Steven Rubio's Online Life

geezer cinema: alien: romulus (fede álvarez, 2024)

I liked the first Alien movie, and loved the second. Thought Alien³ was dreadful, and found Alien Resurrection even worse, After that I quit watching. But I was encouraged this time around because I liked director Fede Álvarez' movie Don't Breathe, and hoped this latest installment in the Alien franchise would be a good one. Well, that, and it was my wife's turn to pick a movie.

Sure enough, Alien: Romulus delivers. It takes its time getting to the action, and the various characters aren't all that interesting, so it's slow going until the aliens arrive. But things are straightforward ... no artsy-fartsy stuff here. A decision was made to use mostly old-school special effects, and that's nice ... you feel for the actors when you can't deflect your fear into "well, they're acting against CGI in front of a green screen".

James Cameron's Aliens remains the standard against which all other Alien movies fall short, but Romulus is as good as the first in the series. And Cailee Spaeny in the lead pulls off a cool special effect of her own: Sigourney Weaver's 6'0" height helped make her Ellen Ripley an iconic part of the franchise, but Spaeny is also quite believable as a bad ass in Romulus, and it seems even more amazing, given she is only 5'1".

geezer cinema: civil war (alex garland, 2024)

Your reaction to Civil War will depend, I think, on your expectations going in. I doubt I'm the only person who looked forward to a dystopic look at a near-future America, with clear parallels to the era of Trump. And that's not an inaccurate summary of the plot. What is missing, purposely so as far as I can tell, is a detailed examination of how America got to the point of Civil War. Alex Garland didn't want to "take sides", and he wasn't as interested in how we got there as he was is showing where "there" was, and how it affected his characters. So Civil War is less about the war, and more about its impact on Americans, in particular, journalists.

There is a lot of fine acting in Civil War, especially from Kirsten Dunst. Alex Garland has picked up quite a troupe over the years ... for example, half-a-dozen of the members of this cast were also in his mini-series Devs. They do what they can to enliven the interpersonal relationships between the various journalists, but I found those sections hit-or-miss, and I preferred the action scenes, which raised the film to another level.

Things could be worse. Civil War is an intelligent, well-made, thought-provoking movie. But for me, Ex-Machina remains his best.

geezer cinema: twisters (lee isaac chung, 2024)

I saw the original Twister, probably when it came out. It was fun, although honestly, the only thing I remember about it is the flying cow. Now, almost 30 years later, a sequel. Was it worth the wait?

Money talks. Twister made almost half-a-Billion dollars worldwide on a budget of under $100 Million. The only real question would seem to be, what took so long to put out a sequel? In 2024, the special effects are better, and Glen Powell and Daisy Edgar-Jones are 2024 equivalents of Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt. Twisters is a passable time-waster, but now that I've seen it, I'm not sure why I bothered. The action scenes were impressive, the character studies boring ... in other words, it's typical. People know in advance if they want to see it, and I suppose if they do, they won't be disappointed. But it's no match for Furiosa ... heck, I think Jason Statham's The Beekeeper was more fun. Director Lee Isaac Chung got a deserved Best Director Oscar nomination for Minari ... this is a step backwards.

 

geezer cinema: didi (sean wang, 2024)

It was June 4. We went to a movie theater to see Furiosa. At the time, I wrote, "Due to my wife's current spate of chemo sessions, Geezer Cinema has been a secondary concern. This was the first time in nearly a month that we had a Geezer movie, and almost two months since we'd been to a theater." On June 19, I broke my ankle. We hadn't gone to a theater or had a Geezer Tuesday since Furiosa. Finally, two months, two weeks, and two days later, we went to a theater for Geezer Cinema #242: Didi.

The contrast between these two bookend movies couldn't be greater. Furiosa was an action-packed epic. Didi is a small indie film from Fremont, California, 30 or so miles from my house. It's a coming of age film from first-time director Sean Wang. Much of the cast is amateur, including many of the teenagers and Zhang Li Hua, who plays a grandmother in the movie and is Wang's actual grandmother. The pros include Izaac Wang as Chris (the titular character), who is very good, and the always magnificent Joan Chen as his mother. There is nothing new here, although giving us Asian-American characters is enlightening. But it's all well done. a promising beginning for Sean Wang, and a worthy return to Geezer Cinema for us.

 

geezer cinema: furiosa: a mad max saga (george miller, 2024)

It's the Chemotherapy Chronicles. Due to my wife's current spate of chemo sessions, Geezer Cinema has been a secondary concern. This was the first time in nearly a month that we had a Geezer movie, and almost two months since we'd been to a theater. Furiosa made for a fine return.

A narrative seems to be growing that Furiosa is a failure. It's not killing at the box office, but then, neither is anything else, and as I write this, it has already made $117 million at the box office in less than two weeks (of course, it needs to make a lot more over time to make a profit). I also sense that people are upset that it's not as good as Fury Road. Well, there aren't many movies as good as Fury Road, which is only one of the best action movies of all time. Sure, Fury Road had a better "Metascore" (90, indicating "Universal Acclaim", more than Furiosa's 79), but that says less about any failure on the part of Furiosa than about the greatness of its predecessor.

Of the five Mad Max movies, Furiosa may be the best at character development. This isn't entirely a good thing ... it's the longest Max movie at close to 2 1/2 hours, and the first hour is basically setup, where we learn about Furiosa's childhood. It's not without interest, not at all, but ultimately, we came for the action, and it takes its time arriving. Finally, after that hour, Anya Taylor-Joy takes over the part from Alyla Browne, who does a fine job as young Furiosa. And, as if to calm any concerns about whether Taylor-Joy can effectively take a part made so memorable by Charlize Theron, there is a 15-minute sequence that took 78 days to film, resulting in what may be the best action scene in the history of the franchise.

Fury Road, of course, is effectively one long action sequence. That George Miller maintained the edge-of-seat thrills throughout is one of many things that makes Fury Road an all-time classic. But down the road, I am convinced Furiosa will live as a solid part of the Max saga. If I were to rank the five films, I'd go Fury Road, Road Warrior, Furiosa, Mad Max, Beyond Thunderdome, placing Furiosa right in the middle.

geezer cinema: the animal kingdom (edward h. griffith and george cukor, 1932)

Pre-code comedy-drama that makes for good post-viewing conversation, but is a stage-bound bore for the most part as you watch it.

Edward H. Griffith gets sole credit for directing, although George Cukor's involvement is known. The film stars Ann Harding, an interesting actress who had gotten an Oscar nomination two years earlier for the 1930 version of Holiday. Myrna Loy does Myrna Loy stuff ... her part is about the same size as Harding's, but Harding gets top billing. Leslie Howard is the male lead, and he's one of the reasons the film is rather boring. His character supposedly feels passionately about the two women in his life, but it doesn't come across. The film is based on a play, and it shows, which isn't a dealbreaker (A Streetcar Named Desire, to name one example, is one of our finest films), but it feels painfully obvious in this case.

The plot is what offers the post-mortem conversation. At the beginning, Tom (Howard) has had a long-time relationship (best friends, probably more) with Daisy (Harding), but he falls in love with Cecelia (Loy), who he marries. Various plot shenanigans occur, eventually leading to Tom having to choose between wife Cecelia and true love Daisy. Tom decides to go back to his wife, by which he means Daisy, creating a question about the true meaning and necessity of the social contract of marriage. Which, among other things, is why an attempt to re-release the film once the Code was in place was a failure ... it didn't get clearance. As I say, quite interesting, but it doesn't really make the movie any livelier.

geezer cinema: the greeks had a word for them (lowell sherman, 1932)

I'm not the first person to point out that any movie is made better by the presence of Joan Blondell. Here, she is joined by Madge Evans and Ina Claire, and they make a fun threesome, making their way through "drinkies" as they work as "showgirls-turned-courtesans" in this pre-Code picture. There's not much to it ... as is often the case with a lesser film like this, the trivia is as interesting as anything else. Blondell married the cameraman (it didn't last), and the title was variable ... based on a play, The Greeks Had a Word for It, and for some reason that title was deemed offensive, so they changed "It" until "Them". It was re-released as Three Broadway Girls, which was the title of the print I saw. That print was crappy. This is one of the films that fell into the public domain. There were a few recognizable people who went uncredited: Louise Beavers had a scene or two, can't remember, and Ward Bond had a scene as a cabbie. It's said that Betty Grable's in there, too. Best part: it's over in 79 minutes.

Here's one of the great movie moments featuring Joan Blondell, presented in two parts because the YouTube clips in general are a bit of a mess (the movie is Gold Diggers of 1933):

geezer cinema: the file on thelma jordon (robert siodmak, 1949)

Run-of-the-mill noir that has many of the trappings of the genre, but seems to want to pass as a whodunit. By 1949, studios could put Barbara Stanwyck into a movie like this and coast on her presence to give a noir feel. But as written, Thelma Jordon isn't much of a femme fatale until the end of the movie, which means the film drags. Something like Double Indemnity shows us from the start that Stanwyck's character is no good, but here, Thelma comes across as a wronged woman, unjustly accused of murder, which gives the courtroom scenes at the end some interest, but it's more entertaining to watch a femme fatale at work, and so since Stanwyck isn't revealed until the end, the entertainment value is lessened.

It doesn't help that Wendell Corey is a drab male lead. I kept waiting for something to spark, but it never happened. There's nothing awful about The File on Thelma Jordon ... it's a passable time-waster. But I wouldn't go any higher than that.

geezer cinema/film fatales #205: the hitch-hiker (ida lupino, 1953)

Ida Lupino gets credit for being a woman director in Hollywood when there were no such things. I'm behind the times with Lupino ... this is the first of her directed movies I've seen, and I only saw one movie that she acted in (High Sierra, which I watched recently).

The Hitch-Hiker is compact (71 minutes). Lupino wastes no time, there is no flab, nor is there time to think too hard about what you are seeing. In short, it's effective for what it is attempting. It's a noir without a femme fatale, and ironically the only noir directed by a woman. The best noirs (Double Indemnity and The Night of the Hunter, to name two) are as good as the best films of any genre. It does seem to me that the genre has a reputation that is a bit elevated, though. If you make a spare, inexpensive film with a touch of style, your movie will be highly regarded. A movie like, say, Kansas City Confidential is fine, but that's all it is (and it should go without saying that "fine" is not a pejorative).

So The Hitch-Hiker is a good movie, but its status may be high in part because Lupino directed it, and it's an underexposed noir.

For boomers, the highlight of The Hitch-Hiker is probably William Talman as the title character. This hitch-hiker is a vicious killer, while Talman became best known for his years playing district attorney Hamilton Burger on the old Perry Mason television series. Talman is indeed ferocious here, with a droopy eye that adds menace. Edmond O'Brien and Frank Lovejoy are two friends who pick up Talman, to their regret. The movie I was most reminded of was Detour, which is the best of all the cheapie Grade-Z noirs. The Hitch-Hiker is nowhere near as good as Detour, but it's a worthy addition to your noir viewing.

geezer cinema: godzilla x kong: the new empire (adam wingard, 2024)

The first movie in the Monsterverse, Gareth Edwards' 2014 Godzilla, makes a case for being the best Godzilla movie of all time. At the least, it's the best one made in America. Next was Kong: Skull Island, an entertaining film. Godzilla: King of the Monsters, was a further step downwards, while I liked Godzilla vs. Kong.

Then the Japanese upped the ante with Godzilla Minus One, which is the best Japanese Godzilla movie ever, in part because you actually cared about the human characters. I thought it was one of the ten best movies of the year, and it even won an Oscar.

This is the context within which Godzilla x Kong was released, and the comparison isn't kind. It's nowhere near as good as Minus One or the 2014 version. It's nowhere near as good as Skull Island or Godzilla vs. Kong. I'm not even sure it's as good as King of the Monsters. The human actors do what they can (Brian Tyree Henry can do no wrong, but once again, he's used as comic relief), but the monster fights, as impressive as they are, are ultimately boring. Impressive doesn't mean good. When monsters fight in Godzilla x Kong, you marvel at what can be done with movies today, but you don't give a shit about the monsters doing the fighting. The worst is a little junior Kong, who is predictably annoying ... never trust a monster movie with a precocious kid monster.

Meanwhile, the dialogue is endless and uninteresting, stopping in a couple of spots for egregious exposition overload that stops everything in its tracks. I'd say Godzilla x Kong is disappointing, and if your hopes were raised by the likes of Minus One, you will feel bad. But what Godzilla x Kong (the x is silent) really does is fulfill any expectations you might have for a movie with such a dull title.