screen |skr_n| |skrin| |skri_n| noun • a blank, typically white or silver surface on which a photographic image is projected : the world's largest movie screen • movies or television; the motion-picture industry : she's a star of the stage as well as the screen. verb [ trans. ] • protect (someone) from something dangerous or unpleasant • evaluate or analyze (something) for its suitability for a particular purpose or application


Saturday, November 29, 2025

A House Full of Dynamite

What if Dr. Strangelove was a drama and everyone in the movie was competent? That’s A House Full of Dynamite. (see also: Fail Safe) This new Netflix offering poses the stark hypothetical scenario, “What if there was a nuke headed for the US” and everyone in the military and government was, more or less, competent? Would you, gentle US citizen, feel confident that your leaders would make the right decision? The follow-up question from Katheryn Bigelow and the filmmakers seems to be: now ask yourself, how would the dysfunctional, incompetent psychopaths in the REAL current administration handle the same scenario? Although the details are gipping and the filmmaking is expert, it’s all secondary to the existential truth this passionately expresses: do you trust who you voted for with the nuclear codes?

Tuesday, November 25, 2025

Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre

Guy Ritchie. Jason Statham. Aubrey Plaza. Hugh Grant. Cary Elwes. This 2023 spy/caper hybrid has a lot going for it, but there’s just something OFF. Let’s start with the title. It’s so incredibly confusing and stupid. I had to look it up again just to type it into this weblog, because the words don’t fit together. It’s pure linguistic chaos. I like Jason Statham and Aubrey Plaza - both - A LOT - but it feels like they’re in different movies. Plaza’s doing a wise-cracky, American action/comedy, and Statham is waiting in vain with gritted teeth to karate kick the next mercenary off a high-rise, a moment that rarely if ever comes. The ending is strangely anticlimactic, and the foil, Hugh Grant, (spoiler alert) ends up reaping all the heroic rewards. When a movie that looks this good on paper comes out mediocre, I always assume that something went wrong behind the scenes. They ran out of money or someone got food poisoning or something. It’s not a disaster, by any means. There’s just something off. Charmingly so? Not really.

Friday, November 21, 2025

Frankenstein

What’s always true with Guillermo del Toro is his deep, deep love of movies. There’s love in every single frame. He just CARES, and I admire that. Not just anybody can come along and do another adaptation of Frankenstein. We didn't need one. It's been done. From the Kenneth Branagh iteration produced by Francis Coppola to the perfect spoof, Young Frankenstein, to the "Franken Berry" cereal, this pie has been baked. Yet the confidence Del Toro enjoys to tell his version of the story is off the charts. 

The key, the gist to the whole story, something we've always known, is that "Frankenstein" is the monster. We've always known that, I suppose. Seeing him get smacked in the face by his abusive father and watch his mother be buried in her terrifying, face-exposing coffin, you can conclude that it's not going to end well for Victor. And while the business of building the creature is necessary, it's only the first part of del Toro's version - the grotesque part. Watching Victor wander through the battlefield, pick through the bodies, and hack them up is truly monstrous. Not an unexpected sentiment from del Toro. But the beautiful stuff will come. Unlike Pinocchio and Nightmare Alley, which seemed to dwell and stew in the ugliness, Frankenstein turns a corner when the creature tells his version of the story. Jacob Elordi's embodiment of the creature is a big, strapping beefcake of a dude, and his depiction is way, way more nuanced than we've seen. He's anything but a monster. And the beautiful stuff in the second half, near the end, is del Toro's cinematic interpretation of "inner" beauty, it's moving and inspiring. This was terrific.

Thursday, November 20, 2025

Wicked: For Good

I’m not sure if I really “get” Wicked: For Good. I think it’s an allegory or a fable about something? Exclusion? Discrimination? “Otherness”? The music is undeniably beautiful. But I’m not entirely sure what they’re singing about. Do I need to dig around for the Frank Baum source material to understand it? Or maybe check the revisionist novel on which the Broadway musical is based? It’s beautifully designed and filmed. People flying around, people yelling, people in jeopardy. Funky steam-punk gears and stuff. But I’m not sure I get what the blonde lady and the green lady want. They sing and cry a lot. The green lady is mad at the wizard, who’s a jerk. The vocals are perfect. There’s not one sour note in this entire musical endeavor, but I have trouble connecting to the underlying moral. Should I just shut up and "follow-follow-follow-follow, follow the yellow-brick-road"?

Tuesday, November 18, 2025

Bugonia

Bugonia mines the botched kidnapping movies of yore. Oldboy. Fargo. Prisoners. Ruthless People. Raising Arizona. It’s always botched. It never works. But we spend a lot of time expanding and exploring delusional kidnappers Teddy (Jesse Plemons) and Don (Aidan Delbis) so when it all invariably goes south we’ll feel for these dumbass weirdos who believe Emma Stone is an alien experimenting on his comatose, hospitalized mother. It’s fairly straightforward – until it isn’t. Revelations occur (as they do) and parables are attempted. The acting is above par, especially from spectrum-y Aidan Delbis as a reluctant, sympathetic accomplice of the cause. Ultimately, though, this comes up icky and empty. Aforementioned revelations play as shocking and darkly humorous, but not really provocative in the way the filmmakers intend. To be clear: I appreciate risk. I admire nuttiness. I’m grateful when I don’t walk out of the theater muttering, “Oh, that old chestnut.” So, two points for Gryffindor. Nevertheless, this frustrates.

Friday, November 14, 2025

Running Man

This was kind of dumb. This was kind of blah. I’m not sure why. It lacked the Edgar Wright-iness of Shaun of the Dead, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, or Baby Driver. Certain plot developments make NO sense. I’m not being nitpicky. Like, seriously, they have absolutely NO inner logic. There are brief moments that dip a toe into Stephen King’s satire of pop culture in an interesting way, but they’re overshadowed and overpowered by the attempts at a visual effects extravaganza, which mostly fall flat. Is it terrible? No. But it’s not really sparkly and fun either. Like a participation trophy in movie form. You showed up, Running Man. Gold star for effort.