Stargate (1994)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: Kurt Russell, James Spader, Jaye Davidson, Alexis Cruz

Have I Seen it Before: For someone who only very recently and casually got into the vast television franchise this film launched, the VHS of this film was on regular rotation during my childhood, so much so that while watching this Director’s Cut for what I think is the first time, I was able to figure out what scenes had been rearranged and added in.

Did I Like It: As my wife and I have started our way through the long (too long? I assume we’ll find out) multiple television series, I can’t help but be consumed with one overwhelming thought:

This needs a little more James Spader*.

And the movie is more than willing to provide. It’s ultimately a B-movie that would have felt right at home with a z-grade budget produced by the studios of yesteryear, but with Spader’s unpredictable, sort of slithering movie-star quality, the film unfurling is more interesting to watch than the standard sci-fi fare of the era. 

The special effects don’t age exceptionally well, but that can hardly be held against the film as the more time passes the more films produced in the 90s are going to look like garbage graphics from a local news station. The shimmering water of the Stargate itself, or the slightly hypnotic screensaver quality of the transit between gates, and the shifting nature of the villains masks are just a couple of things that make the film a relic of its era. It’s strengths lie elsewhere. With sweeping epic desert shots that couldn’t be faked with CGI—and, admittedly were yanked directly from other, better films like Lawrence of Arabia (1962)—the film has a more interesting visual sense than you might expect from other big budget films, especially these days. It may derivative, sure, but at least it reaches for something a little more than its trappings.

*In case you’re wondering, as far as television series needing a certain degree of James Spader included, Stargate functions better with some Spader, Boston Legal cannot function at all without wall-to-wall Spader, and The Office would generally be better without Spader. It’s not a universal constant.

National Treasure (2004)

Director: Jon Turteltaub

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Harvey Keitel, Jon Voight, Diane Kruger

Have I Seen it Before: Yes…

I think.

Did I Like It: This movie has a certain place in the mythology of my house. My wife (then girlfriend) and I were on a road-trip to Washington DC to attend the Rally To Restore Sanity/Fear in 2010. It was a miserable trip, packed for days into a bus filled with other Oklahomans who apparently could only subsist on a diet of all-you-can-eat buffets. What’s more, we missed the Rally. My intention was to propose to Lora as close as possible to the command module Columbia, but an absolutely packed National Mall made that impossible.

So, I proposed in front of the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives.

That’s it. That’s the whole anecdote, and the primary reason why everyone in my family gets a wry smile on their face whenever the subject of the film comes out.

And so, I’m watching it like it’s been a family tradition to watch it repeatedly. And I’m not remembering much of it. Like, I kept expecting Christopher Plummer to show up again. I even remembered him showing up again in the movie, but he doesn’t show up.

Why is that? Could it be that it’s a pretty forgettable movie? A smoothed-out Disneyfied heist movie that would feel inaccurate to anyone who had so much as heard of American History? A weird commercial for the Freemasons? Could it feature a weirdly sedated Nicolas Cage, the one film actor in all of cinema who you bring on to add an undercurrent of crazy to the proceedings? Is it possible the score is a weird mish-mash of high-action epic and forensic procedural?

No, it’s probably none of those things. Ultimately, it’s probably the fact that the rotunda at the National Archives are nowhere near that brightly lit, because I’ve been there.

10 Things I Hate About You (1999)

Director: Gil Junger

Cast: Julia Stiles, Heath Ledger, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Larisa Oleynik

Have I Seen it Before: Yes. I’m struggling to remember if I saw it in the theater. I know being an adolescent in the early portions of the 21st century, I might have just absorbed the movie, but I want to say I actually went and saw it in the theater. It’s telling about me that I’m far more bothered by not remembering when I first saw this movie than I am by not remembering anything that actually happened to me before I turned age 18.

Did I Like It: There’s no denying that in the post-Hughes era of teen comedies, this one is—if not smarter—certainly the most literate entry. Orange County (2002) is perhaps more manically funny, Election (1999) is a little more relevant to our current rolling national nightmare, but this one’s based on a Shakespeare play, and the movie will not let fifteen minutes of screen time roll by without reminding us of that. It’s still something of a virtue. 

The title is… fine. If it had nothing more to recommend it, I have a vision of it disappearing in the gust of wind that swept every last Blockbuster Video from the earth.

Its more tangible virtues lie in the sudden emergence of Heath Ledger as a verifiable movie star. He’s certainly the most interesting actor on first blush, but the fact that he seemed to arrive with all of his charisma in full on this, his first major release. Maybe his reputation as a latter-day James Dean only makes this debut more remarkable, but name for me the amount of verifiable film stars that arrived like this. Maybe the film around him could have been more memorable, but it could have also been a real shitshow.

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020)*

Director: Cathy Yan

Cast: Margot Robbie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez

Have I Seen it Before: Nope.

Did I Like It: Suicide Squad (2016) was a muddled mess of editing and miscasting. The fact that Margot Robbie’s performance as Harley Quinn was able to be a bright point in one of the more boring wide-release films in recent years definitely warrants her welcome return under different creative stewardship.

And the film is terrific. It brings the sensibilities of someone like Shane Black into the DC Universe. It’s a film that’s funny, the characters are likable (even when they are gleefully being unlikable), and there isn’t one point in the writing where I wonder how this thing got out of the studio. This would automatically put it above most DC films released in the last ten years.

Like Wonder Woman (2017) before it, Birds of Prey manages to bring a DC character to life without making large swaths of the audience alternately bored and uncomfortable. Now, granted, there are choices in this movie that will piss off the contingent of movie internet who have spent the last several weeks telling anyone who would listen that Parasite (2019) stole something very precious from <Joker (2019)>, but those types of people have enough to occupy their time so their tired complaints about the film aren’t worth acknowledging, to say nothing of dwelling upon.

It also may be the most sensuous breakfast porn I’ve ever seen. Seriously, I’m less than an hour past my screening of the film and I’ve wanted nothing but an egg sandwich ever since.

I do have two thoughts that I implore you, dear reader, to not take as complaints, but more as missed opportunities to my particular taste. There is a prolonged action sequence in the impound locker of Gotham City Police Department precinct, and it looks like any other impound lockup from any other cop movie you’ve ever seen. The film could have had a menagerie of thing taken from many of the Rogue’s Gallery. Harley could try to fell the mercenaries with an umbrella gun, and—in keeping with the themes of the film—find it utterly lacking in destructive power. A similar moment could be played out with a hand-grenade made out of a set of chattering teeth. There are other suggestions I have, but I won’t trouble you with them now. The film’s title has already received a revision since its opening, we don’t want this to be a Cats (2019) situation. In the interest of full disclosure, my wife strenuously disagrees with this though. It’s not an objective note about the film.

The other qualm I have with the film? No Barbara Gordon! How can you have a Birds of Prey film without including Barbara Gordon? Now, I understand DC may be angling for her own film sooner rather than later, but the question remains. For that matter, how has no live-action DC film even attempted to bring the once and future Batgirl to the screen? It boggles the mind.

*I set a minimum word-count for these reviews, and awkwardly long titles like this certainly help matters.

Aladdin (2019)

Director: Guy Ritchie

Cast: Will Smith, Mena Massourd, Naomi Scott, Marwan Kenzari

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, the typical joke about the lack of originality in Hollywood would be sort of low-hanging fruit in this particular case.

Did I Like It: I mean, sure?

From a pure study of screenwriting, it is interesting to see how the screenplay for the original Aladdin (1992) was disassembled and then put back together into… this. Large portions of the beginning of the original film are truncated to start the main meat of the story much faster, and presumably to allow space for the injected subplot. It actually works for the most part, and allows the film to reach (and perhaps intermittently succeed) to be a product of its time far more than the original did.

But then, if the goal of a Disney movie is to be truly timeless, why try to make a film a reflection of its time? Empowering Jasmine (Scott) is welcome and overdue but dwelling on the politically precarious times in Agrabah feels less magical, to put it mildly. I’ve got no problem with those moments, really, but in twenty years is it going to age very well? Let’s assume we’ll all be here in twenty years, naturally… On that front, the awkwardly injected elements of the film are sort of hopeful, because it allows me to imagine a world in which they wouldn’t work as well.

New music written for this version of the film is fine, but it does seem akin to the point in the concert where you let the rock star play through stuff on the new album. The new music isn’t bad, and you might even grow to like it as time goes on, but it isn’t what you came for.

And then there’s Will Smith. I’m tempted to give the studio and filmmakers a pass on his casting. There really isn’t a current equivalent to the frenetic energy Robin Williams brought to the role. If they absolutely insisted on remaking the movie—and it appears that they did—they were stuck on the central piece of casting for the movie. Picking Smith offers the viewer a fundamentally different energy. Williams was a pinball, jumping back and forth improbably so much that they were able to create a new character out of some of his improvisations. Will Smith is occasionally funny, but his strength lies much more in the pure charisma. Had they not fed Smith a lot of the same off-the-wall lines that Williams had in the original, it might have worked a lot better. Also, despite coming from music originally, I never escaped the sense that Smith didn’t have the vocal range to overpower the orchestrations. On second thought, I’m not giving them a pass on Smith. I don’t think I can give the entire film a pass.

Aladdin (1992)

Director: Ron Clements, John Musker

Cast: Robin Williams, Scott Weinger, Linda Larkin, Gilbert Gottfried

Have I Seen it Before: As a child of the 90s, even if I hadn’t specifically sat down with the intention of watching it at any point, I would have absorbed all of its 90 minutes through sheer osmosis over the years.

Did I Like It: Coming off the heels of The Little Mermaid (1989), the animated Disney renaissance was in full swing by the time Robin Williams entered the recording studio. I wonder if this would have ultimately been a competent if unremarkable music if the film didn’t completely shift tones about halfway through and becomes another stand-up special for Williams. The plot zips through its obligatory Disney tropes to let Williams just bubble forth with words that may not fit in the film but are singular to its success.

How Disney could have soured its relationship with Williams and not made the Genie the new crown jewel of its empire in the 90s is an early example of the mismanagement that became the legacy of Michael Eisner’s tenure with the company. I’d say that the decision to produce a live-action remake with Will Smith in the role of the genie was a sign that the company has lost its mind now, but it made a boatload of money, so what do I know?

The filmmakers made an attempt to use the at that point still embryonic CGI technology to assist in some of the fluid motion in certain shots. At the time, they must have seemed new and exciting, but with nearly thirty years and approaching infinite number of exclusively CGI films since, the seams show, and it ages poorly. It’s a nitpicky thing to fixate on, sure, but when a film captures that old Disney magic, it’s hard to notice anything that doesn’t particularly work.

Now if they did go ahead and remake the film, one wonders if the magic would hold up. One wonders.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Director: Stuart Baird

Cast: Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, Brent Spiner, Tom Hardy

Have I Seen It Before?: Oh, yes. Funny story: In early December 2002, I had my wisdom teeth removed. I tried to get clear-headed enough from all of the pain medication so I could make it to a screening of this film during its opening weekend. As the film, sort of happened in front of me it felt all wrong, so much so that as the end credits limped into existence, I shouted in the middle of the theater, “What the hell was that?” Apparently I still had some cotton in my mouth, and more than a little painkillers in my system, and a little cotton in my motuh, so it sounded more like, “Wha tha hee iyat?” But the point remains.

Did I like it?: See the previous statement.

I love Star Trek, and 2000s/1990s when it seemed like there would never be a shortage of Trek material, it felt like there was plenty of room to thoroughly dislike the entries that didn’t hold up.

The film is not a celebration of a beloved TV franchise, but more the final strained compromise of years’ worth of studio politics. Stuart Baird only got the director seat because he did Paramount a solid by doing a last-minute editing jobs on Mission: Impossible II (2000) and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001). One might say that the great film editors shouldn’t direct Star Trek films after the muddled affair that was Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), but Robert Wise edited films like Citizen Kane (1941) and had previously directed The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) and West Side Story (1961). Stuart Baird got the movie Supernova (2000) into some form that could be released in theaters, after directing the distinctly unmemorable Executive Decision (1996) and U.S. Marshals (1998) and hasn’t been allowed to direct a film since.

There’s a temptation to make the review a list of complaints. They artificially lowered the dialogue for Worf (Michael Dorn) to where he is inexplicably the actor with the most screen time in all of Trek, and somehow unrecognizable. The films based on The Next Generation never successfully utilized Beverly Crusher (Gates McFadden) and things are certainly no better here. The film desperately wants to be The Next Generation’s answer to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), and the desperation shows.

And yet, since it ushered in an era of a Trek desert, I don’t want to think of the film as a total loss. It’s the last film to feature a score by Jerry Goldsmith, so one wants to revel in what we have left. The ending originally felt like a sour note to end the time with The Next Generation crew with a whimper, but thankfully Star Trek: Picard is here to continue the adventures of the man from La Barre, and it solidifies the sacrifice of Data as genuine far more than the deaths of other characters in the Trek series over the years.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Director: Nicholas Meyer

Cast: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, Ricardo Montalbán

Have I Seen it Before: Hoo, boy. Long established in my family lore is the screening my mother went to at a second-run theater in the summer of 1984. As the USS Reliant exploded in a wave of the Genesis Effect, I—a learned elder, as far as fetuses were concerned—decided to give my ma a bit of a break and cut it out with the kicking and whatnot. It’s entirely possible that while some babies were exposed to classical music or the neurosis and bitterness of their parents in utero, I absorbed the bombastic score of James Horner and the sneering villainy of Khan Noonien Singh (Montalbán) as the foundation of my very being.

The first time I remember watching the movie while sentient was on a feeble VHS copy. I couldn’t have been more than ten years old and spent the rest of the day giddily recounting the plot to anyone who would listen. This time, my poor suffering mother got the raw end of the deal and had to hear a ten-year-old’s impression of a Ceti eel.

During this particular screening, I was able to lip sync every line of dialogue. I even felt the need to argue with several of the trivia questions before the feature presentation. Because they were wrong.

Yes. I’ve seen it a couple of times.

Did I Like It: At one point after the nadir of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) and the particularly wheel-spinning seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise, I wondered quietly whether I actually didn’t care much for Star Trek at all, but was so in love with this film that I was willing to give every other entry in the series a pass because it shared some basic elements with this film.

It is a thrilling story, told at a breakneck pace that still manages to let smaller character moments have their due time. It is about friendship, and aging, and revenge, and sacrifice, and living the first, best destiny you know in your bones. It is told with a startling simplicity that allows fully-steeped fans and newcomers alike to delight in the proceedings. Any time I am trying to create a story on my own, I’m reaching for an experience somewhere in the vicinity of this film.

It is not only my favorite Star Trek film, it is certainly one of my favorite movies of all time. It may be my favorite film of all time, although I tend to blanche at ranking these things so precisely.

Every time I see the film, I notice something new. During this particular screening I noticed that Chekov (Walter Koenig) is not seen on screen after purging himself of the Ceti eel without cotton in his bloodied ear. Also, somehow I had never put together that the Genesis Effect billowing out of the Reliant also caused the Mutara Nebula to collapse in on itself, harnessing the material of the nebula to create the Genesis Planet that would be the setting of most of the action of Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (1984). I honestly don’t know how it has taken longer than my actual lifespan to put that one together. It is a film that keeps on giving.

And yet, it is not a perfect film. The subplot with Midshipman Preston (Ike Eisenmann) doesn’t resonate, and it is only in the director’s cut (first released in 2002) that things are slightly illuminated, although I still don’t understand why Scotty (James Doohan) brought the poor suffering crewman to the bridge first, and not directly to sickbay. Additionally, the effects of the Genesis Cave on the Regula planetoid are alternately a triumph of matte work (back when such a thing was still done) and a completely befuddling choice in animated optical processing. But the flaws give me comfort. Even if I am flawed in my own work, I can still reach for the ideal. 

As with most films, watching it at home on a television is only imitating the experience in many ways. I had the delight to see it a few years ago during a Fathom Event screening. Seeing it projected on the big screen was a blissfully different experience. However, that screening was sparsely populated. This time, I saw it in conjunction with a live event hosted by none other than William Shatner. While the Captain Kirk emeritus was understandably more interested in talking about Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989), seeing the film with a packed and enthusiastic crowd was sublime. The cheering for cast members during the opening credits, the polite applause for GOAT writer-director Nicholas Meyer (which I believe he would have found staggeringly appropriate), the laughing at jokes I had long since internalized, and the genuine feeling that accompanied the climax gave every inch of the film a new life, as if it had been goosed by the Genesis Wave itself. I couldn’t help but feel like Kirk at the end. A movie that was old news at my birth was all new again.

I couldn’t help but feel young.

Batman: Hush (2019)

Director: Justin Copeland

Cast: Jason O’Mara, Jennifer Morrison, Geoffrey Arend, Jerry O’Connell

Have I Seen it Before: I’ve certainly read it a couple of times.

Did I Like It: Really, truly, an adaptation of the Hush storyline from the Batman comic books of the is a wonderful idea, not necessarily because of the events surrounding the new enemy Hush, but because the sprawling storyline manages to make the lions share of the Dark Knight’s rogue’s gallery vital supporting characters to a larger story.

But that story took the better part of a year to tell correctly and give everyone their due. Jamming it all into a package less than 90 minutes allows for the film to go through a halfway decent plot synopsis, but the magic of those books is gone.

This has been an ongoing problem with the ongoing slate of direct-to-video DC animated films. Hush suffers from many of the same problems that dragged down both The Death of Superman (2018) and Reign of the Supermen (2019), and it’s no wonder why, as this appears to be a spinoff of those two films, featuring much of the same cast reprising their roles. The film also wastes several minutes of its screen time apparently setting up some Ra’s al Ghul storyline for a future film that—by the time it becomes available for streaming on the DC Universe app—I’ll have long since cancelled my membership. As it turns out the brief turn into the world of the Lazarus Pit turns out to be a quick way to tie Hush, the Riddler, and the final act together in as few minutes as possible.

Unlike the wobbly and problematic adaptation of Batman: The Killing Joke (2016), this film can’t even offer voice talent that has become ubiquitous with DC animation over the last thirty years. All of those present are game and give the characters the needed distinctive tone, but I’d be far more forgiving of the film if Kevin Conroy played Batman and Mark Hamill returned to play Joker. Granted, the Clown Prince of Crime is not much more of a cameo role in this story, but it would have given Hamill far more to do than he had in either Star Wars – Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) or Star Wars – Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker (2019). It doesn’t help matters much that the actors who are playing the roles are trying their best to sound like the people who have been iconic in the roles in the past.

Every time Warner Bros. announces an adaptation of one of these beloved storylines, I allow myself to get a little bit excited by the prospect. As I type this, The Long Halloween is in development. I should probably surpass my inner Charlie Brown, opt not to kick Lucy’s proffered football, and just re-read the original comic book instead.

Short Circuit (1986)

Director: John Badham

Cast: Ally Sheedy, Steve Guttenberg, Fisher Stevens, Austin Pendleton

Have I Seen it Before: The year is 1989. I am on the cusp of joining the ranks of school-aged children. Naturally, I was required to get a full litany of immunizations before being enrolled. Such a requirement is a big part of the reason I’m still alive today, but that’s not even remotely what this review is about. To assuage the fears of an assault from incomprehensible needles, my mother got me two movies I had never seen before on VHS. One was Star Wars – Episode IV: A New Hope (1977), the other was this film. I instantly and equally fell in love with both. Perhaps beggaring all sense, this film is one of those key jewels in my early movie watching crowd.

So, yes. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it probably more than most people on the planet.

Did I Like It: It bears mentioning that even now in the clear vision of adulthood, Johnny 5 (Tim Blaney) is every bit the effective robotic character as either See-Threepio or Artoo-Detoo. Even more so, where Johnny 5 is tasked with being the central star and protagonist of his film, and the other two droids are content to be supporting, largely comic relief characters.

Now the film that surrounds Johnny is where the imbalances become apparent. The first Star Wars film is one of the peak pieces of all pop culture, whereas the adventures of the human characters around this robot are… fine. Guttenberg plays Guttenberg (the story doesn’t really ask him to do anything else), Sheedy admirably marches through a movie that only needs her to squeal things like “You’re killing/paralyzing/huring him!” that should be obvious from the film playing out before us.

And then there is Fisher Stevens. Even now, I find myself laughing at many of the things Stevens (a white actor) does as Ben (a character one assumes to be East Asian, despite claiming to be from Bakersfield), but I have long since stopped feeling good about it. It’s hard to damn so thoroughly a movie of this era so pointedly turning away from anything resembling meaningful representation, but I’m not prepared to grade it on much of a curve either. Such is the way with many of the films from our youth, I suppose.

The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad! (1988)

Director: David Zucker

Cast: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, Ricardo Montalbán, George Kennedy

Have I Seen it Before: Sure. 

Did I Like It: Is it the last great entry in the now long-since past its prime film parody genre? Here, the gags hit more than they miss. Nielsen continues to live his best life by embracing the oblivious straight man to unrestrained laziness he would continue to play for the rest of his days. The sequels were varying degrees of acceptable, but after this came a litany of entries in the “BLANK Movie” series content to merely reference the topics their lampooning, while at the same time forgetting to actually be funny in their own right. Those movies then went on to begat the execrable Cinema Sins and Honest Trailers Youtube videos. I’ve been to the future, and those videos will eventually lead to the highly advanced, but ultimately misanthropic supercomputers eventually responsible for the unravelling of all human society.

It’s likely unfair to judge a movie for the unintentional crimes it later inflicted on humanity, which is a perfect time to touch on the topic of this, O.J. Simpson’s most famous cinematic role. He’s likable enough and not asked to do much in the comedic arena other than mug for the camera and get shot and maimed. He’s amiable enough and game enough to not get in the movie’s way, although a plot (such as a movie like this could even have a plot) that hinges around proving O.J. Simpson’s innocence aged terribly within just a few years of the original release.

And yet, there is one element of the film that will forever be the right choice. Human society could collapse in on itself, and making Ricardo Montalbán your villain will always, always be the right choice.

Also, there’s only like two absurd credit items during the final crawl. I’m not sure whether to label it a missed opportunity that other movies would capitalize on, or a towering monument to restraint in a movie otherwise disinterested in anything resembling discipline.

Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (2009)

Director: Gareth Carrivick

Cast: Chris O’Down, Dean Lennox Kelly, Marc Wootton, Anna Faris

Have I Seen It Before?: Nope. It’s been lingering on my HBO Go queue for a few years. Now it can be set free.

Did I like it?: This film really wants me to like it. Time travel, right off the bat, will get a favorable view from me. After all, I kind of liked the last two Terminator movies. I’m an easy mark. I’ve enjoyed O’Dowd and Faris in other things before. Even the opening credits bring to mind the sweeping cosmic wonder of Richard Donner’s Superman (1978).

But those credits don’t feel like they belong there. The original Superman is only a tangentially a time travel story, and only then because the plot had become too big without the use of deus ex machina.

The time travel story itself is boring when it isn’t being insistently convoluted.

The stars seem bored here, as if this was they movie they managed to wrangle at that moment, and they’re waiting for better movies to come find them.

It clearly wants to reach for the manic joy on display in Shaun of the Dead (2004), but either an anemic budget, lack of ambition, dim commitment to the material, or some mixture of the three, the film looks blander than most television of the era. Both Doctor Who before its rebirth and the original Star Trek had far more visual panache here, and perhaps in a more apt reference to Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987), the film lurches through an unsatisfying conclusion waterlogged by substandard special effects and ends without one beat of catharsis. It’s de regeur to end movies like this with a Back to the Future-style ending that teases further adventures to be found in the sequel, but by the time the credits arrive, I’m not particularly interested in spending further time with the characters.

And, not for nothing, but at no time are frequently asked questions about time travel ever addressed. Call it something else, maybe?

The Rocketeer (1991)

Director: Joe Johnston

Cast: Bill Campbell, Alan Arkin, Jennifer Connelly, Timothy Dalton

Have I Seen It Before?: Oh, my goodness, yes.

Did I like it?: I haven’t seen The Rocketeer in at least five years, but I’ve probably seen it dozens upon dozens of times since it’s ill-fated release in 1991. Every single time I watch it, I’m floored by how much I am enamored of it. Such is the way when you re-visit one of your favorite films of all time.

Some might say it’s too much like the Indiana Jones films for its own good. I dare say it has an equal—if not even higher—spot in my heart than even Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). Some might say it’s too silly for its own good. Those people need to lighten up. Some might say it was too smart (with at least a pop-cultural sense of history) for the audience of children for whom it was intended. Those children could grow into the film. I know I did.

Along with Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) it is quite possibly the film most influential to the work I do here on the site.

I love every performer in the film, from the guy who plays W.C. Fields (Bob Leeman) perfectly problematically (although, the camera work does most of the leering work here), all the way to the lady singing Cole Porter songs at the South Seas Club (in case you were wondering, she was Melora Hardin, which only makes her singing as Jan Levinson in The Office that much better).

I love the James Horner score so much that I very nearly considered canceling my Apple Music subscription when I realized they didn’t have it. When Disney Junior started airing a CGI series where Cliff Secord’s 7-year-old great-granddaughter takes to the skies as a new Rocketeer, I resented it at first, because the Rocketeer shouldn’t be for 7-year-olds, it should be for me. Then I realized I was 7 in 1991, so I got over it. Screw it, I may still watch it. It’s The Rocketeer, for pity’s sake.

I love this movie. If there are flaws in it, I cannot or will not see them. For my money, it is the single greatest thing currently on Disney+. It is objectively one of the top ten things on Disney+, and if you’re not watching it right now, I’m not sure what to do with you.

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I missed in the theaters. I was even scheduled to watch it for an episode of Beyond the Cabin in the Woods, but was too enmeshed in the post-production for The Fourth Wall to make time for a screening. C’es la vie.

Did I like it?: As I mentioned in my review of the original <Zombieland (2009)> that zombies and I have never gotten along. Given both my feelings, and the fact that the zombie comedy had been perfected with Shaun of the Dead (2004), it’s pretty impressive that the original could be entertaining at all.

Did it need a sequel? Is a sequel even welcome? What more could they explore that was somehow omitted from the original? As it turns out not much, as the characters have stayed in almost complete stasis in the ten years since the original film. Suspiciously so. Has there been any series with ten years between installments where the characters are more entrenched in the types of people they were in the earlier entry?

That stasis notwithstanding, given that the four leads are likable enough, spending another two hours with them doesn’t feel like a chore. Adding a series of characters that are pointedly similar to the originals to throw a wrench into things feels varying degrees of awkward, but the film could have been far more embarrassing, as many protracted gap sequels often are.

But couldn’t we have had more with Bill Murray (once again, Bill Murray)? I once again was not expecting him to be in the film, but his adventures in the first day of Zombieland over the end credits are once again the highlight of the film. Murray probably wouldn’t have been game for such an endeavor, but we couldn’t have done a prequel of his entire adventures leading up to the first movie?

I probably just want fewer zombie movies, and far more Bill Murray movies. Thus, this film series (should it continue) will likely continue to flummox me.

Zombieland (2009)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I was an extremely skeptical viewer on opening weekend. What could possibly be added to the arena of Zombie comedies after Shaun of the Dead (2004)?

Did I like it?: I think it’s important to admit that I have such little regard for the Zombie genre that this film could have been very good, indeed, and completely missed my interest. Most of the Romero films have failed to make anything resembling an impression with me. Like any good consumer of popular culture, I watched The Walking Dead for as long as I could, but checked out far earlier than most, and can’t say I enjoyed the depressing odyssey for which I did remain. Some people dream of living through the Zombie apocalypse, and for the life of me I can’t understand those people. Were armies of the undead to rise and crave the brains of the living, I would easily happily check out when CDC facility explodes, if it is all the same to you.

All of the above being said, I’ve definitely enjoyed Zombieland the handful of times I’ve watched. The zombies themselves are completely incidental to that enjoyment, naturally, as it is all basic fair. The other visual flourishes regarding the rules Columbus (Eisenberg) devises for surviving the Zombie apocalypse, and the chemistry between the actors and their performances make the whole affair far more watchable than it has any right to be.

And then, there’s Bill Murray (Bill Murray). What a wonderful treat to be surprised by Murray having fun in a film and with his own screen personae. Before seeing this film, the idea of playing Ghostbusters with Murray (wherein you get to be Pete Venkman, naturally) wouldn’t have occurred to me as bucket list item. Now, it’s the one thing I keep thinking about any time I watch the movie.

If that’s the kind of thing one can expect from the Zombie apocalypse, maybe I won’t check out at the earliest opportunity.

Jay and Silent Bob Reboot (2019)

Director: Kevin Smith

Cast: Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith, Harley Quinn Smith

Have I Seen It Before?: As the movie willfully makes a point of reminding me at various points during its runtime, if you’ve seen Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001), then you’ve seen this movie, too. The characters are the same. Even their arcs (such as they are) are essentially the same. And yet, curiosity abounds. My view on Smith has dimmed considerably over the years. I used to be a regular listener of his podcasts, and would make a point of being there on opening weekend for any of his movies. Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008) seemed like a step back from him. I was relatively ambivalent about Red State (2011). I bounced out of Tusk (2014) after about half an hour, steadfastly ignored Yoga Hosers (2016), and am somewhat relieved to realize that Moose Jaws never saw the light of day. So, you can imagine my surprise when I saw a trailer for this film and was something resembling intrigued.

Did I like it?: Well, let me put it this way:

Have you ever run into somebody you used to hang out with all of the time, but haven’t seen them in years, maybe even decades?

You chat for a while and catch up on old times. Old inside jokes abound, many unlocking memories that had been the farthest thing from your mind for God knows how long. Every once in a while, those memories even bring a smile to your face.

But then something begins to dawn on you. The version of you that knew this old friend? An absolute stranger. When you really start to think about it, there is nothing connecting you to this person anymore.

You say it’s great to see the old friend, and that they shouldn’t be a stranger. The first sentiment is only kind of true, and the second one is something resembling a fiction.

Has any of that ever happened to you?

That’s it. That’s the whole review.

Harold and Maude (1971)

Director: Hal Ashby

Cast: Ruth Gordon, Bud Cort, Vivian Pickles, Charles Tyner

Have I Seen It Before?: No.

Did I like it?: Yes…

But I do wonder if it is one of those instances where a film’s music single-handedly makes the rest of the film watchable. There are several absurdist—almost cartoonish—moments of mayhem on display, and they bring a smile to one’s face, even when they turn the morbidity up to eleven. I laughed much harder than I had any right to when Maude (Gordon) tells a Motorcycle Cop (Tom Skerritt, apparently using a different credit and trying to hide out), “Don’t get officious. You’re not yourself when you’re officious. That is the curse of a government job.”

Harold and Maude trucks (or more appropriately, stole cars) in the same era of late-adolescent ennui that permeated The Graduate (1967). So much so, that the two films have surprisingly similar taglines on their posters, but this film far more effectively rejects the suburban yuppiness that The Graduate is either resigned to or fails to ultimately surpass. Benjamin Braddock appears doomed at the end of the older film, whereas Harold (Cort) has experienced loss far more tragic but is more positively affected by what had happened during the film.

This is all to say that the film is perfectly charming. But would I have been anywhere near as swept away if—as Ashby had originally intended—Elton John’s music had filled the film’s soundtrack instead of Cat Stevens? That’s not even a knock against John’s discography, but I do watch this movie and am instantly in the mind of that one spring many years ago where I couldn’t stop listening to “Tea of the Tillerman.” It was prime “being Harold” time for me. Had the film tied its fate to songs like “Levon” or “Your Song” I don’t think the film—or those songs—would have been as well-remembered as they are.

Three Men and a Little Lady (1990)

Director: Emile Ardolino

Cast: Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, Ted Danson, Nancy Travis

Have I Seen It Before?: As I continue my deep dive into the pulsating wormhole that is Disney+, I am particularly struck by the clear memories I have of seeing this movie in the theaters. Is anyone else having this strange nostalgia epiphany as they dig into the deeper corners of the app?

Did I like it?: In most ways, this probably unneeded sequel to Three Men and a Baby (1987) either meets or exceeds the promise of the original. The storyline—involving the mother (Travis) the Little Lady nee Baby potentially marrying a director friend, thus tearing asunder the commune they have built in New York—actually fits with the setting far more than the hare-brained heroin-smuggling scheme that nudges events along in the original. Danson had been previously relegated to playing a version of Sam Malone in the original, whereas in this film his Jack Holden is far weirder than the movie might otherwise want him to be. Sure, the sight of Tom Selleck being the front man to Danson’s rapping is something I’m not sure any human needed to see, but the chemistry of the three leads is still easy and breezy, and that’s all the poster is interested in selling us.

My only problem with the whole thing is:

Why is Steve Guttenberg here?

This is not to say that the actor is unpleasant to watch. He’s just as charming as Selleck or Danson. I’m asking why his character, Michael Kellam, still feels the need to live with and help raise a child with whom he has very little actual connection? Danson plays the biological father, him I get sticking around. Selleck bonded with the child early on in the first film, and the story of the film runs on the notion that he is in love with the mother. That’s great. Does Guttenberg’s character not have a life outside of the other characters? No other identity? It almost makes the film an existential horror film, if we view the proceedings from his point of view. If we are ever to see the occasionally threatened Three Men and a Bride, and these characters are still living together, the film would almost have to be directed by Ari Aster, wouldn’t it?

Three Men and a Baby (1987)

Director: Leonard Nimoy (no, really)

Cast: Tom Selleck, Steve Guttenberg, Ted Danson, Nancy Travis

Have I Seen It Before?: Yep!

Did I like it?: I would watch the three stars of this film do almost anything. Well, I’d watch Ted Danson do anything. I’d watch Tom Selleck do most things, besides guest star on Friends, which I just can’t anymore. I usually only get interested in Guttenberg if he’s paired with a wise-cracking robot.

At any rate, the film uses the amiable chemistry between the three leads to fuel its way through a heroin smuggling storyline that is completely and totally abandoned by the time the third act begins.

Goddamn, this movie is weird. And that’s before we even get to the ghost.

A long since debunked urban legend posits that just beyond the curtains in a scene with Danson, the specter of a young boy with a shot gun. Back in days when humanity had any sort of credulity left, the legend about the image grew to suggest that the set of the apartment shared by the titular men was occupied and quickly vacated by a family whose son had shot himself.

It’s a really dumb mystery because this fabled ghost is clearly a carboard of Danson himself. It’s not even kind of hard to figure it out. No wonder we as a society need snopes.com.

The much truer mystery is how Leonard Nimoy came to direct such an otherwise workmanlike comedy that is so much of its age. Did Disney read the script and say that the man behind Spock was the only one who could bring this story to life for an American audience? Why would Nimoy be interested in it? He had always expressed an interest in allowing actors mostly identified for the television roles to play against type, but there are very few parts of Jack Holden (Danson) that aren’t Sam Malone at their core, especially when we’ve been allowed to see the menagerie of weirdos that he has played in recent years. Maybe <Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)> was the most successful fish-out-of-water comedy in recent years, and the Mouse House was willing to ignore the spaceships and whales.

Either way, it boggles the mind, and regardless it speaks to Nimoy’s talents as director that he was able to pull off such a perfectly watchable film.

Bad Boys for Life (2020)

Director: Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah

Cast: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence*, Vanessa Hudgens, Alexander Ludwig

Have I Seen it Before: I mean, it’s only been out for a minute and a half, so naturally this would be the first time I’ve watched it. As I’ve written during many of these reviews, it isn’t exactly like the film is exploring brand new territory in any way, shape or form.

Did I Like It: And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I wrote in my review for the original Bad Boys (1995) that the only thing necessary for a buddy cop movie to work is a visual sense that pointedly discourages any deeper thought, and a chemistry between the leads. Time may have passed, but Smith and Lawrence are still able to milk the laughs out of their interactions together, and that would be enough to recommend the film.

Interesting that Michael Bay did not return for this film, as he’s spent the last decade and a half mashing action figures together. One would assume that the budget wouldn’t allow for him and Smith to occupy the same set at the same time, but just as Bumblbee (2018) proved that a franchise can not only survive, but thrive without him, Belgian filmmakers El Arbi and Fallah prove equal to the type of action movie Bay appears to have stopped making**.

So, everything is fine, right?

Well, it’s such a weird thing to get bothered by, but it’s a complaint about the nuts and bolts of filmmaking. The big bad of the film, Isabel Aretas (Kate del Castillo) spends the entirety of the film pulling them from Mexico City, where she opens the film by escaping from prison. Every single time the film cuts back to her witchy doings, we get a title, we’re reminded that the scene is taking place in Mexico City. When Marcus (Lawrence) and Mike (Smith) gear up to take the bad guys down, it tells us once more that they have arrived in Mexico City. Unless the Bruja is leapfrogging from Mexico City to Addis Ababa all the way to Toad Suck, Arkansas, I don’t need to be reminded three or four times that part of the movie takes place in Mexico City. I’m not wild that the audience of the film can’t be trusted to remember such basic information, especially when it isn’t so integral to the plot.

Okay, so maybe the action didn’t manage to discourage deeper thoughts from me. It’s still reasonably fun. If you’ve seen the others, you know what you’re getting into.

*Anyone want to take any bets as to whether or not the delay between Bad Boys II (2003) and this film was largely a negotiation to get Smith billing above Lawrence?

**Maybe 6 Underground (2019) is a return to form for him. I don’t know, I haven’t brought myself to watch it.