nearly thirty years.

This one is more of a personal note. When X-File #1 (Joel Michaely) and X-File #2 (Jay Paulson) are eventually taken up in a flying saucer**, they should have offered a coda—as they did with other characters—saying that they are still missing, and that anyone with information as to their whereabouts should call the FBI. That at least would have been the right follow-through for that gag. Then again, had I graduated in 1998, I would have skipped the party and gone to see The X-Files: Fight the Future (1998) instead.

Here’s the best question: For what precisely are these unable to hardly wait? You let me know, and maybe I’ll get turned around on the film.

*I really enjoy that story. If you’re out there, random helicopter mom: Thank you for one of those sterling examples of my own personality.

**Yes, that is how the characters are credited in the end-credits. Yes, it is the fate of the characters.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Director: Gore Verbinski

Cast: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsgård

Have I Seen It Before: Oh, sure. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) was such a surprise experience, one couldn’t help but be far more curious about the sequel. Far more curious than anyone was about the original when it first came out. Throw in the decision to produce this and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007) together, a la Back to the Future - Part II (1989) and Back to the Future - Part III (1990), I was certainly sold.

Did I Like It: Even at the time, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. There was just something missing, and it is only at this viewing that I am making any kind of effort to decide why. The simplest explanation is that, while most of the creative team is back, Hans Zimmer has replaced Klaus Badelt as composer. Zimmer is one of the all-time great film composers, but there was a special magic to Badelt’s score that only re-appears here as quotes of Badelt’s motif. It is a mercenary job, and a great example of just how important a film’s score can be to its total success.

But I think the problems will go deeper than that, and it goes back to that quality of anticipation. Not only was I anticipating another entry in the series, the directors and shareholders of the Walt Disney Company were, too. Verbinski and company could no longer fly under the radar, and so we’re left with a film that—like so many other sequels both before and after it—that echo moments that tested well from the original. It’s less a movie one might ever be surprised for, and more of a cinematic interpretation of a marketing report. Had Dead Man’s Chest been the first film, we might have been mildly entertained, but we would have been a very far distance from saying that a film based on a theme park ride has any right to be this good.

Nightfall (1956)

Director: Jacques Tourneur

Cast: Aldo Ray, Brian Keith, Anne Bancroft, Jocelyn Brando

Have I Seen it Before: Never. Just another entry at Noir Nights. With me having cut the chord to Turner Classic Movies—this is the only opportunity I have to regularly be surprised by a movie, just because it is on*.

Did I Like It: Well, I can think an issue I have with that title. Noir lives in the night, so a noir film calling itself Nightfall is kind of like a science fiction film calling itself Space Ship. That alone might pose a problem, but very little of this film takes place at night! The climax not only takes place amidst the daytime, but out among the icy campgrounds of Wyoming, shining light that makes the proceedings anything but noir-ish.

But it is that bright white snowiness that actually recommends the film, if I can find my way clear of wanting the Columbia PR department to change the title**. With it’s frozen lake climax amidst a snow plow gone mad, one can easily see where the Coen Brothers got their inspiration for the grislier parts of <Fargo (1996)>. It’s sort of a revelation to realize the wood chipper in that later film is actually the far more subtle version of the chopping up of pesky criminals, when compared with the snow plow finding the inspiration to change direction half a dozen times before the essentially good guy (Ray) triumphs over the perfect bastard (Rudy Bond). Even so, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy the ending, for all of its contrivance.

Without that ending, the film would have been just another pleasantly diverting, indistinguishable from the rest of the genre, noir picture. Now, at least, we’ll always have that snow plow.

*Yeah. I’m surprised, too, by how many of my reviews naturally drift to a eulogy for TCM. Maybe I need to bring that up in therapy…

**You can change the title of a novel adaptation if it no longer fits. You do know that, right, 1950s Columbia PR department?

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Director: Michael Curtiz, William Keighley

Cast: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Haviland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains

Have I Seen it Before: I’m horrified beyond my normal capacity for horror that I haven’t.

Did I Like It: There’s a bit of a problem with Robin of Locksley (Flynn) as we venture further into the deeply cynical waters of the twenty-first century. We’re obsessed, pretty much from the first script meeting for Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991), with making Robin Hood some semi-real figure in British history*, and making that history reflect our own. Kevin Costner needed to be the spoiled rich kid who’s childishness is obliterated by the insanity of Vietnam**… er, the Crusades, while Russell Crowe was a world-weary soldier that…

When did Robin Hood become a monolithic commentary on the the horrors of the world after the Kennedy assassination? Even Cary Elwes is content to sit and be content to comment on the unravelling of the English myth. Why can’t a Robin Hood film just be about a guy in a cap and with green tights*** who laughs in the face of danger and is prepared with equal parts of archery and swordsmanship to entertain us for at least 90 minutes?

Perhaps it can no longer be such because Errol Flynn mastered that image of England’s greatest archer so thoroughly, that we don’t even need to debate if there’s any point in doing a traditional interpretation of the hero anymore. Anything that follows this perfectly crafter adventure film would have to be content with dwelling in the arena of post-modern droning bores or parody.

*Accent optional.

**I might even be one of the few people who kind of like Prince of Thieves, and even my appreciation for that humdrum actioner is diminished when I realize for all of its straining attempts to bring Robin and his Merry Men into something relevant for a modern movie audience, it is stealing large chunks out of the plot this film created out of the legend.

***All right, Mel Brooks may have managed to cut through the sudden self-seriousness of the character, but the point still remains.