I'l Catch Up in the Next 24 Hours

Promise.

Luxo Jr

Yes, this is the 1986 Pixar short which is more than just a historically significant artifact.

Hopefully no one minds me only having the motivation to review something 90 seconds long minus credits. Seeing a Letterboxd mutual noting they revisited the film earlier in the afternoon, my not having viewed anything Pixar in months, and the historical significance are good reasons for a review.

This is quite the achievement, factoring in the computing technology of the time. The animation is primitive (the items are on a wooden desk, the background is black) yet a story is still told via seeing Luxo, Sr. watching his son play w/ a multicolored ball, it accidentally deflating, then the concluding punchline… the short is successful in presenting a big desk lamp and a small desk lamp as sentient beings.

Luxo, Jr. sent shockwaves through the industry as its premiered at SIGGRAPH, a famous annual computer graphics conference; lore tells the crowd applauded SECONDS into the short. Besides being the first CG film nominated for an Academy Award, it was proven that a story can be told w/ objects that are inanimate in “the real world” when beforehand, they were glorified tech demos. I don’t need to elaborate on the rise of Pixar after they worked w/ Disney on various projects until Toy Story’s release then their great run until their purchase by Disney (where many said that led to the company’s downfall) or the rise of computer-animated feature films once computing processing improved to create such imagery.

I’m happy to have computer animation co-exist rather than replace traditional animation. All varieties of animation are worthy; last week I saw a trailer for the upcoming Laika film Wildwood, something I probably will view theatrically unless the buzz surrounding it is poor. In the future, more Pixar films will be viewed-I still haven’t seen some from their Golden Era, as appalling as that will be to many. I was happy to see the beginning of the company, the breathtaking leaps in computing power, and finally tackle the backstory behind the Luxo lamp part of the company’s logo.

I Had a Statham Saturday

This means, watching two Jason Statham movies I saw & reviewed here originally, many years ago. First is 2009's Crank: High Voltage.

Why not have a STATHAM SATURDAY during this Memorial Day weekend?

Today, I revisited Crank: Danger Danger, High Voltage so it’d replace the old, brief review I had from my first few days on the site, THIRTEEN years ago. Sometime in the next 5 to 6 hours, I’ll revisit, write a review, then post said review for another Statham movie to write a better review for that as well. Crank 2 was viewed theatrically in ’09 then later on Blu-Ray, but that was before 2013. Several people here and elsewhere wanted this revisit. Well, be careful what you wish for… I originally thought the movie was OK; now, I hate Danger Danger, High Voltage!

The OG Crank is a loud, absurd movie, yet managed to work if you enjoy insanity as Chev Chelios required constant energy due to a poison he was injected with. This sequel… I know that many people are fans due to the film trying SO, SO hard to be “edgy” and “cool,” thinking that increasing everything 10-fold and CONSTANTLY being “offensive” makes a movie “great.” Sorry to disappoint everyone, but “NO” is my response to that belief.

I rarely enjoy movies-especially now-that try this hard and are so aggro & stupid; that’s my opinion of High Voltage. Yes, there are still frenetic action beats and wacky moments that did make me chuckle. I can’t explain why Chev mentioned Tiger Woods after a CAR CRASH (he didn’t start this trend until months after release) but that was prophetic. However, you can imagine how I feel about the “F this” and “F that” dialogue that is constant, or the constant vulgarities, or how the sequel made the misogynistic original look like a feminist masterpiece in comparison. The Bai Ling character alone—gross.

In the past, I apparently tolerated-if not liked-crap where characters are named POON DONG and that allegedly is knee-slapping hilarious for some. It’s like when I revisited Machete Unleashed at home years after the fact & what I thought was incredibly uneven was now as pleasant as fingernails on a chalkboard due to the forced edginess, absurdism in place of actual humor, & vulgarity… which are among the reasons why I still think Everything, Everywhere, All at Once is one of the worst movies I ever saw theatrically. High Voltage is even worse-it’s like two meth-heads screaming in your ears for 90 minutes!

I’m glad many of you can somehow find enjoyment in this edgelord nonsense. Me, I am thankful that the choice can be made to avoid movies seemingly designed to repulse me, no matter what everyone else feels about them.

Second, 2012's Safe.

My second & last film in my STATHAM SATURDAY is one I hadn’t seen since the theatrical experience, late April of 2012. Unlike w/ Crank: Danger Danger, High Voltage, my opinion hasn’t changed in the 14 years between screenings.

The plot is still complete poppycock; it involves an 11-year-old Chinese girl who has a photographic memory & is a genius at math, because stereotypes… speaking of that, there’s the Russian mob, the Triad, and corrupt NYC cops—insert your own comments if you wish. Meanwhile, Statham is a ex-cop and MMA fighter who fell on hard times after a fixed fight gone wrong.

I still don’t love the opening act; thankfully, when Statham and little Mei meet each other and he saves her (although he said she saved him… awwww), business picked up, both with the story and the action. There’s brawls, shootouts, and martial arts galore; Dudes definitely Get Wrecked ™ & that was satisfying. As I learned via the end credits, Chad Stahelski did the action-no wonder. An even biggest surprise than learning Mark Mothersbaugh did the score was that an executive producer was… KEVIN SPACEY.

It was nice seeing the likes of Chris Sarandon, Robert John Burke, Anson Mount, and (especially) James Hong, but Statham-along w/ his relationship with little girl Catherine Chan-that was quite charming. As silly as the film is, for those that like their 3-star Jason Statham motion pictures, this certainly is one of those, although aided by the rather tasty action beats.

Star Wars: The Mandalorian & Grogu

Star Wars: The Mandalorian & Grogu (2026)

64% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 214 reviews) 

Runtime: 132 minutes

Directed by: Jon Favreau

Starring: Pedro Pascal & quite a few other random voices & actors, including Martin Scorsese!

From: Lucasfilm

I now know that Star Wars has:

Hell as a concept
Lawyers
MINIONS. At least that’s what those tiny hairy bipedal creatures sounded like

My review of The Mandalorian & Grogu will be even lengthier than usual; however, my history with Star Wars is probably necessary here. I am a middle-aged dude who has some gray hair that loved the original trilogy since a little kid, the prequel trilogy was a great idea executed poorly, and I’d rather forget about all the movies in the sequel trilogy, especially the abominations that were The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker. One day, new reviews of those two need to be done-I’m sure they’d be rated much lower by me… but the gag is that I’d quite hesitant to check out those awful movies again!

As for the streaming shows, I only saw the first season of The Mandalorian and wasn’t impressed; the other streaming shows I never bothered with. The only two that doesn’t seem like gruel is Andor & Visions. As to why I’d even bother with The Mandalorian & Grogu, it’s not to be a troll or hater. Rather, “morbid curiosity” and “all the other live-action theatrical movies were viewed on the big screen” were the reasons why.

The Mandalorian & Grogu thankfully isn’t a disaster like The Last Jedi or The Rise of Skywalker. That doesn’t mean I thought it was good, let alone great. As others have noted, the movie felt quite episodic and did not have a traditional plot structure; that’s not necessarily a bad thing, although the movie felt like several episodes of the streaming show. Regrettably, much of this was just forgettable.

That said, as others have noted, thank cripes this isn’t more nonsense featuring characters from the original movies or rehashing ideas ad nauseum. I never saw Clone Wars-the show or movie-yet have heard that Jabba’s son Rotta is a character. I wasn’t sure what was more jarring: a Hutt who is YOKED or the Hutts mainly speaking English instead of Huttese. Jeremy Allen White voicing Rotta was a genuine shock; the credits did remind me that SCORSESE provided a voice for who knows what reason. It’s a small role, so dignified that he brought to life… what is best described as “a four-armed Italian monkey!” Our lead duo deals with several members of the Hutt clan as they attempt to track down a warlord who’s a thread to the New Republic.

It's a shame that this exhibited several of the issues that I feel have been industry-wide problems for years: dimly-lit, unneeded, unnecessary “humor” (although it wasn’t as bad or frequent as in Jedi or Rise), overly explanatory dialogue that wasn’t needed. I’m crestfallen, as the Ludwig Goransson score was quality, many different creatures were seen, and Grogu was usually brought to life by animatronics or puppetry rather than CG.

Disney Star Wars can’t be categorized as anything but a disaster overall. Back then, I never could have imagine them creating films that still have divided the fanbase, focused on streaming gruel, make horrible decision after horrible decision, announce a plethora of projects only to later cancel them, created an industry where “certain YouTubers” have made serious bank criticizing the and THIS is how they returned to cinemas after 6 ½ years. The buzz for the movie seems incredibly low for what was THE name worldwide franchise; many were likely as apathetic as I was, and there has to be plenty that only will see the film for the same reasons I did.

When a highlight (that doesn’t seem like Star Wars but that’s been an issue for years now) is Grogu in a GEARING-UP MONTAGE like he’s John Rambo or John Matrix… well, at least it made me laugh. As someone who avoids modern blockbusters in general-don’t expect me to discuss many more of those in 2026-I suppose it’s a relief that I felt the movie was “incredibly average” instead of “incredibly enraging” or “incredibly stupid.”

The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Revisited

I was wrong about this movie.

The first review-which is now deleted; I’m embarrassed by it-was done the summer of ’15, via a theatrical viewing. My opinion was “meh” and what threw me off was the tongue-in-cheek style, mainly from Henry Cavill but also from the other characters. In hindsight, after viewing other modern films aping the 1960’s and seeing similar performances from others-which didn’t really bother me… Uncle deserved another shot. I thought of doing so for YEARS; of course, it was recent messageboard discussion of Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander-more on that at the end-which finally gave me the push.

In 2026, the movie played much better for me. I always enjoyed the style, the fashion, the music; now, the plot and the performances sat better with me, including from Mr. Cavill. Shame that Armie Hammer has been exposed as an alleged sex pest & weirdo in the preceding 11 years, but… this tale is of a CIA agent teaming with a KGB agent along w/ Vikander (daughter of a nuclear scientist) to Rome to stop Nazi sympathizers from building their own nuclear bomb.

Now, I appreciate how fun, entertaining, cool, funny, and yes, sexy, the lead trio that couldn’t trust each other were together. The supporting turns from the likes of Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Debicki were also memorable. Even more so than 2015, the awesome fashion-especially worn by Ms. Vikander-the sweet jazzy soundtrack from Daniel Pemberton, and needle-drops that are still original today, not to mention greatly appealing to my tastes due to the usage of groovy old tunes comprising several different genres.

It is a shame that a stylish, wacky, light yet still thrilling spy film set in the swingin’ 60’s missed the mark for me back in 2015 for whatever reasons. I realize now how wrong I was then. The action was cool but the focus was on how fashionable everything was. At least now, many more eyes than back then will have read my new take on U.N.C.L.E.—now I wish there would have been a sequel teased during the conclusion.

I wish Guy Ritchie would continue to make motion pictures like this-apparently he hasn’t. As for why there was discussion on a messageboard a few days ago concerning Alicia Vikander & her husband Michael Fassbender: would you believe they are in a Korean film?! Yes, they’re in Hope, from the dude that directed the quality films The Wailing & The Chaser. I am fascinated and now excited to check out Hope in the future.

Mazes & Monsters

Mazes and Monsters (1982)

Runtime: 100 minutes

Directed by: Steven Hilliard Stern

Starring: Tom Hanks, Wendy Crewson, David Wysocki, Chris Makepeace, many famous faces in small roles

From: McDermott Productions/Proctor & Gamble Productions

Yesterday was a crummy day; thank goodness for a Sunday night discovery. Lionsgate has three different YouTube channels titled “MovieSphere” where they upload random genre movies (most of which even I was unfamiliar with), sometimes in 4K. Yes, I’ve known of this infamous scare-mongering made for TV film; well, I can’t explain why the aspect ratio is 1.78:1 instead of 1.33:1 but otherwise, no complaint that I finally got to see the film-in 4K quality to boot-and this poppycock did brighten my mood. 

I can’t blame Lionsgate for censoring the word “suicide” and “STUPID”; I know that’s YouTube’s fault as from other videos, I know they are now Puritanical A-holes! YouTube is now too $#%#$%. I really hope the other films on MovieSphere don’t have these Draconian censorship issues. In any event… 

Note that I’ve never played a game of Dungeons & Dragons or any similar fantasy role-playing games; however, I’ve known that back around this time, there were silly fears over it being related to such activities as Satanism, witchcraft, and even suicide. Mazes and Monsters was originally a novel, which was loosely based on a real-life disappearance of a college student named James Dallas Egbert, III, where his playing of Dungeons & Dragons was greatly overblown in the explanation for his disappearing for a month. 

In 2026, of course it’s nonsense that such a game resulted in TOM HANKS (as Robbie) having a mental health crisis when they transitioned to playing it IRL in a cordoned-off cave system, or that all four of the players in the game are from broken homes. Robbie had obviously the worst childhood and what we call now “mental health struggles.” You can’t entirely blame his deteriorating mind on playing an RPG. It’s all very silly even if the viewer does feel bad that those goofy college kids have flaws, especially Robbie. 

The cast has familiar faces (Chris Makepeace, Wendy Crewson, Lloyd Bochner, Louise Sorel, Anne Francis, Murray Hamilton, Vera Miles) in large or small roles, but it was Hanks and his performance which was the highlight. He made Robbie quite sympathetic no matter his mental state. 

There were elements that I greatly enjoyed: the song that was sung over the opening credits had an incredible amount of reverb for some reason-it’s at least better than that Autotune crap! The opening credits and parts of the final act were filmed in New York City. That includes seeing the Bad New York City of Old (always a favorite) and noting that the non-adult movies playing in Times Square included Creepshow, a re-release of The Empire Strikes Back, An Officer and a Gentleman, & E.T. Plus, Raul Julia stars in the Broadway Musical Nine, which I understand opened in ’82. 

Mazes and Monsters might offend LARP’ers and/or D&D players. As a neutral party in 2026, I can guffaw at this cultural artifact which presented how some people saw what was ultimately a benign pastime, one which ironically gained plenty of attention & fans after the controversy. Considering this debuted on CBS a few days after Christmas (December 28, to be exact) how pessimistic the final act is may surprise—not just because the climax is at a location which no longer exists.

The Ghost Galleon

The Ghost Galleon (El Buque Maldito) (1974)

Runtime: 90 minutes

Directed by: Amando de Ossorio

Starring: Maria Perschy, Jack Taylor (RIP), Barbara Rey, Carlos Lemons, Manuel de Blas

From: Ancla Century Films/Belen Films

RIP Jack Taylor. I know many won’t recognize the name but those well-versed in old European genre movies-usually directed by Jesus Franco-you’ll likely be familiar, and be saddened that he passed away on the 12th at the age of 99. What little I’ve seen of Franco, he’s best described as “hit or miss” with my esoteric tastes & I’ve viewed the infamous Pieces before. However, as a kid I’ve viewed the first two films in Spanish director Amando de Ossorio’s Tombs of the Blind Dead tetralogy of films-the cut versions-and the full versions as adults.

This was a good time to finally view the third in the series. In brief, the lore is that a sect of Knights Templar became cannibals and were executed, crows plucking out their eyes. They (the director thought of them as “mummies” more than “zombies”) rode horses at night to kill.
In this installment, they rode on the titular ghost galleon, an appropriately spooky wooden ship from centuries past. How the ship is first introduced is preposterous: Taylor is a businessman involved in sporting goods who hires a pair of models to get stranded on one of his boats in the middle of the ocean… so that they can get rescued by a ship passing by! No, I don’t get it either.

Furthermore, that plot thread also includes another woman who has sapphic feelings for one of the models, and she’s kept hostage so the scheme isn’t revealed, and she’s unfortunately sexually assaulted. Sleaze was also in the first two movies; my biggest issue: how dreary the film is. “Somnambulistic” is another good term. All the characters-including the one played by Taylor-are just so dull and flat.

The mood & atmosphere are so good, that does plenty of heavy lifting to make the Galleon not a complete waste of time. Unfortunately, for my tastes the movie is too boring, the presence of actual exciting moments in the final act notwithstanding. Franco Files (my term for fans of that director) can better tell you which Jack Taylor films are the “most exciting”; I can say that Pieces is wildly entertaining if not technically “good”; Taylor played a supporting role in that insanity. Tombs of the Blind Dead and Return of the Blind Dead-the original cuts, not any edited versions-are well worth tracking down, IMO. One day I’ll check out the 4th and final in the series, the bizarrely-named Night of the Seagulls.