Thursday, July 10, 2025

Tubi Thursday: The Aviator (1985)

 After a man could fly, we saw the same man fly...again...in a plane.

This is the 1985 Film called The Aviator, featuring Christopher Reeve.

A Flight Instructor (Reeve) tries to coach a nervous would-be Pilot in 1918.

He freaks out and the plane crashes, giving Reeve a scar and blowing up the young guy.
10 years later, a Banker is trying to ship his Daughter (Rosanna Arquette) off to avoid some trouble.

She's a handful.
Reeve has grown bitter and separated himself from others in the ensuing Decade.

When he's told that he has to transport a person- which he's told is the future of airplanes-, he's not happy.

Can you tell?
They make a nice flight, even if they don't want to talk to each other.

Nice aerial shots.
Side note: this was Directed by George T. Miller and not the one you're thinking of.  Both are/were Australian though.
The guy at the first stop- Scott Wilson!- accidentally gives them a faulty oil line.

The plane loses oil pressure and crashes.

Now the unhappy duo must survive together while they wait for a rescue.
Good thing she's 17 in the Film, as opposed to 11 in the Book.
Arquette and Reeve butt heads.

The presence of a pack of wolves is also a factor!

Can they survive the environment and each other?

I mean...you know how it works, so...
The End.
A solid Film that has perhaps been a bit lost to history.  Sorry, Chris.

The 2004 Film of the same name won 4 Oscars.
This Film was likely seen by at least 4 people named Oscar.

I'm actually surprised to see the negative feedback this one got.  Granted- I care very little about what Siskel and Ebert say/said about a Film.

I think the problem is that the Film tries to be like an old timey Drama.  For me, that works.
For others, it is perhaps 'antiquated' and 'stodgy.'

Arquette and Reeve make a good combo, playing a combative pair that grow to like each other in a really natural way.  She has one moment- which is in character- where I could see you being annoyed by her.

Does this Film truly standout?  Maybe not.
Does the backlog of Films that Reeve did that aren't Superman Films need defending?  Hell yes.

I'm on the job!

A Film that is designed to look and feel like an older Film.  If that appeals to you or not, your mileage will vary.

Wednesday, July 9, 2025

Re-Review: The Suicide Squad (2021)

 After seeing this Film in a small Theater during the Pandemic, I haven't seen it since.

I got a nice Blu-Ray and, well, this seems like the best time to look back at this one.

This is The Suicide Squad, the 2021 Sequel/Reboot/something to the 2016 Film that people still want to tell you has a super-secret good Cut out there.
I'll be surprised if it does.

Another group of Villains is sent out by Amanda Waller on a strange mission of great importance.  Look forward to reuniting with, well, 3 Characters from the last Film.

This one sadly didn't do well, but did lead to a Streaming Show about one of the Characters.

Is it a Film that is bound to be remembered well or just a bunch of weird nonsense?
To find out, read on...

When Amanda Waller has a mission, she assembles a new Suicide Squad.

This includes Pete Davidsen, Nathan Fillion, Michael Rooker and Jai Courtney playing a bunch of C-D List DC Villains.
They are sent to a Central American Island to destroy some technology and its link to the US Government.

Are they Epstein-ing someone?!?
Wait- if that is The Suicide Squad, what are Bloodsport, Ratcatcher 2, Peacemaker, King Shark and Polka Dot Man doing here?

Well, they're the real Main Characters.
Save for Harley Quinn, who gets her own mini-Movie and Arc inside of this same Movie.

They spend a long time with her and eventually cut back to the rest of them.

She'll eventually join up- don't worry.
Can the group- united with Colonel Flagg- work together to get past a small Army to complete the mission?
Can they hit all of the usual beats- like slow motion walking as a group IN THE RAIN no less- as they do?
What are they fighting now?
What's the deal with that javelin?
Also, wasn't that Taika Waititi in that Flashback earlier?

To find out, stream this or pop your disc in now.
A Film that is both a glowing endorsement for and a warning about what to expect in Gunn's DCEU.

As a reminder, Gunn was briefly fires by Marvel for reasons you'll either rage about or agree with.  Freed up, DC/WB said, 'Make whatever you want- we don't care!'

He did.

The Film is all about manic excess, pure insanity, a heaping of heart and lots of blood.
Seriously, if you are allergic to CGI blood and gore (somehow), this is not for you.

If you only know Gunn from the Guardians Film, this may not be for you.

I've seen far worse, but this Film definitely leans into the brutal violence.  There are moments where they add in flourishes- like Harley's big Action Scene- but it mostly is just there to shock you.

In addition, they do that trick where you see a Scene and then see a Flashback to give it context.  It is neat once.  They do it three times.

Having said all that, I really bought in to the Character moments, the Story, the fun little Cameos and the whole presentation.

I'm a weirdo and I was the Audience.  What about you?

Just remember that Sharks are not as scary IRL as they are on Film...

Next up, let's see if I can get back on Schedule.  It is a Film about a Director and all of his problems.  Stay tuned...

Tuesday, July 8, 2025

Rare Flix: Special Bulletin (1983)

 Sometimes going down a rabbit hole leads to something really great!

Well, looking at the Wiki Page on Found Footage Films (after watching the Documentary on the Subgenre), I found this Film...that I'd never heard of.

This is Special Bulletin, a 1983 TV Movie.  Why would I want to cover this, you ask?

I can't be too hard on myself- the Film has only gotten a single VHS and (Warner Archive) DVD release in the last 42 years!  That is in spite of winning multiple Awards, including an Emmy!

This TV Movie is an early example of a Found Footage Film, representing the entire course of events as a live news broadcast that you are watching on your local TV affiliate.

The Film looks and feels so real that it was required to have a warning (see later down) at the beginning of every return from Commercial Break.

Oh yeah, it was also Directed by Edward Zwick, a man who did Legends of the Fall, Glory and The Last Samurai!

How did a TV Movie traumatize so many people?  Let's find out...

Get used to this Graphic.

You'll see it many times if you watch the proper version.
The VHS Version cut them out apparently!
A Reporter named Steve Levitt is out shooting his Intro for a piece on a Dock Worker's Strike.

While he's there, some people shoot at the Coast Guard and he's taken hostage by them.
The men demand a live feed and use Steve to get their message across.

They demand that the US Government disarm their nukes.
They say that they have a bomb on board.

Do people believe them?

Throughout this, we hear from the Newscasters and also cut to Reporters covering events and getting interviews.
Notably, we get Lane Smith, the future Perry White from Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman.

He talks about how the Government is really wary of complying with their demands, especially with a 24-hour window to do it in!
Tensions rise as the time passes.

The 'bad guys' are a bit sad when they learn that one of the Coast Guard guys dies.

It comes to a head when one of the leaders- David Rasche (the future Sledge Hammer!)- tries to lecture our Anchor in real time.

It feels so real.
They also get really agitated as nobody seems to believe them.

Throughout this, we get Vignettes explaining their backstories, told in News Segments.

We see an earlier moment when the erratic member shoots at a News Copter.
All signs point to the Government not acquiescing to what the so-called Terrorists.

The time is starting to run out...

To find out what happens, stream this Film now.
A Film that still feels very real and visceral, even all of these Decades later.

Like Ghostwatch, it would be hard to properly match the feeling of turning on the TV and seeing this with no warning.

If you want the full experience, run YouTube on a CRT Monitor or an older TV.  It will be a seamless blend.

The actual Plot is really good too, as you learn more about the 'villains' and other people in an organic way.  News Segments explaining them really work to sell this.

Bulletin is full of lots of little touches, like people talking over each other when doing so over a live feed, people being interrupted as someone comes out to speak and more.

The only times it doesn't work is when they have to put someone in 'Washington D.C.,' so they use a blue/green screen.  There's a later effect- which I won't SPOIL the context of- that also doesn't look great.
It was Made for TV in 1983, so be fair to it.

Special Bulletin is a real hidden gem, not helped by the fact that the DVD rights apparently are muddy, so we don't get this in 4K (or 2.5K, maybe) or Streaming on a big platform.

It also features a Cameo that was going to be a lot more fun a couple of weeks ago...

Next up, let me switch up my old plans a bit to be more topical.  How does this James Gunn Film hold up on a second opinion years later?  Stay tuned...

Saturday, July 5, 2025

Al's Birthday Review: Daughter of Horror

Hey, everyone - Bob here, for the annual test of my friendship with Al. 

This year, he's given me an odd little film: Daughter of Horror.


Daughter of Horror, by my understanding, is a re-release of the 1955 film Dementia, which was originally going to be released in 1953 but was banned by the New York State Film Board. 

Al will probably kill me if I don't also mention that this film was also featured in the 1958 film The Blob (Crisis averted then).

It was also purchased, re-edited, and re-released with added narration. 

Notably, the narration - per Wikipedia, anyway - was done by Ed McMahon. Yes, that Ed McMahon, Johnny Carson's buddy on The Tonight Show. The re-release date is unclear - the actual film's page claims it was re-released in 1957, but Ed McMahon's page claims 1970.

No offense to Ed McMahon, who does a stellar job with the actual voiceover work for the narration, but the addition of narration was, in general, a really bad idea that takes a weird but intriguing film and basically spells out what's happening to make sure you don't miss details that were perfectly well presented to begin with. 

Now, if they'd wanted to add narration to Hard to Be a God, that I would've liked!

Literal first thing you see. This...felt like a bad sign.

However, this is kind of a dreamlike, experimental film, so despite the above, there's some parts you can still interpret multiple ways.

The film is also mostly a silent film, with no dialogue whatsoever except for the narration added to this version, and only a few bits of other vocalizations - wordless laughter and crying. Other than that, you're just in the company of the soundtrack for the rest of the film. This, obviously, contributes to the dreamlike atmosphere and opens events to interpretation, as for the most part you have to judge what's happening purely based on visuals. 

To be clear, I don't mean "silent film" as in "there is dialogue but it appears as text on screen." I mean that there's no dialogue whatsoever in any form.


In any case, in brief, here's the concept: The movie follows one night in the life of a woman who appears to be insane, suffering from hallucinations and unsettling behaviors. It is less a straight plot than a look at madness, and it is unclear how much or how little of the film actually happens. 

Some scenes are blatantly dreams or hallucinations (especially when the narrator just outright says so like we can't figure it out), while others may have happened, or may be her imaginings.


I'll briefly summarize what appears to occur. Obviously, spoiler warning...such as it is. Seriously, though - if anything that I said above sounded interesting, and you're willing to deal with a short-but-slow film with some too-blatant narration to see what it's about, you may wish to watch the film before reading anything below as it probably plays better going in with less knowledge.

Otherwise, carry on.

Oh no, I'm totally in the same shot as this wave! Please ignore how you can see it through my head!

The woman has a dream about drowning, then wakes, takes a switchblade, and goes out on the town. She encounters various people, is attacked by a drunk and rescued by a cop who beats the drunk to death, and is accosted by a man who gets her to come with him to a rich man he appears to work for. 

She goes out for a night on the town with the rich man, flashes back to when she killed her drunk and abusive father for killing her mother (an adulteress), then is largely ignored by the rich man at home until he comes over to try to kiss her (apparently treating her like a prostitute), at which point she stabs him. He grabs her necklace and plummets out the window, and she flees, seen by multiple people, and tries to get it back from his corpse, but it's holding on too tightly so she uses her switchblade to cut his hand off and takes both, then hides them in a flower seller's basket. 

Then, she flees from the pursuing police into a nightclub (which we are blatantly told is a hallucination), until she is caught and hallucinates everyone knowing what she did, including her victim laughing at her. Then she wakes up in bed...but sees the hand and pendant in her dresser.


You'll notice that that's not really a ton of plot. Indeed, this is a fairly short film, just shy of an hour long. I'd argue it could've been even shorter, as there's a lot of scenes or shots that just drag on for a very long time - some for stylistic reasons, but still. I think you could cut this down by a good twenty minutes and not lose much of anything. 

It just takes far too long to get to things sometimes, especially when it is obvious what's going to happen - for instance, it's about twenty minutes of the runtime between her meeting the rich man and her killing the rich man, and it's pretty obvious from the first second of their time together that that's where this is going. They just drag it out over several scenes of them in the car, attending a restaurant, attending a club, and spending time at his (very fancy) apartment. It just keeps going. 

We even watch the rich guy eating chicken wings for two thirds of eternity.

I'm just as bored by this as you are, lady.

That said...it's still quite an interesting film. The acting is all terrifically strange in just the right way for this. The lead, Adrienne Barrett, does a particularly tremendous job of acting just a bit off - her reactions to people feel just slightly unsettling, she smiles at weird times and in strange manner, she holds her gaze on things for just a few seconds too long, that sort of thing. 

Her late-film freakouts are also terrific. She's really very good in the role and holds the viewer's attention well, which is a good thing since she's in the vast majority of shots in the film and has to communicate a great deal through just expression and movement. 

She's a major contributor in the film setting its mood and atmosphere extremely well.


The cinematography is also worthy of praise - there's a lot of great shots in this film that set a dark and twisted atmosphere and make things feel just a bit wrong, a bit confused and unreal. It makes excellent use of light and shadow, and of set design, to communicate that the world is not quite being seen truthfully and to add a touch of intimidation and danger to just about every moment. 

No shot feels like it's taking place in true safety - it either feels actively frightening, at least unsettling, or just confused and wrong, but all clearly intentionally so.

The film also makes use of a lot of visual symbolism - for instance, the police detective who keeps showing up throughout the film in various places, sometimes in direct pursuit of the lead and sometimes just seemingly in the same place, is the same actor who plays the lead's alcoholic and abusive father that she killed in her past - a literal representation of her past haunting her constantly. (It would be perhaps more impactful if that fact wasn't lampshaded so blatantly by the narration midway through, which outright states: "...behind you, the policeman with the face of your father, the face of your first victim, pursuing you relentlessly in your haunted brain...")



Seriously, the narration really screws with this film. Sorry, Ed. It isn't as bad as Scared to Death, but it just feels like it was added because people didn't feel like the original film was interpretable, in which case...maybe just don't re-release it? 

The whole point of this film is to be weird and make you second-guess what you are seeing and figure out what it means - adding something that just tells you what it means kind of invalidates the movie as a whole.



I also really loved how they presented the flashback to the death of her parents - it's a little on the nose, but a really fun and artistic presentation. Rather than flashing back to her childhood home, the film flashes to a graveyard, where a tall man in a suit with a mask on shows her visions of her parents and their deaths...which are done very stage style by just adding home props and furniture to the graveyard itself. 

Slender Man version 0.12a?

The mother even falls dead right in front of the tombstone reading "Mother," which is admittedly kind of direct but does get the point across. Credit to them for the overall sequence, which was a visually interesting and unusual way of presenting the concept.

Really, that's the way of things with this film - it has a lot of visually interesting, creative presentation, marred by a longer-than-necessary runtime (even for its short length), overly blatant narration, and a few outright silly bits that could perhaps be excused as representations of the lead's madness, but really are probably artifacts of the time or just some poor filmmaking creeping in. Most notable for that is the bit involving her trying to get her pendant back from the rich man's corpse: When we first see it held in his hand, it's held very loosely, but when she goes to take it, it is gripping the pendant tight, so she has to cut the hand off. With a switchblade. Which seems difficult, and likely to leave even more evidence on the area and your person than just leaving the pendant. 

By the way, maybe don't cut off the whole hand but just a finger or two to get the pendant? Not that I've thought about this sort of thing.



Then, she has an entire chase sequence through town, keeping the hand on her person the whole time, and somehow has no blood whatsoever on her. 

Again, you could argue that it's a hallucination thing, but...really, I think it might be more an artifact of this being a 1950s film and not wanting / being allowed to show much gore. There is a bit of blood on the mother's hand in her death scene, but not much beyond that. 

It doesn't matter much to the plot anyway since some or all of that may not even be happening, but still.

Cool artistic "followed by spotlight" shots, though.

Otherwise, the only remaining major criticism I have to present is the soundtrack, which is just aggressively dreamlike and ethereal in a way that starts out interesting and quickly becomes annoying, largely because the same sequence of notes repeats over and over and over and over in the film with very little variation for most of its runtime. It sounds like the theme they'd use for strange and fascinating parts of alien planets in the original Star Trek - high, airy female singer singing wordlessly, ascending and descending note runs, that sort of thing. 

It's good! 

Until you hear it for nearly an hour straight, broken only by a big band number late film. It's the voice version of the soundtracks to Rollergator or Mesa of the Lost Women.

Bruno VeSota, whose performance here strangely reminded me of Orson Welles' in The Trial.

Honestly, there's more I could say, but I kind of want to leave it there. This is not a bad film, though I suspect the original version might have been superior - I'm not sure what other than the narration (which was a bad choice) was adjusted in this one, so it's possible this improved it in some ways and hurt it in others, or that is was just hurt and not improved at all. 

Still, it's an interesting concept, just presented in a way that's lengthier than it needs to be and with some awkwardness and confusion that can't always be excused as just the film portraying madness. It's a strong attempt at its concept and even in its current state, leaves some things just open to interpretation enough to be an intriguing watch - just be ready for a slow pace and some poor presentation choices along the way.

I think overall I'm glad I watched it. This doesn't nail its concept, and there's definitely room for notable improvement...but it's a successfully weird and compelling film all the same.

Happy Birthday, Al.

Fun note: Angelo Rossitto, pictured here, would go on to play Master of "Master Blaster" fame in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.


Friday, July 4, 2025

Holiday Flix- Top Gun- Maverick (2022)

 A Film that has the need- the need for speed.  That's why it took 4 years to finally come out in Theaters after they shot it.

This is Top Gun- Maverick, the Film that 'saved' Theaters.  That was the hype, wasn't it?

Thanks to my Illinois Family for getting me a free Digital Copy of this one- and the Original too.

Tom Cruise is back in the role of Maverick after (roughly) 30 years and he's here to teach the next Generation how to do it.  That's what Flight School is for, but.... shut up.

In all seriousness, the Plot involves a super-dangerous mission and they want him to prepare them for it.  Can he stop being a, well, maverick and learn to teach?

To find out how this Legacy Sequel turned out, read on...

In 2018 (when this one was actually shot), Maverick is testing a new plane, but the Military wants to put the money into drones.

Thanks, Obama!
He is told that they will only extend the program if they can get it to go Mach-10.

He does it- as the General arrives to shut things down- and then goes to 10.1 and the plane explodes.
Of course he's fine- why would you ask?
See you never again, Ed Harris.

The mostly-offscreen Iceman (Val Kilmer) keeps Maverick in the Navy, as he apparently is the Commander of the Atlantic Fleet.

He gets him a new job- as a Trainer for Top Gun (which is still NOT a real thing).
He's got to teach a whole group of Navy Pilots, including a bunch of future MCU Stars.  The first meeting of Sentry, Mr. Fantastic and new Falcon- neat!

The key person is Rooster, aka the son of his Wingman Goose.

Assuming that the timeline is 1-to-1 here, he's pushing 40 (as we see him as a 4–7-year-old kid in the Flashback) here.
Also, his Mom died between Films, since we couldn't bring back Leading Ladies from Top Gun.
The Mission is next to Impossible (see what I did there?) and he trains them for it. 
 
He also makes them simulate dog fights against him, in spite of the fact that the whole point of the mission is to get out BEFORE the enemy planes arrive.

Oh, well- an excuse for 'the old dog' to teach the young ones some new tricks.
Maverick does have a support system, including his old buddy Sundown (recast from Clarence Gilyard, since he mostly-retired from Acting in 2002).

However, hee keeps butting heads with another authority figure in the form of John Hamm.

He's never happy, until he's proven wrong by Maverick (naturally).
Back in his old stomping grounds, Maverick reunites with Charlotte to.... oh right, she aged differently than Cruise, so she's out.

Instead, he reunites with Penny, who he totally has a long-term relationship with.  Honest!
The whole thing builds up to the mission, which is to keep some Country from getting nukes.  What country, you ask?

Anyhow, it all comes down to Cruise leading the Pilots to save the day.

Can they do it?
To find out, stream it now.
A pretty enjoyable Film that really excels when you see them fly.

Did I care all that much about whether Maverick would get to keep flying?
What about Rooster and his drama?
Whether Maverick will end up with Penny?

Not that much.

They spent lots of time and money really making the interior shots of them in the jets look great.  No question- it is amazing work.

My issue is that this Legacy Sequel never quite wants to admit that the new, younger Characters can be his equals.  We get a line about them 'all being great, but this mission is difficult' to explain why he needs to lead the mission.

Wouldn't it be better if they could do it on their own and he helped them out somehow?  For all its many faults, that last Jurassic World did that right.
See also that last Indiana Jones Film.

For pure spectacle, this is great.  I saw it on 36 inch TV, so I can imagine what a Theater one was like.  I just wish that it led its newer Stars shine more.

A Film that looks amazing on so many levels and is genuinely thrilling.  As far as Legacy Sequels go, however, it is a bit noncommital.