Year: 2019

Top 19 Blu-Rays of 2019: Number 18 Swing Time

As 2019 comes to a close I always like to reflect on my favorite physical releases of year. Consumers seem to be moving more and more to streaming services with the launch this holiday season of Disney Plus being the latest. However, 2019 was also a banner year for physical media as well. Several companies really stepped up their game with incredible packaging, extras and in some cases sparkling new transfers of classic films. I will always make the case of physically owning a copy of a movie because it is permanently in your collection, it won’t be dropped or eventually removed from your shelf.

Being that it is 2019, I decided to list my favorite 19 releases of the year. So sit back relax and let’s watch some movies!

Number 18: Swing Time

Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers grace the screen for the sixth time and it is a doozy.

Lucky (Astaire) is set to marry Margaret (Betty Furness) but is tricked by fellow members of his dance act and now must make $25,000 to marry her. Lucky heads to New York where he meets the beautiful and talented Penny Carroll (Rogers) who dances into his heart. A jealous band leader, Ricardo refuses to play for them so they can dance. Soon Lucky isn’t interested in gambling anymore to raise the money for his wedding as he has fallen for Penny. Will the couple dance off together in the sunset?

What a fun movie Swing Time is. Rogers and Astaire are at their peak in this film. Not only is the dancing incredible but the musical numbers are first rate and Rogers owns the screen. Rogers stated that she attributes a lot of the success of the film to the director George Stevens, who is an incredible director. I also learned that some of the dances where purposefully choreographed to have mistakes in them. Think about how amazing of a performer you have to be able to train yourself into making mistakes.

Swing Time is such a good time and a film everyone should see.

Criterion has sourced a new scan for Swing Time and it looks amazing. Criterion mentioned in the booklet that was included that they have removed hiss, scratched and other assorted damage to the film and it shines. Criterion knows how to make 83-year-old movies shine.

Although there is only one audio setting on this release it too taps in time. No distortions or pops to report just some good sounding thumps and taps.

Of course, Criterion brings out the bells and whistles for their releases and Swing Time has some pretty great stuff to keep you coming back. The highlight is a new 41-minute documentary about Swing Time and how the amazing choregraphed moments came to life. Also included is a short interview with film scholar Mia Mask who discuss the song “Bojangles of Harlem” and the use of blackface in the film.

Swing Time is a fun film. Most critics and fans believe this is the best of the Astaire and Rogers collaborations, and it is hard to argue that point. Criterion has done a marvelous job bringing this dancing musical to life.

Film: A-

Video: A

Audio: A

Extras: A-

Overall: A

The Best 19 Blu-Rays of 2019: Number 19 Popeye the Sailor The 1940s Volumes 2 & 3

As 2019 comes to a close I always like to reflect on my favorite physical releases of year. Consumers seem to be moving more and more to streaming services with the launch this holiday season of Disney Plus being the latest. However, 2019 was also a banner year for physical media as well. Several companies really stepped up their came with incredible packaging, extras and in some cases sparkling new transfers of classic films. I will always make the case of physically owning a copy of a movie because it is permanently in your collection, it won’t be dropped or eventually removed from your shelf.

Being that it is 2019, I decided to list my favorite 19 releases of the year. So sit back relax and let’s watch some movies!

19. Popeye the Sailor: the 1940s Volume 2 and 3

Popeye the Sailor is always trying to win the heart of his beloved Olive Oyl. His arch nemesis, Bluto too is after the heart of Olive, which leads to many conflicts and fights with Popeye.

At their most basic, Popeye cartoon shorts are rather simple. Boy loves girl, girl somewhat ignores advances of said boy. Another suitor comes along which leads to a fight. Which in turn leads to Popeye using spinach to gain super strength to best his rival. And while not too many of the cartoons featured on these sets deviate from that standard formula, they are a lot of fun.

If you’ve been following me at all on the show or through my articles you will know I am a sucker for cartoon shorts. Warner Archive has blessed us with two Popeye releases this year following the success of the first volume in 2018. There is a lot of fun in these two discs and each are a really fun showcase of Popeye in the 1940’s. Popeye might never be as popular as Looney Tunes or Mickey Mouse but he makes up for it by being a lovable and funny character. And Famous Studios was always willing to cast Popeye in several different roles from a cowboy to a caveman and a spaceman to Mars, Popeye was sure versatile.

Volume 2 contains 15 classic Popeye shorts, which are;

House Tricks?, Service with a Guile, Klondike Casanova, Peep in the Deep, Rocket to Mars, Rodeo Romeo, The Fistic Fling, The Island Fling, Abusement Park, I’ll Be Skiing Ya, The Royal Four-Flusher, Popeye and the Pirates, Wotta Knight, Safari So Good, All’s Fair at the Fair.

Volume 3 contains 17 classic Popeye shorts, which are;

Olive Oyl for President, Wigwam Whoopee, Pre-Hysterical Man, Popeye Meets Hercules, A Wolf in Sheik’s Clothing, Spinach vs. Hamburgers, Snow Place Like Home, Robin-Hood-Winked, Symphony in Spinach, Popeye’s Premiere, Lumberjack and Jill, Hot Air Aces, A Balmy Swami, Tar with a Star, Silly Hillbilly, Barking Dogs Don’t Fite, The Fly’s Last Flight

In terms of the cartoons I would have to give a slight edge to Volume 2 as being slightly better as Volume 3 contains clip shows (of cartoons shorts? I didn’t even know those exist) but each are very funny and a lot of fun.

The biggest reason to buy these sets is Warner Archive has remastered these shorts to stunning results. Both Volumes contain new 4K restorations from the original nitrate negative. It will blow your mind watching these cartoons that were produced in the 1940s look as if they were drawn yesterday. Colors absolutely pop and there is no signs of artifacts which lead to some of the best looking cartoons in high-definition.

The audio are beautiful. No hissing or damage can be heard in either Volume. And while the cartoons do show their age in sound design it is no fault of the masters, but more in line with what the artists had to work with 70 years ago.

The only bummer with these Popeye sets is there is no bonus materials included.

Popeye the Sailor: 1940’s Volumes 2 and 3 are winners. Being a Golden Age Animation fan these are must own blu-rays and hit all the right nostalgic buttons. It is a bummer that Warner Archive did not include any bonus features on the discs, but they make up for it with new 4K transfers that are stunning. Warner Archive is the gift that keeps giving. Visit their website to purchase these discs and some other truly remarkable releases. If you’re an animation fan Popeye the Sailor 1940s Volume 2 and 3 are a must own.

Movie: Volume 2: A/Volume 3: A-

Video: Volume 2: A+/Volume 3: A+

Audio: Volume 2: A /Volume 3: A

Extras: Volume 2: F/Volume 3: F

Overall: Volume 2: A/Volume 3; A-

Show Time: Should You Watch “The Mandalorian”?

Given that I’m an ENORMOUS fan of Star Wars, it was no surprise that I felt obligated to watch The Mandalorian on Disney+. Initially, I was conflicted about whether I should watch it. Part of me is wary at how Disney is treating this expanded Star Wars Universe — Rogue One hasn’t aged very well in my mind and I never saw Solo (partly because it’s about a character whose backstory I never really needed and partly because I heard mixed things about it). But, then, on the other hand, I figured — since I now have Disney+ — that it would be foolish not to at least watch the first episode or two, just to check it out and see what was up.

A quick synopsis: Five years after the events of Return of the Jedi, a bounty hunter who’s only ever called ‘the Mandalorian’ (played by Pedro Pascal) is trying to make due on what assignments he’s given and the mediocre pay he receives. Thus, when some remnants of the Imperial order offer to pay him very handsomely to track down someone, he takes it without question. However, thanks to this newest assignment, he begins to wonder whether his life is as it should be, or whether he’s lost his integrity and needs to begin again.

So, after watching the first four episodes…

Would I recommend The Mandalorian? In a word: Yes.

(I WILL TRY VERY HARD NOT TO SPOIL THINGS; BUT FYI, THERE COULD BE MILD SPOILERS AHEAD.)

The good:

Where do I even begin? There are so many good aspects of this show that it’s hard to pick a place to start, but I’ll tackle the overall production value first.

I appreciate that this show has a very stout budget but also doesn’t feel like it has to throw a bunch of CGI at you. One of the characters could easily have been CGI, and almost was, but they decided to go with an animatronic/puppet instead, which was a better decision, given how integral this character is to the show. But, when the show does have CGI elements, they’re very well done and convincing. Unlike the prequels, I imagine much of this is shot on location, so the graphic artists and CG animators don’t have to CG an entire world or location as much as a thing in it or an aspect of it (multiple suns or moons — that type of thing). Much like The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi, it knows when to use practical and when to use digital elements, and also knows how to perfectly blend the two. The practical elements don’t feel too restrictive, which was occasionally the case in the original trilogy (ie, that guy in the cantina who’s wearing a werewolf mask), but the CG elements don’t feel over-used.

The show, thus far, has a very minimal cast. We have the Mandalorian and a few recurring characters, but the Mandalorian is the only character played by an actor who’s been in every single episode. Some recurring characters have been in two; and others who I bet will be recurring have only been in one. But, again, we’re not very far into the show. The fact that the core cast is essentially the Mandalorian and another character who doesn’t have any real dialogue keeps it very lean and focused on them. Sure, we’ve had one-off characters who got their little arcs or quests to go on, but that was only in one or two episodes (thus far). I have no idea whether anyone else will be added to the core cast of this show, but I really like how it focuses on Mando and his traveling companion. They are the heart of the show, and their evolving relationship and bond has already been the driving force in at least one character’s arc.

And, on top of that, I cannot get over how amazing Pascal’s performance is as the Mandalorian. Considering that he doesn’t talk much, especially in the first two or three episodes, and his face is constantly covered by his helmet, he has to convey a lot of deep emotion with nothing but his body language. And, I appreciate that the show allows him moments of silence and reflection, rather than him having to verbalize everything. Sure, there are moments where that happens, but it’s moments where it feels appropriate. When he’s alone, he’s allowed to be quiet, rather than talking to himself and spelling everything out for us, the audience.

It also makes me appreciate Pascal as an actor. I’ve only ever seen him in Season 4 of Game of Thrones, where he has a very strong (Spanish?? Latin?) accent, and plays a character who is arguably rooted in some ugly stereotypes. Here, he has an American accent, and because you never seen Mando’s face, I honestly didn’t know it was Pascal playing him until the credits rolled on the first episode.

Speaking of, the credits are weirdly something I both simultaneously hate and love about this show. I, of course, hate it when any given episode is over, but the credits are so well-done that it kinda makes up for it. Ludwig GĂśransson, who was the composer on Black Panther, is the show’s composer; and I absolutely love his theme music for The Mandalorian, which plays briefly during the episode’s title card, but plays in full during the credits. Plus, the credits feature beautiful artwork (perhaps concept art???) from scenes in that given episode.

Overall, the music for the entire show has been good thus far, but GĂśransson’s theme for The Mandalorian perfectly captures everything important about the show and the character. Granted, I’ve seen the show already, but just from relistening to the theme, here are some of the vibes I get from the opening minute of it: Solitary. Loner. Wild / wilderness. The hunt. Predator. Prey. Animalistic.

The first part of it also has a bit of a Western vibe to it, which is appropriate as the Mandalorian plays into the lone gunslinger archetype; the second part blends in something that sounds like a march, so it comes off as more militaristic; then it changes into something more akin to a traditional Star Wars theme with loud brass and strings, which invokes the ideas of heroics and adventure; and then it transitions back into this sci-fi punk type of sound.

So, we have elements of a Western-type solitary gun-for-hire, hunting others and/or being hunted himself, out in the harsh and wild elements of the world. His story has some military aspect to it — order, combat, being sent on a mission, etc. And, he’s off on adventure to display some heroics. And this is all while living in a grungy cyber-punk sort of world.

Now, again, I’ve seen the show, so my experience is no doubt informing the imagery that comes to mind when I heard the music. But, again, it’s music that fits the tone and atmosphere of this world, this character and this show to a tee. Based on my experiences with Black Panther and its soundtrack, I think GĂśransson was the perfect person to score / compose music for this show. Someone like John Williams deals more in the traditional hero/villain themes and tends to stick to more traditional orchestrations (especially when composing Star Wars scores); meanwhile GĂśransson has proven that he can bring a little bit of the animalistic and exotic across in his compositions, and he doesn’t seem to be afraid to use less traditional instrumentation to try to evoke different things.

After all, this is a side of Star Wars that we haven’t seen in the films, at least not substantially. This is the dark underbelly — the scum, the criminals, the outcasts, the guns-for-hire. It’s grimy, dirty, and worn down. It’s a world where everyone plays by their own rules. There are no righteous heroes; there are no obvious villains; everyone is an anti-hero. At least, initially. Star Wars hasn’t really dealt with anti-heroes before, and even though I’d argue Mando doesn’t seem to be a total anti-hero, he definitely leans more in that direction than someone like Luke Skywalker or Rey does.

I could talk a lot more about other aspects of this show that are well-done, but I’ll conclude on this note which I touched on a bit above: so far, The Mandalorian seems to understand why Star Wars has succeeded — it uses familiar archetypes as a foundation while also telling a new story.

This is why the original trilogy succeeds where the prequels, I would argue, fail. The first Star Wars movie, as has been discussed many times, was based on Joseph Campbell’s outline of the Hero’s Journey. It used familiar characters to tell a somewhat familiar story in a new setting. A seemingly innocuous farmer finds out that he has a special call/destiny, and sets off with his old and wise father-figure. Along the way, he befriends a pirate, “rescues” a princess, and strikes a decisive blow that helps the heroes defeat the villains.

Sometimes, less is more. Having a simple story set in a memorable world with likable characters seems to be better received than … space politics. Don’t get me wrong, I see the merits of the prequels, and I think The Clones Wars TV series goes a long way to help fill in some of the gaps in several characters’ arcs.

We also see a return to form, to some degree, in the new trilogy — particularly The Force Awakens, which makes sense given that it was a soft reboot of A New Hope. Rey is our new space-orphan who finds out she has a special power/call/destiny, etc. BUT, I see Rey also simultaneously filling a different archetype — one, that’s arguably much older — and it has to do with her connection to Kylo Ren. I don’t want to get into it here, because this post is supposed to be about The Mandalorian, but Rey and Kylo Ren feel an awful lot like Persephone and Hades, respectively, in The Force Awakens.

Anyway, the point is that The Mandalorian — both the show and the character — are founded on the archetype of the lone gunslinger. But, that’s really a more recent archetype that I’d argue is actually more of a trope than an archetype. Really, the idea of the lone gunslinger/gunman/cowboy/gun-for-hire probably originates in Japanese samurai stories (as do many elements of the Western genre). Really, the archetype is more accurately described as The Wanderer.

The Wanderer is a man adrift, both physically and spiritually/emotionally. He has no real home and no real destination. He is free but he is also incredibly isolated. He is a man of principle — someone who lives by his own code. He keeps to himself and doesn’t meddle in others’ affairs unless absolutely necessary. He is incredibly dangerous and deadly, being well-trained in hand-to-hand combat and/or wielding a weapon. He has a dark past, and — upon meeting someone who reminds him of the kind of values he used to uphold — eventually starts to reconcile with it by no longer wandering but by staying with his newfound friends and/or family. He eventually finds a purpose.

Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin (which Rurouni literally means “wanderer” in Japanese) is an excellent example of this. Granted, by the end of the first episode, he’s found a home with a new set of friends / adopted family. But his past still haunts him both physically and emotionally over the course of the show, and part of the series focuses on him reconciling with what he did in his former life as an assassin. And, of course, many cowboys and gunslingers from Westerns fit this archetype as well.

And so does the Mandalorian.

As I said, archetypes are a framework or a jumping off point for well-written Star Wars characters. They are familiar to the audience, which allows you time to establish the world that your character(s) operate in AND THEN you start doing your character-building.

Again, trying not to spoil anything, but we’re already starting to see Mando’s growth as a character. Ideally, your characters can play into the archetypes but, if they’re well-written, shouldn’t be defined by them. At the end of the day, I can think of other ways besides “wanderer” or “lone gunslinger” to describe Mando now that he’s evolving as a character. And, that’s the point.

OK. So I’ve raved about this show so much. Is there anything negative to say about it?

The bad:

There’s maybe one bad thing about the show, and even then, it’s not like a bid deal. It boils down to me thinking that the show leans too heavily on the pre-established Star Wars imagery.

(MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

So far, we’ve got a Mandalorian bounty hunter; a baby of Yoda’s species; freezing people in carbonite; Jawas; cantinas; Stormtroopers; a bounty-hunting droid; an AT-ST; and probably some other things that I can’t remember right now.

(END OF MILD SPOILERS)

This was especially infuriating in the first two episodes, where it seemed like everything that popped up was something we’ve seen before in the Star Wars universe. It’s a little too much, and it started reminding me of all the “wink-wink” moments in Rogue One.

Granted, it’s also introduced some new things too — creatures, characters, conflicts, planets, etc. And, I think the fourth episode in particular was pretty good about not using anything that was notably Star Wars-y (with one exception).

One other thing I’ll say — which isn’t a criticism with the show itself but more with the culture around it — is that so much of it is getting reduced into memes. Don’t get me wrong: I love the memes that have popped up around the show, and I laugh aloud and/or nod my head in approval at many of them.

BUT, I don’t like the idea of people who aren’t watching the show only absorbing its plot and characters through memes; or people who haven’t seen the newest episode yet (maybe because life got in the way) getting plot points spoiled via memes. This happened to me with the first episode, actually.

Again, I don’t blame the showrunners or anyone who works on The Mandalorian for this meme-centric culture — unless they specifically developed the show with the goal of gaining popularity via memes — but it is just a tad exhausting as a viewer/consumer. So, I can’t imagine how annoying it is for people who don’t want the show or haven’t watched it yet. I mean, we’re only four (almost five) episodes into this show, and already it’s gone viral like nothing else in recent memory (except maybe Game of Thrones???). It’s ridiculous. Part of me enjoys it, and part of me wants it to stop.

So, in answer to the question “Should You Watch The Mandalorian?” I say: FUCK YES!!!

It’s already off to a solid start, and I can’t wait to see what tomorrow’s episode brings!

Classic Cool: The Films of Cary Grant

 Born Archibald Leach on January 18, 1904, the world would not meet Cary Grant until 1931. Grant, who was born in Bristol, England to Elias and Elise Leach. By all accounts, Grant’s childhood was tough, due to his father being an alcoholic and his mother suffering from depression.

Archie as he was known back then was crushed when his father told him that his mother left for a long holiday when he was nine, and later told that she was dead. This was a lie. In truth Elias had sent Elise to Glenside Hospital, a mental institution.

Archie decided early in his teens that he loved to perform. Whether it was behind the scenes working on lighting or performing on stilts, young Archie Leach was gifted. He tried several times to leave his unhappy home by attempting to get on ships as a cabin boy, but Archie was too young. After Archie was expelled from school, his father allowed him to sign a three year contract with The Pender Troupe to tour not only England, but soon Grant would arrive in New York City and perform at the Hippodrome.

Grant would spend the next couple of years touring the USA performing vaudeville and perfecting his acting and comedy chops. Grant would find himself in and out of plays, but soon the limelight of Hollywood would be calling.

Grant would be signed on December 7, 1931 by Paramount Pictures. B.P. Schulberg, the co-founder of Paramount Pictures thought that Archibald Leach was too British and demanded that his name be changed, Cary Grant was “officially born”.

Grant’s first true role in the film industry was, This Is The Night, Grant hated his performance in the film but was surprised to learn that he got good critical notices. And so began the career of one of greatest actors of all-time.

Below you will find my ranking of all but one of Grant’s films. His 1936 film, Suzy only appears on the Warner Archive Jean Harlow Collection, and has proven to be elusive.

It was incredibly fun to watch a golden age star go from being a solid supporting actor into one of the coolest, funniest actors I have ever watched on screen. I am not sure when I first saw a Cary Grant film, but I do know the first film I remember seeing him in was Hitchcock’s To Catch A Thief.

What made me want to watch all of his films was after I bought The Awful Truth on The Criterion Collection, I realized that Grant’s comedic timing was second to none. That led me down the Grant rabbit hole that I will never leave.

What was so awesome about his journey is discovering films that I was unfamiliar with and falling in love with them. (See, The Eagle and The Hawk, it deals with PTSD suffered by fighter pilots in World War I) Throughout my journey, I really started to appreciate not only Grant as an actor but also as a man. I’ve read two biographies and watched a number of documentaries on Grant. And I am pretty sure I have never heard a bad thing said about him. And I won’t either, even in his lesser films, he still is all charm.

And while it is sad that I have reached the end of my Grant journey, I am beyond excited to share with you how I felt about his 71 films. (Grant also appeared in a couple of WW2 propaganda films, a pirate themed variety show and an uncredited role in Singapore Sue, all of which I have left off this list.)

71. Alice in Wonderland, Directed by Norman McLeod

What in the hell is this. Released in 1933, Norman McLeod’s Alice in Wonderland is the worst and weirdest adaptation of the classic story I have ever watched. The direction is boring, and not only is Grant completely covered in his Mock Turtle costume, but so too is another Hollywood star Gary Cooper as the White Knight. The story doesn’t change, the sets are somewhat impressive but the costumes are nightmare inducing. Alice in Wonderland is just a dull mess.

70. Sinners in the Sun, Directed by Alexander Hall

If this film wasn’t anchored by the always amazing Carole Lombard it would be even worse. Lombard plays Doris Blake, a model who stays out late and is pursued by a poor mechanic Jimmie Martin. Doris wants more than Jimmie can offer her and is soon wooed by a rich dude.

By staying out all night and wanting something more we are supposed to be upset with Doris’ nightlife, but like the movie I found it “meh”. Grant is in the film for about 5 minutes and does share a pretty great scene with Lombard, but it comes about ¾ of the way through the film and it doesn’t elevate the film at all.

69. Merrily We Go To Hell, Directed by Dorothy Arzner

Jerry Corbett is an alcoholic writer who is also having an affair. His wife learns of the affair and has one of her own with Charlie Baxter (Grant). The alcoholism is a little heavy handed and like a lot of the films in this era, the film is wrapped up really quickly after Jerry learns the errors of his ways. Points though for being a little racy.

68. This Is The Night, Directed by Frank Tuttle

Cary Grant’s first role is that of Olympic Javelin thrower, Stephen Matthewson. He returns home unexpectedly, he doesn’t know that while he was away his wife, Claire is having an affair with Gerald. Stephen grows suspicious of his wife and Gerald and the two attempt to hide the affair by going to great and not entirely believable lengths.

Cary Grant’s first role isn’t his best, it also doesn’t serve him well as he is handsome and dashing, and Roland Young, who plays Gerald is not. So the affair isn’t really believeable and the script his ho-hum. There is a glimmer of the actor would become, but his first movie was a miss.

67. Devil and The Deep, Directed by Marion Gering

A Naval melodrama about a Commander who is insane, played with gusto by Charles Laughton and his long suffering wife. Gary Cooper stars as Lieutenant Sempter, who is in love with the Commander’s wife and attempts to save her from her controlling husband.

The melodrama is laid on pretty thick in Devil and the Deep. Grant is not given much screen time as the cool sounding Lieutenant Jaeckel. An early effort from Grant who makes the most of his limited role. The miniatures look really cool.

66. Born To Be Bad, Directed by Lowell Sherman

Letty Strong had her son Mickey when she was only 15. She is not married and she refuses to let her son be taken advantage of. Letty teaches him to lie, steal and cheat. When Mickey is caught red handed, rich and handsome Malcolm Trevor (Grant) offers to take Mickey in and give him the life Letty has always wanted for him.

Grant is pretty good in Born To Be Bad, however his character goes from chartable and nice to horrible. Towards the end of the film he realizes that he loves Letty and engages in an affair with her, in his house with his wife there. And the biggest slap in the face is his wife has a heart to heart with Letty and gives them both her blessing. Yuck.

65. Thirty Day Princess, Directed by Marion Gering

An early starring role for Grant, Thirty Day Princess has a European Princess (Sylvia Sidney) arrive in New York City to secure a loan for her country. She catches the mumps and an identical actress is hired to play her while she mends.

Thirty Day Princess is a cute, little film. It doesn’t really push Grant as an actor. The movie moves quickly and it is light-hearted fun.

64. Night and Day, Directed by Michael Curtiz

Grant plays Cole Porter, in this sugar coated bio-pic about the famed songwriter.

Night and Day is a little too clean for my tastes. Cole Porter was brilliant and casting Grant as the icon is good casting, however the movie is pretty dull and never soars to heights of Porter’s fanciful career. It is the first film that Grant stared in that was filmed in color.

63. The Howards of Virginia, Directed by Frank Lloyd

A rich and beautiful woman named Jane (Martha Scott) leaves her rich family and marries a poor surveyor Matt Howard (Grant). The Howards of Virginia follows the couple as they raise their family as war breaks out between England and the Colonies. Matt is pulled into battle as are his two sons. They also have a son who is handicapped that Matt chooses to scold and be embarrassed by.

If you told me that a film about my favorite history subject, The American Revolution, starring one of my favorite actors would be just ho-hum it would break my heart. But that’s what we got here with The Howards of Virginia. Grant is somewhat miscast as he plays the role of Matt a little too over the top. Some of the movie is winning and it is cool to see Grant tackle a colonial war movie.

62. Every Girl Should Be Married, Directed by Don Hartman

Madison Brown (Grant) is a handsome, single pediatrician. A young woman named Anabel (Betsy Drake) is looking for the perfect husband. She believes she has found him in Madison. But Madison is happy with his bachelor life style, can Anabel trap him into marrying her?

If you cringed a little reading the plot of the film I don’t blame you. The title alone is really archaic and the movie is not that much better. It does however feature two really fun performances by Drake and Grant. The movie plays like a sitcom, basically going from one silly situation to another but the actors are game which makes the film a fun watch. Drake would go on to marry Grant a year after this movie was released.

61. Ladies Should Listen, Directed by Frank Tuttle

A beautiful switchboard operator Anna (Frances Drake) falls in love with the kooky business man Julian (Grant) who lives in the building. Anna however only knows Julian from his voice, and is heartbroken to learn he has a girlfriend. Anna soon becomes involved in Julian’s life however when she learns his girlfriend is trying to con him out of money.

Grant is a lot of fun in this film. Around this time (1934), Grant was really starting to find his footing not only as an actor but as a comedian. And while the movie is really silly it does have some really great moments and the chemistry between Drake and Grant is really sweet.

60. Enter Madame, Directed by Elliot Nugent

Lisa Della Robbia (Elissa Landi) is a world famous opera singer. Gerald Fitzgerald (Grant) is infatuated with her. Gerald soon marries Della Robbia, but soon learns that he is taking a backseat to her famous career.

An ok drama that explores a man’s jealousy with his wife’s career. It would take Grant a little longer to get is footing in dramas. Enter Madame isn’t a great movie but it is another example of watching Grant starting to hone his craft.

59. Kiss Them For Me, Directed by Stanley Donen

Navy sailors are given shore leave and decided to take up residence in a San Francisco hotel. While they are there they throw parties, and with the parties come a lot of pretty girls and a lot of problems.

A pretty silly, light later Grant film, Kiss Them For Me is a slight misfire from Grant and director Donen. That doesn’t mean there isn’t fun to be had. There are several laugh out loud moments but the movie drags a little in its 106 minute runtime. And while Jane Mansfield is fine, she is no Marilyn Monroe when it comes to blonde-bombshell comediennes.

58. Kiss and Make-Up, Directed by Harlan Thompson

A well liked plastic surgeon, Maurice Lamar (Grant) is a wizard with a knife. He makes his rich clientele also beautiful. Trouble brews when Dr. Lamar makes Eve Caron (Genevieve Tobin) so beautiful she leaves her husband for him.

So this movie is fun and really horrible to women. It basically says don’t worry if you are ugly, plastic surgery will fix that! It is silly and if you look past the ridiculous plot there is laughs to be had.

57. The Last Outpost, Directed by Charles Barton and Louis J. Gasnier

It’s WW1, and British Officer Michael Andrews (Grant) is captured by the Kurds. He is rescued from execution by a British spy (Claude Rains). Andrews falls for a nurse, Rosemary Haydon (Gertrude Michael) who takes care of his wounded leg. Soon Andrews falls for Haydon who he learns is married. And Rosemary is married to none other than the British spy who rescued him from the Kurds!

An ok War melodrama, buoyed by great performances by Grant and Rains. The battle scenes are also shot really well. I do give this movie extra points for Grant rocking a ‘stache!

56. Madame Butterfly, Directed by Marion Gering

A navy Lieutenant Ben Pinkerton (Grant) is on shore leave in Japan. There he visits a Geisha and marries a woman, Cho-Cho San (Sylvia Sidney). Cho-Cho falls madly in love with Pinkerton and is devastated when he tells her he is leaving. Three years past and Pinkerton is in America with his new wife. Cho-Cho still waiting for Pinkerton to return is revealed to have had a child. Pinkerton returns to visit Cho-Cho who learns of his new wife. Heartbroken, Cho-Cho never reveals Pinkerton of their child.

Madame Butterfly is based on a famous opera and is wonderfully shot, it however suffers from a little heavy handed drama. Plus Grant’s character comes across as just a jerk for a woman who completely devotes herself to him.

55. The Pride and the Passion Directed by Stanley Kramer

During the Napoleonic Wars, a British Officer Anthony (Grant) must transport a large cannon across Spain to help the British defeat the French. He enlists the help of Miguel (Frank Sinatra) but Anthony soon falls for Miguel’s beautiful girl Juana (Sophia Loren).

A movie loaded with star power in front of and behind the scenes is somewhat of a disappointing war film. The movie has its moments but the runtime seems a little bloated as the sole reason to make this movie was to win awards. It didn’t and is a rare misfire for all the talent involved. Not the worst Grant film but maybe the most disappointing.  

54. Wings In the Dark, Directed by James Flood

Two great pilots, Ken Gordon (Grant) and Shelia Mason (Myrna Loy) are the best at what they do. Mason has one disadvantage, being a woman. While Gordon gets the glory, Mason is forced to only fly in shows. Gordon is also working on an auto pilot invention. Tragedy strikes when Gordon is temporarily blinded and Mason must bring him out of his depression.

Although Wings in the Dark suffers from unintentional laughs, the flying photography soars. Grant and Loy display some great chemistry that will serve them well in future films. Plus it’s really cool to see a crazy idea of auto pilot be a reality today.

53.The Woman Accused, Directed by Paul Sloane

Glenda O’Brien (Nancy Carroll) is attacked by a former lover and accidently kills him. She attracts the suspicion of the victim’s friend. Glenda leaves for a cruise with her fiancé, Jeffery Baxter (Grant) but is pursued by several unsavory men who want a confession.

A crime drama early in Grant’s career, The Woman Accused is a solid not great film. The lengths that is gone to make Carroll admit to the murder is really silly, but plays out in a tense manner. Plus Grant whips the hell out of a bad guy to make him confess which is totally bad ass.

52. She Done Him Wrong, Directed by Lowell Sherman

Lady Lou (Mae West) owns a nightclub where she entertains men all night. When one of her former lovers Chick Clark (Owen Moore) returns to see her and learns Lady hasn’t been faithful, he threatens to kill her if she double crosses him. It’s up to the young and handsome Captain Cummings to help Lady.

Mae West claims to have discovered Grant, however Grant was in several films before this one and Grant also denies this, but they do have sizzling chemistry in their first of two films together in 1933. This is really a Mae West film as she is given all the best lines. West crushes it on screen and this film is famous for her line, “Why don’t you come up sometime and see me?” Grant is fun, overall a pretty fun movie. Their second film of ’33 however, I’m No Angel I think is better.

51. Houseboat, Directed by Melville Shavelson

Estranged from his children and wife, Tom Winters (Grant) attempts to reconnect with his children after his wife’s death. His children however dislike him. One night at a concert a beautiful woman, Cinzia Zaccardi (Sophia Loren) finds Winters youngest child after he tries to runaway from his father. Zaccardi soon becomes the maid for the family, but Tom learns that Cinzia can’t cook, or clean but she wins the heart of both the children and Tom while they live on a houseboat.

Houseboat is a cute movie. Its light and a breezy watch. At this point Grant wasn’t taking too many chances but his charm can always buoy an average movie. Loren is great too and has impeccable comedic timing. Plus the soundtrack features Sam Cooke so bonus points for that!

50. Hot Saturday, Directed by William A. Seiter

A rebellious bank teller (Nancy Carroll), has a reputation in a small town. She spends her nights out late, dancing, gambling and drinking. She also has the attention of several suitors. When she stays the night with a womanizer, Romer Sheffield (Grant) she becomes the victim of a rumor, which is spread by a jilted suitor.

Pretty interesting character study with Grant playing the womanizer with a heart of gold. But he too in the film is a subject of just rumors. Sheffield is actually a nice guy who happens to have lots of money. He and Carroll share a really sweet scene and the film reminds us that everything is not what it seems.

49. The Amazing Adventure, Directed by Alfred Zeisler

A millionaire who has grown bored, Ernest Bliss (Grant) takes a bet that he can support himself for a year without touching his money.

A really fun movie with a popular troupe of the 30’s, that of being rich isn’t everything, in fact the rich soon learn that just because you have money doesn’t mean you have happiness. This has been done better in films like Sullivan’s Travels, but The Amazing Adventure has its moments that make it a fun watch.

48. Dream Wife, Directed by Sidney Sheldon

Effie (Deborah Kerr) is all business, her boyfriend Clemson Reade (Grant) longs for a wife who will be his dream wife. When Effie and Clemson call it quits, he finds what he is looking for in a visiting Princess named Tarji (Betta St. John). Tarji is trained in making men happy, but she too longs for something more, freedom. Effie is a US diplomat who is tasked with keeping the visiting royals happy and the courtship of Clemson and Tarji on course. Will Effie remain all business or will she discover what she is missing with Clemson?

A light, fun film in which Grant shows off is impeccable comedic timing, Dream Wife is almost a great Grant film. The silly premise holds it back, but the films actors are all on top of their game. Kerr is also charming, and the chemistry she has with Grant will become a focal point 4 years later in An Affair to Remember.

47. Crisis, Directed by Richard Brooks

During a vacation to a Latin American country, Doctor Eugene Ferguson (Grant) and his wife (Paula Raymond) are captured by a dictator (Jose Ferrer) who needs the doctor to save his life. Due to the country being in the midst of a revolution, the Dictator Raoul Farrago is fearful that if he goes to the hospital to have his tumor removed he will die. Farrago and Ferguson engage in political conversations to which Ferguson soon learns his dislike for Farrago, but his oath as a doctor will force him to save his life.

An interesting film that explores the topic of is it right to save an evil person because that is you’ve sworn to do, or to let a vicious man die because he stands against everything you believe in. Grant and Ferrer are great in the film and while it never quite succeeds at being a morality tale but an interesting movie nonetheless.

46. When You’re In Love, Directed by Robert Riskin and Harry Lachman

Louise Fuller (Grace Moore) is an opera singer stuck in Mexico due to Visa problems. Jimmy Hudson (Grant) is a talented artist who can’t pay his hotel bill. Forced with being out on the streets, Fuller and Hudson devise a plan to get married. Fuller will have her Visa issue cleared up and she will give Hudson $2,000 giving him the financial freedom he wants. Although they spend most of their time bickering they soon develop feelings for one another. Will they stay married or get a divorce? If you are in an unhappy marriage, it is best to take the help of San Marcos divorce lawyers services who will support you, give you legal counseling, and take decisions that are best for your future.

Part comedy, part musical When You’re in Love is a sweet and fun. Grant is really coming into his own as a comedy actor and Moore is solid. The movie suffers from pacing issues due to Moore being quite the opera singer we forced to sit through some painfully slow musical numbers. While not all of them soar, her racy rendition of “Minnie the Moocher” is crowd pleasing.

45. Gambling Ship, Directed by Louis J. Gasnier and Max Marcin

Ace Corbin (Grant)  is a mob boss who decides he is done with being a crook and goes across the country to go straight. Along the way he meets Eleanor La Velle (Benita Hume) whom he falls for her. They both have a past however. Ace won’t tell Eleanor of his dealings and Eleanor is entangled with a mob boss Pete Manning (Jack La Rue). Will either of them survive when Manning forces Ace to be a part of his gambling ship?

I really like Grant films when he goes a little dark. And although Grant’s Ace has a trick up his sleeve to be more likeable he also has a mean streak in Gambling Ship. The twists are fun making this a ship worth sailing for.

44. That Touch of Mink, Directed by Delbert Mann

Suave and rich business man Philip Shayne (Grant), is not looking to settle down. Cathy Timberlake (Doris Day) is a beautiful woman looking for Mr. Right to marry. When a chance encounter brings them together, Shayne does all he can to woo, the innocent Cathy. But he learns that with all the money and the charm in the world may not be enough to sway Cathy of an ideal relationship.

Right out the gate, Grant and Day prove why they are two of the most likeable stars ever. Both are able to lay on the charm with little to no effort. That Touch of Mink is silly, fun and a perfect Sunday afternoon movie.

43. None But The Lonely Heart, Directed by Clifford Odets

Ernie Mott (Grant) returns home to care for his sick mother (Ethel Berrymore). Her antique shop is barely scarping by and Ernie soon turns to a life of crime to help his mother.

Grant was nominated for an Academy Award for this film. So too was Berrymore. Berrymore won, Grant did not. Grant is really good in the film as straddles the line between being good and being a crook. The film however never lives up to the stars performances as it is a little too thick on the melodrama.

42. Indiscreet, Directed by Stanley Donen

Actress Anna Kalman (Ingrid Bergman) is looking for the man of her dreams. In walks Philip Adams (Grant) who might just be that man. Although Adams claims to be married, Kalman is still smitten with him.

Without stating the obvious, Bergman and Grant are sensational in this movie. They’re chemistry picks up right where they left in Notorious and you find yourself rooting for them in the film. Indiscreet is directed with flair by Stanley Donen and the twists and turns are really fun. A really solid effort by everyone involved.

41. Sylvia Scarlett, Directed by George Cukor

Attempting to escape France do to an embezzlement charge, Henry Scarlett (Edmund Gwenn) has his daughter Sylvia (Katharine Hepburn) dress as a boy and go by Sylvester. On the way the meet suave con-man Jimmy Monkley (Grant). The trio soon embark on several schemes along the way, getting help from unlikely people on their journey.

Hepburn owns this movie. And while it’s impossible to buy her as a man (her cheek bones and femininity shine through the costumes and the short hair), she nonetheless is game. Grant is fun with his Cockney accent and mischievous way. This is the first of many great Grant and Hepburn collaborations. It doesn’t ever reach the heights of The Philadelphia Story, but Sylvia Scarlett is a perfectly good road trip-ish movie.

40. The Toast of New York, Directed by Rowland V. Lee

After buying confederate war bonds, a trio of crooks learn they are worthless after the South loses the American Civil War. Instead of resting on their laurels Jim Fisk (Edward Arnold), Nick Boyd (Grant), and Luke (Jack Oakie) decide to con rich business men out of money. Now rich Jim is becoming drunk with power and is prepared to stomp on the poor on his way to the top.

I didn’t expect much from The Toast of New York, but I was wrong. A really good period drama that highlights the danger of greed, you find yourself rooting for and against the devious trio. New York was released in 1937, and although he was a co-star in the film you can start pinpointing the turning point in Grant’s acting career. He now exudes confidence on the screen and would soon become the most popular movie star in the world.

39. I’m No Angel, Directed by Wesley Ruggles

Lion tamer. Dancer. Tira (Mae West) takes her act to new dangers as she places her head directly into a lion’s mouth! Tira soon makes her way to New York where she woos men, and the men become smitten with her. When a wealthy man Jack Clayton falls for Tira, he asks for her hand in marriage. Tira accepts but after a misunderstanding she is sued by Clayton and must prove her innocence in court.

The second pairing of West and Grant, I believe is superior to She Done Him Wrong. West and Grant again put on the charm throughout. And while West was never a great actress in my opinion there is no denying she is alluring on screen.

38. Big Brown Eyes, Directed by Raoul Walsh

Eve Fallon (Joan Bennett) is a noisy manicurist who is recruited to be a reporter to help solve a jewel theft and the shocking murder of a baby. With the help of her charming detective boyfriend Danny Barr (Grant) they make an unbeatable team.

A light hearted comedy that had some truly distressing scenes (the shocking shooting death of a baby) Big Brown Eyes surprised me a lot. Bennett is outstanding as the bubbly and bossy Eve, and Grant as Barr is hitting all the right beats. Their scenes together simply sparkle.

37. Walk Don’t Run, Directed by Charles Walters

On a business trip to Tokyo, Sir William Rutland (Grant) is having a difficult time finding a room to stay at. He is told that the Olympics are making all the hotels sold out. He takes up residence at a young woman’s home, Christine Easton (Samantha Eggar). The two have a hard time sharing the apartment that is further complicated when Rutlans asks Olympian Steve Davis (Jim Hutton) to live with them as well. Rutland sees that Christine and Steve would make a good couple and attempts to play cupid.

Grant’s last film is somewhat of a fitting end to his legendary career. He is so much fun as not the romantic interest but the one who is facilitating the romance. The film is really cute and plays out like a classic sitcom, with some truly laugh out loud moments. My favorite is when Grant is continually locked out of the apartment and how he gets back in is classic.

36. People Will Talk, Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz

A successful doctor, Noah Praetorius (Grant) is under investigation for his unorthodox ways of treating his patients. When a young woman Deborah (Jeanne Crain) faints at a lecture it is revealed that she is pregnant. After being treated Deborah is released and attempts suicide. Due to Praetorius saves her life, he informs her that she is not pregnant. Soon Praetorius falls in love with Deborah and they are married. But will the good doctor survive his investigation and the secret he is keeping from his new wife?

People Will Talk had me crying a couple of times. Both Grant and Crain put in some truly great work that pull on the heart strings. There is a small twist with some amazing performances that make the impact that much more significant. It’s a drama that hits all the right beats.

 35. Monkey Business, Directed by Howard Hawks

A research chemist Barnaby Fulton (Grant) is attempting to make a potion that will be the fountain of youth. After a monkey escapes from his cage and mixes several ingredients, it accidently succeeds. Fulton unknowingly takes the potion and is immediately reverted back to his 20’s. Fulton gets a haircut, a sports car and flirts with the sexy secretary Lois Laurel (Marilyn Monroe). Fulton’s wife Edwina (Ginger Rogers) also takes the potion and the two soon begin to act like children.

Monkey Business is the silliest movie Grant has ever starred in. And although the premise is ridiculous, Rogers and Grant are a riot. Grant going from boring scientist to cocky and sure 20 year old is awesome. His scenes with Monroe, both as a meek chemist and as a cool sports car driving young guy are laugh out loud comedy gold.

34. Wedding Present, Directed by Richard Wallace

Two tabloid reporters Rusty Fleming (Joan Bennett) and Charlie Mason (Grant) are great but irresponsible reporters. They are also dating. When Mason pushes the City Editor out of a job, he soon finds himself the new editor. Mason starts to become unbearable to his co-workers and Rusty. Rusty leaves her job and Mason too. But after Mason learns that she will soon marry another man, Mason attempts to win her back.

Grant and Bennett pick up where they left off on Big Brown Eyes, delivering more laughs and more heartache. A funny and break neck paced movie that paved the way for His Girl Friday.

33. The Grass Is Greener, Directed by Stanley Donen

Victor Rhyall (Grant) is an English Earl, who allows tours of his castle because of hard financial times. During one of the tours, Victor’s wife Hilary Rhyall (Deborah Kerr) is stopped by a handsome millionaire oil tycoon Charles Delacro (Robert Mitchum). Hilary and Charles start as flirtatious adults, but soon develop feelings for one another.

A romantic comedy with Mitchum playing the handsome trouble maker for a married couple is lots of fun. Grant is his usual strong presence on screen with spot on comedic timing. Donen is also at the top of his game. Especially in a duel scene, it is edited and directed with flair.

32. Once Upon A Time, Directed by Alexander Hall

After a string of flops, Broadway producer Jerry Flynn (Grant) is looking for the next big thing. He believes he finds it when a young boy Pinky (Ted Donaldson) shows him a caterpillar named Curly who can dance to “Yes Sir,That’s My Baby”.

Although the plot sounds ludicrous and it is, Once Upon A Time works surprisingly well. Of course if Grant did not believe in the film, then it would fall flat. Grant does give it his all and the charm and the cuteness of the story will bring a smile to your face.

31. Blonde Venus, Directed by Josef Von Sternberg

After a chemist (Herbert Marshall) becomes poisoned, he is forced to go to Europe for treatment. Leaving his entertainer wife Helen (Marlene Dietrich) is forced to work in a nightclub to support herself their son and to pay for the expensive treatment. As Blonde Venus, she soon has a suitor in a millionaire Nick Townsend (Grant) and they fall in love.

I am always surprised when older films tackle really heady issues and Blonde Venus sure does. At one point Helen takes her son and runs from her husband. When he finally catches up to them in New Orleans he pays her off to never see their son again. This is a tough movie to watch and it delivers several punches. Critics point to this film as Grant’s turning point in his career. And they are right, he is great in Blonde Venus.

30. Once Upon A Honeymoon, Directed by Leo McCarey

A reporter Patrick O’Toole (Grant) suspects that Baron Von Luber (Walter Slezak) is actual a Nazi. Von Luber’s wife, Katherine Butt-Smith (Ginger Rogers) a burlesque dancer also notices that wherever her husband goes the Nazi’s aren’t far behind. With the help of Katherine, O’Toole soon uncovers a nefarious plot involving the Baron.

Part comedy, part wartime drama Once Upon A Honeymoon is an odd, satisfying film. Rogers and Grant have charisma and chemistry to spare but what I liked about this film is that it plays first as a comedy then it evolves into a spy thriller. McCarey does a great job balancing all the tones of the script.

29. The Bishop’s Wife, Directed by Henry Koster

In trying to build a grand cathedral a bishop, Henry Broughham (David Niven) seems to have ignored what is important. His wife Julia (Loretta Young) and daughter feel the strain of Henry’s focus on the cathedral. One night Henry prays for help. Enter Dudley (Grant) who seems to have charmed everyone but the Bishop. Henry is concerned that Dudley is going to win the affection of not only everyone in town but also his family. But, is Dudley all he appears to be?

A really sweet movie in which Grant plays (spoiler!) an angel. And while this story is played a little more effectively in Frank Capra’s It’s A Wonderful Life, The Bishop’s Wife is also a winning picture, in no small part to Grant and his undeniable charm. The ice skating scene alone makes this an instant Christmas movie classic.

28. An Affair to Remember, Directed by Leo McCarey

On a cruise to return to New York, playboy NIckie Ferrante (Grant) meets a singer Terry McKay (Deborah Kerr). At first that do not like each other. Nickie is engaged to be married to an heiress and is a known for his affairs. NIckie sees Terry as stand offish. They soon succumb to their attraction to one another and agree to sort out their personal lives and meet in six months atop the Empire State Building. NIckie makes it, but tragedy strikes and Terry doesn’t.

An Affair to Remember is actually a remake of Leo McCarey’s film Love Affair which he made in 1939. This time he recasts the leads from Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer to Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant. This movie is very charming and romantic. Kerr and Grant are really great together and show off their incredible improvising skills in this film. If the movie did not get so cheesy towards the end it would be one of the best romantic dramas ever. Nonetheless, it is still an iconic film that is well loved.

27. Topper, Directed by Norman McLeod

George (Grant) and Marion Kerby (Constance Bennett) are fun loving couple that party and don’t take life seriously. Cosmo Topper (Roland Young) is a bank president who is boring. When the Kerby’s die in an auto accident they return as ghosts, who are determined to haunt Cosmo to change his ho-hum life.

Topper is the first movie where Grant really showed off his amazing comedic timing. He would hone that to perfection four months later in The Awful Truth. Grant and Bennett are having a ball and it shows. A truly fun movie.

26. Room For One More, Directed by Norman Taurog

Anne (Betsy Drake) and George Rose (Grant) have three kids and big hearts. George is surprised when Anne takes in Jane (Iris Mann) an orphan with many issues. George is in for another surprise when Anne adds another troubled orphan to their family Jimmy John (Clifford Tatum Jr.). It’s up to George and Anne to bring their big family together.

Room for One More took me by surprise. Grant is on point throughout the film. He made me laugh and made me cry, sometimes all at once. Hokey in the right parts, sweet at the right time and funny throughout, Room for One More is a winning family comedy.

25. In Name Only, Directed by John Crowell

Rich and handsome, Alec Walker (Grant) is in a loveless marriage with Maida (Kay Francis). Alec soon learns that Maida only married him for money and prestige. On horseback one day Alec meets Julie Eden (Carole Lombard). Julie is widowed and has a daughter. Alec and Julie fall in love, but Maida refuses to divorce Alec.

A drama that delivers on its promise, In Name Only is a really good film that showcases that Lombard and Grant can do more then comedy. They have amazing chemistry and the heartache they endure throughout the film is riveting. Sadly, Lombard would die in a plane crash only three years later and the world lost one of films earliest and brightest stars.

24, To Catch a Thief, Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

A retired cat burglar John Robie (Grant) must catch a thief who’s been copying his style. Enter the beautiful Frances Stevens (Grace Kelly), who sees through Robie’s fake cover and teases and flirts with Robie along the French Rivera.

A cool and sexy heist film directed with flair by Hitchcock, To Catch a Thief is the first Cary Grant film I remember watching. The movie moves quickly and is a lot of fun. This was the third time Grant teamed up with Hitchcock and this would be Kelly’s third and final collaboration with the director. She would soon become the Princess of Monaco after marrying Prince Rainer III in 1956.

23. Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, directed by H.C. Potter

Jim Blandings (Grant) wants nothing more then to get out of the city. So, he and his wife Muriel (Myrna Loy) embark on an adventure to find the perfect country house they can build. But what seems like a dream soon becomes a nightmare with soaring costs and unforeseen mishaps.

A cute and funny film, Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House shapes up nicely. Grant is again in top form as a father, husband and professional. This film is a perfect example of how effortlessly Grant can be dashing, romantic, a fool and the butt end of a joke. It also showcases his amazing chemistry he has with all his female co-stars. Loy is also is top form being funny and a loving, patient wife.

22. Holiday, directed by George Cukor

Johnny Case has found the woman of his dreams Julie Seton (Doris Nolan). He intends to marry her. On the night that they are going to announce their engagement, Johnny is shocked to learn that Julie does not plan to go on a honeymoon with Johnny, but wants him to work in her father’s bank right away. Johnny meets Julie’s fun-loving sister Linda (Katharine Hepburn) and the two soon discover that maybe they have feelings for one another.

Holiday is the second film with Grant and Hepburn in 1938, the other is the screwball classic Bringing Up Baby, and while Holiday doesn’t quite reach the comedy standard of Baby, it is a really funny movie showcasing two amazing talents at their best. What I have always admired about Hepburn is her willingness to be silly for a laugh. She is a great actress and Holiday really lets her spread her comedic wings.

21. The Eagle and the Hawk, directed by Stuart Walker

Pilots for the Royal Air Force deal with not only the physical toll flying in World War I has but also the mental toll as well. Although they are rivals, pilot Jerry Young (Fredric March) and Henry Crocker (Grant) respect one another as the best. The rivalry reaches a breaking point with the death of a young pilot.

Top Gun 1930’s style, Eagle and the Hawk is an amazing film. The air fights are intense, but the drama that unfolds on the ground between the two pilots might be more intense. This film stuck with me long after the credits rolled. It is a very haunting film about PTSD suffered by soldiers that doesn’t pull any punches. I highly recommend it.

20. The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer, directed by Irving Reis

A teenage girl Susan Turner (Shirley Temple) lives with her sister Margret Turner (Myrna Loy), a judge. When handsome artist Richard Nugent (Grant) comes to Susan’s school for a lecture, Susan develops a crush on him. Susan sneaks into Richard’s apartment in an attempt to model for him. The district attorney Tommy and Margert find Susan in Richard’s apartment and Richard assaults Tommy. When Richard is in jail and the reason why Susan was in his apartment is revealed a psychiatrist recommends that Richard take Susan on dates until her infatuation with him dissipates. Richard only agrees to stay out of jail, and does everything he can to make himself appear unattractive to Susan.

The premise for The Bachelor and The Bobby-Soxer is ridiculous but somehow it totally works. It would also be really icky if Grant wasn’t so great at understanding the ridiculousness of the plot and just rolls with it, having a great time. Temple also really shines as a misguided but likeable young woman. The movie is wacky but a heck of a lot of fun.

19. Only Angels Have Wings, directed by Howard Hawks

Flying dangerous missions in South America, Geoff Carter (Grant) has yet to see a mission that he is unwilling to take. When his former flame Judy MacPherson (Rita Hayworth) returns she brings her husband Bat MacPherson (Richard Barthelmess) a discredited pilot. Desperate for help Carter hires him and spurns the advances of Bonnie Lee (Jean Arthur).

Thrilling flying sequences soar in this expertly directed film by Howard Hawks. The drama is palpable both in the air and on the ground. Grant gives a standout performance as a rouge tough guy unwilling to let anything or any person get in his way of delivering on his contracts. Although Hayworth got the attention in this film, Jean Arthur is great as the piano playing Bonnie, the last scene is classic romantic stuff.

18. Suspicion, directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine) is a wealthy woman who falls for a hustler named Johnnie Aysgarth (Grant). Although she has reservations about him, Lina marries Johnnie. It seems Johnnie always has a scheme up his sleeve, and when one of Johnnie’s friends dies mysteriously, Lina believes that Johnnie might have killed him. Lina is now convinced that Johnnie intends to kill her as well, in order to get all of her money.

Crafted with precision and razor-sharp focus, Suspicion definitely lives up to its name. What makes the film work so well is Grant is playing against type here. Sure, he is playing a handsome, charming fellow, but there is something sinister in his performance and with the help of the always stellar Joan Fontaine (see Rebecca) you go on a rollercoaster of a movie. A part of you doesn’t want to believe that Johnnie killed anyone, but you wouldn’t be surprised if he did.

17. The Talk of the Town, directed by George Stevens

Escaping from jail, Leopold Dilg (Grant) finds a home to hide in, that of his childhood sweetheart Nora Shelley (Jean Arthur). Charged with arson and murder after the Holmes Woolen Mill burned down Dilg convinces Shelley that he did not commit the crime. Shelley believes him and intends to keep Dilg hidden. Their situation is complicated when a law professor, soon to be a judge (Ronald Colman) is renting the same house Dilg is hiding in. Dilg engages in philosophical debates with the professor posing as a gardener, in hopes of changing his point of view.

A great showcase for the three leads in the film, The Talk of the Town is a funny, sweet political drama. The debates between Grant and Colman are really fun.

16. Destination Tokyo, directed by Delmer Daves

In preparation for the bombing of Tokyo, Captain Cassidy (Grant) must lead a secret mission with his submarine and crew into Tokyo Bay.

A really well made World War II movie. Grant is stellar as the leader of a fun group of characters. The submarine scenes are really well done and the suspense and drama that unfolds during the film is top notch. I always find it interesting when you watch a WW2 movie that was made during WW2.

15. Penny Serenade, directed by George Stevens

Julie Adams (Irene Dunne) reflects on her life with her husband, Roger (Grant). Their life is filled with love, happiness and tragedy all told through flashbacks.

This film is a real tearjerker. Grant is on point as a loving husband and father. Grant was nominated for Best Actor and he rightly deserved so. The trials and tribulations that he and Dunne go through will make you laugh and cry. The twist in the film is a real gut punch that I actually did not see coming. The film is told in a really interesting way as well as Dunne’s character is telling more of their story through records that she is playing. Irene Dunne too is so such a great actress, that I suspect I will be seeking out more of her films in the future.

14. Mr. Lucky, directed by H.C. Porter

Joe Adams (Grant) is a con man who is able to get out of going to war by winning a poker game and giving his draft card to the loser. When Adams needs money to bankroll his gambling shift he turns his attention to a wealthy socialite Dorothy Bryant (Laraine Day). He uses the gambling ship as a front for a charity casino, but Adams plans on keeping all the money for himself.

A drastic turn for Grant as he plays somewhat of a nefarious character. He lies, cheats and in one instance actually kills a guy. I liked the departure for Grant and it proved he could be a bad guy. Although Grant’s character turns towards the end into a somewhat redeemable character, the damage that he has inflicted in the movie has already been done.

13. Operation Petticoat, directed by Blake Edwards

A frustrated submarine Commander (Grant) is further annoyed when he is given a broken down submarine that is painted pink. Adding to his frustration is Lieutenant Nick Holden (Tony Curtis) and a group of nurses that he reluctantly takes onboard his submarine.

A World War II film that is also a pretty great comedy, Operation Petticoat doesn’t sink under its weight it cruises through the water at a break neck pace. Grant is wonderful in the film. He plays more of the straight man to Curtis’ Holden but Grant has learned how to deliver lines with A+ charisma and snark. There is some great submarine battle moments in the film as well making this a winner for people that love comedy, battles and beautiful nurses.

12. I Was a Male War Bride, directed by Howard Hawks

French Captain Henri Rochard (Grant) is assigned to work with American Lieutenant Catherine Gates (Ann Sheridan). Rochard is forced to be chaperoned by Gates because he isn’t allowed to drive a motorcycle and is stuck in the sidecar. At first the two officers clash, but through a series of misadventures and crashes they fall in love and marry. Rochard can only go to America as part of the traveling war brides.

A truly funny and ridiculous film, I Was a Male War Bride, plays to all of Grant’s strengths as an actor. From physical comedy to laugh out loud moments there is not a dull moment in the film. The big sell for the film at the time was to see Grant in drag and it is funny because although he is a handsome man, he makes for one ugly woman. The moment works so well because Grant too is aware of how much he doesn’t look like a woman, which makes the scenes where he is one very satisfying.

11. Father Goose, directed by Ralph Nelson

A beach bum in the South Sea, Walter Eckland (Grant) is forced to spy on enemy planes in World War II. He doesn’t want to do it, but reluctantly agrees. The Japanese force is just the beginning of his problems however as a French teacher (Leslie Caron) and her students wash ashore and Eckland is forced to carfe for them.

Playing a sloppy, gruff guy is not a character that Grant usually plays. Here, he is magnetic and funny as Eckland. Getting the public to buy this character and like him is a credit to Grant as an actor and to his incredible talent.

10. Gunga Din, directed by George Stevens

Based on the epic poem by Rudyard Kipling, Gunga Din tells the story of three British Army Sergeants Cutter (Grant), MacChesney (Victor McLaglen), and Ballantine (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) who learn of secret cult in 1880 India. They also learn from Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe) of secret temple made of gold, Cutter decides to go after the fortune. Cutter is captured by the Thugee Cult and it’s up to MacChesney, Ballantine and Gunga Din to save him.

An epic adventure film, Gunga Din is one awesome film. Watching the movie reminded me a lot of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. A secret evil cult, the promises of riches, action, romance and a supernatural element all blend together to make an unforgettable movie.

9. My Favorite Wife, directed by Garson Kanin

Ellen Arden (Irene Dunne) returns home after being shipwrecked for over 7 years. When she arrives home she finds her husband Nick (Grant) has remarried to a woman named Bianca Bates (Gail Patrick). Nick is happy but now he has to break the news to his new wife. But Ellen didn’t tell Nick the whole story, she was stranded with a handsome man, Stephen Burkett (Randolph Scott).

I could not stop laughing in this movie. It is a winning screwball comedy. The reaction that Grant has when he learns that his wife was with a hunky dude for 7 years and they called each other “Adam” and “Eve” is priceless. The chemistry between Dunne and Grant is second to none and not just romantically. When it comes to comedy they are equal and make every movie they are in together that much better.

8. His Girl Friday, directed by Howard Hawks

Hildy Johnson (Rosalind Russell) is a journalist for a newspaper that her ex-husband Walter Burns (Grant) is an editor for. When Walter learns that Hildy plans to remarry he attempts every trick he knows to make sure that doesn’t happen.

His Girl Friday is another example of a master class in acting and screwball comedy. The actors talk fast and often times over one another, with the jokes that come even faster. And while Grant is again at his best in this film, the real MVP is Rosalind Russell who shows the boys how comedy is done.

7. Arsenic and Old Lace, directed by Frank Capra

Playwright Mortimer Brewster (Grant) is newly married. When he and his wife Elaine (Priscilla Brewster) stop by his two elderly aunt’s home he is shocked to learn that they have been murdering lonely old men that come over.

I’m not sure if this is the first black comedy ever but the subject matter is certainly dark. But what makes this a truly funny and out of this world screwball comedy is the how manic Grant is throughout. From discovering his aunt’s secrets to his reaction upon finding a corpse under a window, you can’t help but chuckle. The film moves so quickly with Grant delivering his zaniest performance ever, you forget that it really is about two elderly serial killers.

6. Notorious, directed by Alfred Hitchcock

A United States Government agent, T.R. Devlin (Grant) recruits Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman) as a spy. Devlin asks Huberman to win the heart of a Nazi hiding out in Brazil (Claude Rains). Devlin uses Huberman due to her father being a convicted German war criminal. But as he falls for Huberman and she goes deeper undercover, Alicia might be in grave danger.

A terrific spy thriller with a lot of romance sprinkled in for good measure. Grant is not a nice guy in this film. He knows that Alicia will do his bidding due to her father’s transgressions and he exploits it. Grant for his part is amazing at balancing the duty to serve the USA’s interests and his growing love for Bergman’s Alicia. Rains is so great at playing villains and in Notorious he shines again. Berman is in top form as well being torn between two men and being a patriot.

5. The Philadelphia Story, directed by George Cukor

After divorcing her husband two years prior, Tracy Lord (Katharine Hepburn) is about to remarry. Her ex-husband C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant) returns to her life. Also arriving for a scoop for the tabloid paper Spy, is reporter Mike Connor (James Stewart).

Three of Hollywood’s biggest stars at the time clash in the funny and heartfelt The Philadelphia Story. It might seem silly at the time but at this point in her career Hepburn was considered box office poison and was determined to get the movie made. Hepburn was a producer on the film and starred in the Broadway play of the same name. Grant said he would appear in the film if he was given top billing. He was also paid $137,000 for the part, which he donated to the British War Relief Society. The movie is a smashing success and Hepburn owns the role of Tracy Lord. A true romantic comedy winner.

4. Charade, directed by Stanley Donen

After meeting the handsome and funny Peter Joshua (Grant) in the French Alps, Regina Lampert (Audrey Hepburn) returns home to Paris to find her husband murdered. Soon Peter meets up with Regina in Paris, where she is being stalked by men who believe her husband has left her a fortune.

Grant and Audrey Hepburn. That should be all you need to hear to see this movie. But also that it is funny, romantic and sexy. Throw in some suspense and expert direction and you have one hell of an entertaining film. I dare you not to smile every time you learn a new name that Grant goes by and every time Regina asks is there a Mrs. Joshua/Dyle/Canfield he replies yes but divorced.

3. Bringing Up Baby, directed by Howard Hawks

Dr. David Huxley (Grant) is a paleontologist who is waiting for the last bone for his brontosaurus skeleton. He meets the fun but scatterbrained heiress Susan Vance after she plays his ball at a golf course. When a tame leopard named Baby is delivered to her apartment, she asks David for help, setting off a crazy and unpredictable day.

Maybe the screwiest of all screwball comedies, Bring Up Baby never stops upping the ante. Both Grant and Hepburn are game to make themselves look foolish with a hint of charm. Grant playing a nerdy doctor is also welcome as he gets to really cut loose on the physical comedy. What is remarkable about this classic movie is it was largely ignored when it was released and Hepburn was saddled with the unflattering term “box office poison”. She would get that last laugh however as her career continued for over 50 years after this movie was released.

2. North by Northwest, directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Successful advertising man Roger Thornhill is mistaken for a spy. He is kidnapped, threatened, and must travel across the country to clear his name.

I am not sure of a movie that has more iconic scenes then North by Northwest. The crop duster scene, the fight atop Mount Rushmore and the meeting between Grant and Eva Saint Marie aboard a train are all classics. This might be the ultimate Grant film as he is funny, well dressed and an action star all rolled into one glorious picture. Hitchcock is also at the top of his game, from the framing of the film to the blocking of the scenes, I don’t believe he was ever better. What might surprise people if they have never seen this film is how funny it is. North by Northwest is a rollercoaster that everyone should ride.

1.The Awful Truth, directed by Leo McCarey

When married couple Jerry Warriner (Grant) and Lucy (Irene Dunne) accuse each other of lying they decide to file for divorce. While the Warriner’s await the divorce to be finalized they begin dating other people, which leads to jealousy for both of them.

To me the funniest and best film in Grant’s illustrious career. Grant and Dunne are sensational in this film, with their winning chemistry on full display. Grant said that his favorite female co-star was Irene Dunne. Dunne for her part said this about Grant, “I appeared with many leading men. But working with Cary Grant was different from working with other actors, he was so much more fun! I will always remember the two compliments he gave me. He said that I had perfect timing in comedy and that I was the sweetest smelling actress he ever worked with.” Grant is spot on describing Dunne’s comedic timing, she is brilliant. As far as how good she smells, I can only imagine.  Grant and Dunne would go on to appear in two more films together.

The Awful Truth is even more remarkable when you hear what happened behind the scenes. Most of the film was improvised, and Grant begged to be released from the picture because he did not believe it was working. He also clashed with McCarey because he disliked his directing style. All this would go away however as the film proved to be a big hit and Grant would work with McCarey several more times throughout his career.

The Awful Truth was nominated for six Academy Awards, Best Director which it won, Best Picture, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Screenplay, and Best Film Editing.

Show Time: Month-Out Predictions and Theories for “The Rise of Skywalker”

It’s hard to believe that a month from now, I’ll be sitting in the theater, watching the final chapter in Star Wars‘ Skywalker Saga. This is a franchise that has meant so much to me personally that saying farewell to these characters is ultimately going to be bittersweet. But, right now, I’m too consumed with wondering how the story is going to end to fully grasp this. It’s like watching the series finale of Lost. You’re too busy wondering how all the questions are going to be answered and how the final conflict is going to be resolved, that it’s not until after that it really hits you: “Oh, it’s over. That’s it. That was the end.”

Now, Star Wars as a franchise will apparently be going on forever. So far, I’m enjoying The Mandalorian; thus, if we get more stories like that, I honestly wouldn’t mind. But, I think it’s time we bid farewell to the Skywalker family and start focusing on some other more unique and, to be honest, more interesting stories in this fictional universe. (Seriously, why don’t we have a Knights of the Old Republic movie, yet? Oh wait…)

*cough* because we already do *cough* 😉

In any case, because we’re exactly one month away from the movie’s opening date, I wanted to take a minute to make some more predictions on how this is all going to end. I tackled this subject matter previously, but that was in a post that was written more than a year ago — before we even had the title of the movie. Now that we have not only the title, but a lot of footage in the trailers, photos from the movie, interviews from the actors and so on, I think it’s worth really exploring what’s really going to be in this movie, rather than speculating a year in advance.

I want to say, before I really dive into this, that I could be right about some of these predictions. So, if you’re in the midst of a media blackout for The Rise of Skywalker (as some of my friends and family are), and you haven’t seen trailers, read interviews or anything like that, TURN BACK NOW!

I don’t want to throw up SPOILER WARNING, because they’re not actually spoilers (yet), but my predictions might be more than some people want to know beforehand.

SO AGAIN: DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON’T WANT TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING SPOILERS!

Now, onto the predictions:

ACT ONE

I’m going to predict that Act One is going to include Kylo Ren’s Star Destroyer and Rey’s training on the jungle planet.

(Side note: The Internet speculates the planet is called Ajan Kloss. But, one, that’s not confirmed; and, two, that is the stupidest name ever and I’m not going to call it that. Overall, the planets’ names in this movie sound like someone picked them from random Scrabble tiles. Pasaana is the one exception, because that actually sounds like a real place. Kijimi is OK, but I keep wanting to call it Kimiji, because I think that sounds better. Thus, I’m going to be calling “Ajan Kloss” Jungle Planet.)

For the Star Destroyer set piece, we’ve seen a shot of Rey and Kylo fighting and destroying Darth Vader’s helmet, and we have a shot of Finn, Poe and Chewie in a First Order hallway (presumably aboard a FO ship).

I believe, of the two, the Star Destroyer sequence is going to be the first set piece of the movie. Star Wars (main saga) movies always begin with the title crawl in space and then some shot of a ship flying to/from somewhere (or in TLJ, hovering over a planet). I believe our first shot is going to be Rey & Co. flying to Kylo Ren’s Star Destroyer to do … something. Maybe they’re sneaking aboard to steal information. Maybe they’re sneaking aboard to destroy something. I’m not sure.

During this sequence, we will see the confrontation between Rey and Kylo. She will pick up the Sith relic knife (seen in the shot where she’s destroying the helmet) during the fight, and SHE will destroy the Darth Vader helmet (whether accidentally or on purpose). Some people conjecture that she and Kylo are destroying it together, but I don’t think this is the case. Kylo, in the brief second we see this scene, seems to be concerned about its destruction. I think either Rey was trying to destroy the helmet on purpose or it was a by-product of the fight (ie, she parried his strike or vice versa and the lightsabers crashed into it).

Then, she, Finn and Poe escape the ship via the Falcon. We have a photo of Kylo — helmet off — in the hangar bay. It looks like a ship is flying away, as many of the Stormtroopers in the background are on the ground because of the ship’s engines blasting in their direction. So, makes me think that Kylo is using the Force to stand up and walk toward the ship before/as it flies away. [EDIT: I just saw a TV spot that confirms this prediction. It showed Rey escaping onto the Falcon in the hangar bay and Kylo watching her while staying upright via the Force.]

So then there’s the training sequence on the Jungle Planet. Now, I’ll fully admit that it’s possible that THIS is the first protagonist-centered set piece of the movie (because maybe the opening sequence is something First Order-centered, like in Return of the Jedi).

That would make more sense thematically, as it would show Rey has completed her training and is fully capable of facing Kylo Ren / taking on the First Order or whatever. As someone else described when analyzing that footage from the final trailer, it shows Rey has left her childhood behind (the helmet she discards as she runs away) and is now a fully matured woman and Jedi Knight (or at least, Force user). If TFA was childhood and TLJ was adolescence, then it fits that TROS will be adulthood.

This is also where Rey is saying goodbye to Leia, symbolizing the full transition from the old characters to the new ones.

Either way, I believe that these two set pieces (Jungle Planet training/saying goodbye to Leia and the Star Destroyer infiltration/fight) will be the first big ones of the movie. It’s the order I’m not sure about, because I could honestly see it going either way. (Actually, Jungle Planet then Star Destroyer kinda makes more sense, especially if Pasaana is an unscheduled stop in Act Two because their ship gets damaged escaping the Star Destroyer.)

ACT TWO

This is the act we’ve gotten the most about, it seems like. The bulk of Act Two seems to take place on Pasaana (the desert planet) with a few scenes on Kijimi (the underworld hideout where Zorri Bliss [Keri Russell’s character] is). Again, I’m not entirely sure on the order of which one is first. I would guess Pasaana, because the C-3PO “farewell” scene seems to be on Kijimi as Zorri Bliss is there.

OK, so after leaving the Jungle Planet, probably, the group goes to Pasaana. Or it could be that the the Jungle Planet is first, then they flee the Star Destroyer and maybe crash-land in Pasaana or something. Maybe it’s like a Flee from Naboo situation (in Phantom Menace) or Jakku situation (in TFA), where their ship is hit and so they have to make an emergency landing on a nearby planet to repair their ship or refuel. Either way, the First Order still seems to be chasing them across Pasaana, and we have the showdown between Rey and Kylo in his TIE fighter.

On that score, I subscribe to the theory that Rey and Kylo are actually training in that scene where she jumps over the TIE fighter.

We have the Vanity Fair covers that show Rey and Kylo on Pasaana, and they seem to be looking at each other with mixed emotions. And, as Daisy Ridley has stated in an interview, there was a very emotional scene that they filmed in Jordan with the natural light fading. And, there’s a photo of Kylo — helmet off — walking in a desert environment, presumably Pasaana.

I think, after the incident on the ship where Sith relics were disturbed or destroyed, Kylo has become aware of something developing on the Dark Side of the Force (which is Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious — and I’ll talk about that more in the Act 3 section). Thus, he seeks out Rey, because he wants to partner with her to investigate and probably destroy whatever this Dark Side energy is that he senses. He will call off all the First Order forces from pursuing them — so the speeder chase scene will presumably be in the first half of the group’s trip to Pasaana — and then he will approach the group (read: Rey) to ask for her help.

And THEN, I predict, we will get the infamous ‘Rey flipping over the TIE fighter scene.’ As I said, I believe the two are training. Some on the Internet have theorized that Kylo’s TIE fighter is actually cloaked and — while we the audience can see it in the shot — Rey can’t. Thus, she’s doing all that running and jumping solely because she’s honing her ability to sense things via the Force. It would also explain why she’s so out of breath at the beginning of the scene — because they’ve done this several times already and this is only Kylo’s most recent pass and Rey’s most recent jump. It also explains why Kylo isn’t shooting at her, which I found very odd when I first saw the scene.

OK, that seems to be the bulk of what we know they do on Pasaana. Now Kijimi. Again, it could be that Kijimi takes place before Pasaana. I have no idea, but — like with Act One — I think these two set pieces will take up the bulk of Act Two. I just don’t know the order.

The one thing that apparently takes place on Kijimi is whatever the group is doing with C-3PO that makes him take “one last look” at his friends. We also have the shot of C-3PO’s red eyes in the D-23 footage, which seems to be during the same scene. My prediction is that they are trying to recover some information from C-3PO’s memory that has been deleted. This technology is experimental, perhaps; and thus, there’s a risk that rather than recovering his old memories, it will wipe out his current ones. That’s why C-3PO is taking a last look at his friends, because there’s a risk he will forget them if the recovery technique fails. What memory or memories are they recovering from him? Not sure. Probably something to do with Anakin or Palpatine, as that would be relevant to what’s happening in Act 3.

ACT THREE

OK, so Act Three seems to consist of the lightsaber fight between Kylo and Rey atop the Death Star ruins on the ocean moon, supposedly named Kef Bir (I’m not calling it that — Ocean Moon is fine); the big space battle between the Resistance and First Order/Empire(??); and the confrontation with Palpatine.

I don’t really have a lot of predictions on the space battle front, so I’m going to focus mainly on everything going on between Kylo and Rey on Ocean Moon.

So, we have the shot of Rey & Co. arriving at the Death Star ruins from the first trailer, and then we have a shot of her riding over to it in some kind of skiff in the final trailer. This obviously happens before the fight between her and Kylo.

Now, from the final trailer, we have this shot of Rey (lightsaber ignited) and Kylo (no helmet and no lightsaber ignited) standing in the Death Star ruins of the Emperor’s Throne Room. I believe that this happens BEFORE the fight, because it seems to be lighter outside in the background. It seems that this meeting in the Throne Room takes place during the day, the fight atop the ruins takes place at dusk, and the confrontation with Palpatine takes place at night. So, I think that’s the sequence of events.

So, if Rey and Kylo teamed up before on Pasaana, why are they now fighting?

I have two theories: either Rey blames Kylo for Leia’s death, because we know Leia’s alive in Act One and presumably won’t be around much in the movie after that; OR — more likely — Kylo is being possessed by Palpatine.

Alright, so on the Sidious/Palpatine front, here’s what I think is happening:

Palpatine IS dead, but his essence or spirit or whatever you want to call it has been lingering on the Dark Side of the Force. Basically, he’s like Voldemort. Even though he died physically on the Death Star in ROTJ, he didn’t actually die. He’s too powerful in the Dark Side of the Force to actually be gone for good. And, I subscribe to the theory that Palpatine’s spirit was the one possessing Snoke (similar to how Voldemort possessed Quirrell as a sort of temporary body in Sorcerer’s Stone). If you go back through Snoke’s dialogue from TFA and TLJ, there wasn’t anything that sounded out-of-character for the Emperor to say; I mean, I think it was kind of like generically evil on purpose, just like the Emperor’s dialogue in ROTJ.

And, so, just as Palpatine presumably took over Snoke’s body — probably because it was the only one available at the time (again, like Quirrell) — now he has two young people who are both extremely strong in Force. I mean, now, he gets his pick of the litter, so to speak. Thus, I think he’ll initially possess and control Kylo, even if it’s only partially or only temporarily. And that’s how we get the lightsaber fight.

Rey will be pissed that Palpatine is controlling Kylo’s body and will fight in an effort to drive him out. It’s also possible that during this possession, Kylo will see Dark Rey, which we saw in the D-23 footage. I wouldn’t be surprised if — maybe because he doesn’t have full control of Kylo’s body just yet — Palpatine was manipulating Kylo into fighting Rey by showing Kylo a vision of her on the Dark Side. He’s corrupting Kylo’s mind into fighting Rey.

Now, the fight ends in a kind of draw. We see that Palpatine has returned in some kind of corporal form, as he’s confronting Rey in the final trailer. And we know that Kylo — if he was possessed before — has regained his senses by the time Palpatine physically returns.

This makes me wonder — and this is more of a theory than a prediction — that Palpatine drained Kylo of ability to use the Force and has used that energy to return physically. We know that Palpatine can use the Force to create / take away life from ROTS, and so I imagine he had to have access to a physical body who was strong enough, specifically in the Dark Side, to do this. That’s why he couldn’t do so when he controlled/possessed Snoke’s body. He needed Kylo’s power and strength, especially in the Dark Side, to be able to do it.

This would explain why Kylo isn’t initially facing down Palpatine with Rey. (The showdown appears to still be on Ocean Moon, but just a different part. I wonder if the tide shifted or something when the old Star Destroyers rose up out of the water …)

So, in their previous fight (where Palpatine is probably possessing Kylo) atop the Death Star ruins, neither side really wins. Rey is maybe strong enough to prevent Palpatine/Kylo from doing more damage while also keeping Kylo alive, but Palpatine gains enough energy to bring himself back to life. But, as said, rather than being by her side, Kylo is next to his TIE fighter and then DECIDES to go back and help Rey — or at least that’s what I predict he’s doing in the final trailer and D-23 footage.

But, why isn’t Kylo already alongside Rey? I doubt he’d just abandon her; and I doubt that Palpatine controlled or tempted him to abandon her. As I speculate, if Kylo was drained of his Force powers… I could see Rey telling Kylo that — without access to the Force — he’s only a liability and should leave while he has the chance. No doubt Palpatine’s focus has now shifted to Rey because she’s just as strong in the Force as Kylo is, and he probably wants to drain her energy, possess her body, or something else nefarious. Maybe Rey creates a distraction so Kylo can get away safely. And, just as he returns to his TIE fighter and is about to fly away, he decides he needs to go back and help her — Force powers or no.

Or, even if he still has his Force power, it’s possible that Rey was able to drive Palpatine out of Kylo during their fight earlier; and because of that Palpatine now wants to possess her and Rey wants Kylo to leave before Palpatine possess him again.

Either way, Kylo decides to go back and help Rey, and I predict that this is PART of the reason why the movie is called The Rise of Skywalker. Kylo, being the last living descendant of Anakin Skywalker, is now “rising” to the occasion and stopping the saga’s Big Bad (Palpatine) from taking over the galaxy or whatever his evil schemes are this time. Of course, Rey will certainly help in this effort, but Kylo’s choice there seems to be very pivotal to the whole story. Rather than letting the Dark Side/evil triumph, Kylo is going to turn back toward the Light/good.

And, of course, I think that that last shot of Rey looking directly at the camera in the final trailer will be her looking at Kylo/Ben when he decides to come back toward the Light/good.

Anyway, the two will fight alongside one another to defeat Palpatine, and they will because, duh.

THE DENOUEMENT

If you read my other post, you know that I subscribe to the theory that Rey and Kylo/Ben will get ~together~ at the end of the movie and become something akin to Grey Jedi — Force-users who use both the Light and the Dark Sides of the Force in balance. I also subscribe to the theory that this movement that they start of ‘balance’ within the Force will be called Skywalker or Skywalkers. The Jedi were a religion on the Light Side; the Sith, a religion on the Dark Side; and now, the Skywalker(s) will be a religion in between.

This is ANOTHER reason for why I think the movie is named “the Rise of Skywalker.” The titular Skywalker could refer to Kylo (an actual descendant of Anakin Skywalker), AND Rey (because I’m hoping she marries into that family), AND any future children they have, AND any students they have in their newfound order of Gray Jedi-like Force users.

I also predict that both the First Order/Empire and the Resistance will be disbanded and a new system of government will be instituted. Maybe the Republic will be resurrected; or maybe it will be something new entirely.

If my theory that Kylo will be drained of his Force-powers is true, I could see him never regaining them. Or, in an X-Men 3 way, regaining them but very slowly. Or maybe he will be drained of the Dark Side, but he can still use the Light. Who knows? This is where my predictions start to thin out, but I feel like for audiences to accept Kylo’s redemption he’s going to have to suffer some kind of loss of power or strength. Maybe it’s a physical injury, like a lost limb, or maybe it’s a spiritual one (ie, he’s lost his Force powers).

And, my theory for the final shot of the movie will be Rey and Kylo together either on Naboo or Tatooine. I could see either, to be quite honest. Naboo is where the whole nine-episode saga started in The Phantom Menace. The first shot in the whole saga (chronologically in-universe) was the Jedi’s ship flying toward Naboo. I could see the final shot be Rey and Kylo — our two Grey Jedi / Skywalker — on Naboo, thus completing the circle. But, Tatooine has more significance to the overall franchise, and that is where the Skywalker saga literally started because it’s where we first meet Anakin in The Phantom Menace.

MISC. THINGS & FINAL THOUGHTS

I want to state, for the record, that there are definitely plot lines and plot points that I know will be in the film that I did not discuss or make predictions about. These include Kylo mowing down a First Order soldier in the first trailer, Luke’s speech (presumably as a Force Ghost), Lando’s return, any of the new characters, or anything to do with the Resistance and the final battle.

Who knows? Maybe the first sequence will be Kylo’s ship going to wherever this red forest is to put down some kind of First Order insurrection, and then we get Rey training on Jungle Planet, and then we get Kijimi, and then the Star Destroyer and then Pasaana and then Ocean Moon. And maybe the shot of Rey and Kylo in the Throne Room of the Death Star ruins is actually after their fight with Palpatine (which would make sense thematically as the ‘return of the light’ given that it’s so bright in that scene compared to all the others in/around the Death Star ruins).

Here’s the thing: I don’t want all my predictions to be right. If they are, then it means the movie’s going to be boring because of how stale and predictable it is. Obviously, there are things I can say for certain about it — the Forest Planet training will definitely be at the beginning, Pasaana in the middle, Ocean Moon showdown at the end — but I also realize that there’s going to be a lot of stuff in this movie that we never even got a hint of in the trailers.

If you recall all the marketing for TLJ, for instance, there was never anything about Yoda returning as a Force Ghost, Holdo’s lightspeed-kamikaze move, or Rey and Kylo teaming up, or Snoke’s death. This franchise, I think, knows what cards to play and when in terms of marketing. Do we actually know the plot of the movie? No, not really. But, we know some things that are going to happen in it, like the lightsaber fight on the Death Star ruins, Rey finishing her training, Palpatine coming back in some fashion, etc. In the same way, I don’t think you could really piece together the plot of TLJ whenever its trailer came out. I mean, people thought the Crait battle was at the beginning or middle of the movie, rather than the end.

So, anyway, just keep that in mind. As Youtuber Preston Jacobs likes to say: I’m probably wrong about half of this.

And, that’s OK. So long as they get the big things right — Kylo/Ben being redeemed, he and Rey ending up together, and starting a Grey Jedi-type movement — I’ll be more than satisfied.

Thankfully, we only have one more month to find out!!!

Until then:

Show Time: A Dialogue on Horror Films (ft. Ryan)

NOTE: At the end of Reel Nerds Podcast Episode 410: NXNW (the “North by Northwest” episode), Ryan announced that the Nerds would be watching “IT: Chapter 2” for the following episode, and I expressed my unwillingness to watch it. When Ryan asked me why during the recording, I didn’t have a very good response, which led to me reigniting the conversation via messenger app. What follows is the back-and-forth that Ryan and I had about horror films and the genre as a whole, which I reposted here with his blessing. At different points, he recommends films for me to watch as a way to gauge my taste in the genre, and I share those thoughts on the films as well.

I’ll tell you at the outset that it’s very long — spanning several weeks — but I figure it’s best to capture it all in a single post. I tried to edit it as best as I could, but if some misspellings, abbreviations and text shorthand slipped in, I apologize. So, without further ado, enjoy!

###

Initial conversation on Aug. 31:

CORINNE: So I’ve been thinking over your question about why I don’t like horror movies. I stand by my comment that I don’t like being on edge when I watch movies to be entertained. But to expand on that, I’d say it’s because horror — as a genre — treats violence and villains/monsters differently than typical action/adventure/superhero movies do. In the latter, defeating the bad guy is pretty much a given. There might be a token death or two, but overall, it feels like a bad guy that can be defeated. In horror movies, though, the violence and death seems inevitable. No one is safe. Oftentimes the primary victims are women (like in Friday the 13th) and instead of the bad guy feeling like a typical villain, they’re more of a predator or real monster. Someone who can’t be reasoned with, someone who can’t be defeated (in true horror movie fashion, the monster is never really dead). The end is more of a reprieve from violence than it is a resounding victory, like in superhero movies. I’m sure there are exceptions, but in my limited experience with the genre, that’s what I would say. As one YouTube essayist I enjoy said — and I’m paraphrasing — for women, violence is not escapism, bc it’s something that we consider in our decision-making every day. I don’t think that’s 100 percent true, but I do think it’s on the right track. In real life, there are a lot of Jason’s and Freddy’s and Michael Meyers, unfortunately. And perhaps the horror genre glorifies those types of images and scenarios, especially through franchises. Rather than showing that the monster can be killed, it shows that the monster and the violence and death it brings with it, is inevitable and can’t be stopped. And that’s just not a very happy message. I guess it is realistic, in a way, bc humans have always been brutal to each other. But again, I watch movies more for escapism than realism (in some regards). So 🤷‍♀️. Like I said: I’d really like to do an article about it. Maybe I need to find a horror movie to watch to help me examine my own thoughts and reactions on why I don’t like them. Any suggestions?

RYAN: What reaction are you looking for? Are you looking to be scared or looking for a solid horror film? And too I would not say that violence is only perpetuated on women. Give me one second and I will back up what I just said with facts that I can send you. I’m not trying to belittle or dismiss what you are saying but a lot of times people that don’t watch horror films have that reaction to them. They see the monster, Freddy or Jason and assume that the violence is some form of either only preying on woman or as punishment for sex, drugs etc. I would argue that Jason is the shark in Jaws, no rhyme or reason just a predator who takes advantage of what’s presented. And also too, Friday the 13th movies are not the best example of horror films. I love them because they are an escape cinema not high art. Give me a moment and I will send you stuff to back up what I’m saying.

CORINNE: I know it’s not only women. But maybe some of the more iconic ones prominently feature female victims trying to escape a male “monster.” Like Friday the 13th. Again, not all. I just want to watch something that isn’t going to give me nightmares. I watched The Exorcist in HS and had trouble sleeping for a few days.

RYAN: I think something like You’re Next might be a good one. It is a little creepy but the twist is awesome and it happens about half way through the movie making the last half super satisfying and awesome. And too mostly the women are the ones who fight back. The term “final girl” refers to this, I mean the most iconic is Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween.

CORINNE: True. But the monster is never really gone either. It’s like the breaks between rounds in a boxing match. I also think horror is a bigger genre than I might realize. So it will depend. Like, you said that Night of the Living Dead is horror and I was like 🤣 . Bc it wasn’t scary. And other than maybe two scenes, it wasn’t tense.

RYAN: Well, that’s just splitting hairs because you mentioned earlier superhero films with villains never really die and someone even as charismatic as Loki is responsible for more deaths then Jason ever has been. He literally killed or at least is responsible for thousands of people in New York and the Frost Giants whole civilization. So it’s truly all relative in terms on what makes someone bad and the horror they endure. But horror films will exploit and glorify the deaths more. But I see what you’re saying I just think it’s all relative if you really think about what a villain does. And we always want them to come back because of the charisma or the unstoppable nature makes you want them to be defeated. Just like the Green Goblin or Loki, we love to hate them. And in horror films it’s the monsters, Wolfman, Jason etc. But let me think about maybe not so much “classy” horror but maybe more accessible horror

CORINNE: With superhero villains, usually the violence is dealt with in a more abstract or indirect way. Yes people are dying and he’s responsible for their deaths, but they don’t show Loki murdering someone — and even the guy whose eyeball he rips out in Avengers is in a PG-13 way. It’s probably a combination of brutality + on-screen violence + unstoppable monster + tension while watching it. As I said when we reviewed Red Sparrow, I don’t really like dark and brutal movies in any form. And that was more of a spy/action/drama than it was anything close to a horror. Also it could be that I’m a giant scaredy cat bc I don’t like going to haunted houses, either. Regarding brutal movies, I also had trouble sleeping after watching The Pianist bc of how brutal it was. Which is why if I ever do Schindler’s List for CtC, I’m going to make sure to watch it early in the AM and then spend the rest of the day doing light-hearted things.

RYAN: And Schindler’s List is amazing but it is so bleak and heartbreaking. You totally need to be in the right frame of mind to watch.

CORINNE: So, I have seen the “horror” version of Phantom of the Opera. I even put it on my 1989 Filmsplosion list. Even though it’s horror, it doesn’t bother me bc the violence is so cartoony and campy. Have you seen it?

RYAN: The Robert England one? I have and it is campy fun. I would say the early Phantoms are horror as well. On a different level but they exam the horror in upper class as well as the monster who really is just a tragedy figure.

CORINNE: Yes, the one with Robert Englund. Those early horror movies are more Gothic horror than modern horror, and I have no problem with them. They’re not as brutal or violent as modern horror. They’re more in the style of a mystery, thriller or romance, depending on the IP.

RYAN: Gotcha.

Picking up the conversation in mid-September:

CORINNE: I’ve thought of a few other points but I do want to find a horror movie that’s accessible for me so I can watch it as a test and see how I react to it. … But to my earlier point: I know the Nerds’ motto is “give every movie a chance” but that’s not super practical for everyday theater-goers. Yes the pricing models are changing, but most people are paying $10 to see a movie. Now $10 isn’t a lot for most people, but when you’re on a budget and there’s x-number of movies that sound worth seeing, you’ll probably spend your money on the ones you want to see the most. Superheroes, Disney movies, blockbusters, etc. This is most people. Sure maybe you’ll watch your Juliet’s Naked and your Peanut Butter Falcons when they’re streaming somewhere sometime. But when it comes to paying to see a movie in the theater, I think I’m picky, like most people. My time isn’t worth much but my money is worth more. So paying to see something at the box office is a lot when there are plenty of alternatives on streaming or Redbox or whatever. So it’s an experience that I better enjoy. And I don’t enjoy horror movies, for the most part. Now, watching them at home, when they’re streaming or rented from the library … that might be the way to go for me. Then I can pause and turn on lights or whatever as I need to. And that might be something to try out with The Guest. But, as for new horror releases, you can count me out.

RYAN: I think you’re right. I think that’s why the “movie pass” structure is a good thing to see movies with out worrying if you wasted money. I think at Regal now it’s $21 to see as many movies as you want. My Alamo season pass gives me a lot of flexibility. Like Hustlers isn’t something I would pay to see but a friend from high school is in it and since I can see it with my season pass it really is not an issue. But movies are expensive to just drop $12 bucks on all the time. That’s why I would see the Downton Abbey movie with my season pass but if I didn’t have the pass the only way I would see it is if the Nerds picked that as the movie of the week and there was nothing else.

CORINNE: Basically, without a paying format like that, it’s expensive to take a risk on a movie you’re not particularly interested in or a genre you don’t generally like. You’re not a big romcom person; I’m not a big horror person. People have different tastes, and to ask everyday people to see movies against their taste bc they might like them is a lot to ask in a regular theater-going experience. … The pricing model changing is both good and bad. I really did see a lot more movies and took more chances when I had MoviePass. BUT I feel like it also changed the overall vibe of the theater experience. For me, a theater experience is so fun and exciting because it’s occasional and not regular. Maybe once a month or once every two months, depending on the time of year. But when you go every week or multiple times a week, it lessens it. It didn’t feel as exciting as experience. I still enjoyed a lot of those movies, but somehow the increased frequency lessened it all for me.

Picking up the conversation after I checked out “The Guest” from the library in late September:

CORINNE (before watching the movie): Also, are you sure this is a horror movie? The blurb on the back makes it sound more of an action/suspense film.

RYAN: It’s a thriller. I thought it would be a good entry into a more story driven horror/thriller. … [Dan Stevens] needs to be in more stuff. There is some stuff that happens in this movie that will surprise you. It’s not for everyone but like I said I wanted to give you a movie that is not quite a horror film but not exactly tame either. It’s a slow build but when the gloves come off it gets intense.

After actually watching the movie:

CORINNE: Dan Stevens’ name should be EDITH. Even Dead I’m The Hottest. … Except that in true horror movie fashion, he’s not dead! … They should make another one, if only so I can see Dan Stevens’ beautiful face some more. … It was pretty good. I’d give it like a 3 / 5. That’s mostly for Stevens’ and the main actress’ performances.

RYAN: Glad it was a good one for you.

CORINNE: Like I said, it was more of an action/thriller. Not a typical horror movie (whatever TF that is) up until the end.

RYAN: True. But like I said horror can come in many different styles. It’s an action/thriller with slasher movie elements. I call it a hybrid horror film because Stevens’ character is a villain in a non traditional way, but also I would argue a horror villain because what he does to the family is pretty horrific.

CORINNE: Indeed. Very horrific. But there are horrific stuff in lots of action movies these days. I watched Hotel Mumbai with my fam when I was home and that’s pretty horrific.

RYAN: I agree 100%. Hotel Mumbai is true horror. … So the director of The Guest also directed You’re Next which is one of my favorite horror films from the last decade. I would check it out or I can let you borrow it. Just a warning it’s straight up horror though with a mystery/thriller element to it.

CORINNE: I was talking about the whole “horror genre” conversation with a friend earlier today and I was talking about the difference between Gothic horror (think Universal monster movies) vs more slasher horror (Halloween movies). I have no problem with the more Gothic horror stuff, bc I think my brain goes “iz monster, no real.” But when I watch something that’s essentially a psychotic dude running around stabbing and/or shooting people, my brain goes “danger! danger!” Something that’d be in between would be like the supernatural horror (ghosts and demons) and that def freaks me out, arguably more so than the slasher stuff.

RYAN: Well, You’re Next is a home invasion horror film with a twist I would never ruin for someone who hasn’t seen it, but it’s badass. I would caution you on watching it in so much that it could happen in real life. It’s pretty unforgiving in that way. But it’s also funny in a dark way. But extremely violent too. Maybe have [a friend] with you if you decide to watch it.

CORINNE: Hmmm. I will consider that in my next wave of library rentals.

After renting and watching “You’re Next” in mid-October:

CORINNE: Well, that was fucking brutal. I kinda like how she sorta became “the monster” by the end of it.

RYAN: It is a brutal movie. But awesome.

CORINNE: Yeah, I thought it was really well shot and paced. That part of the hand coming out from under the bed is creepy AF. … I think, overall, horror is something that is easier for me to handle if 1) I have a sense for what’s coming and 2) if I watch it in an environment I can control. Watching it during the daytime in my own house, when I can pause or whatever as I need to helps a lot. But that’s definitely not something I’d pay $12 to see in a dark theater. 👻

RYAN: Right on. Yay for spooky movies!

After revisiting Zombieland in late October to prepare for its sequel:

CORINNE: I did rewatch Zombieland, as I said, and I feel like I can be more open to horror movies if:

  1. It’s a movie that I know is generally good / worth watching (like Night of the Living Dead or Get Out).
  2. It’s a horror movie someone else I know has already seen and can prepare me for it.
  3. I’m not paying money to see it.
  4. I can watch it in a controlled environment (turn on lights, pause, eat food, etc.).
  5. It’s not super long (IT would’ve been way too long for me. I can handle Zombieland just fine though).

RYAN: Fair enough. Horror movies are always tough if you don’t like them because the bad ones are really bad.

CORINNE: I think even a bad horror movie could still freak me out, though. Maybe. Depends on the movie, I guess. … I do remember watching some horror movies with a group of friends in high school and that was fun because we just started making fun of it and that helped me to not freak out.

On Nov. 1, after stumbling across a comedy sketch on Facebook:

CORINNE: Me, coming out of a scary movie.

RYAN: LOL

Show Time: A Theory on How “The Blacklist” Will End

One thing about The Blacklist that has bugged me since at least Season 5 is that this show doesn’t really have a clear plot-driven endgame. Not “What’s the plan for how the show will end?” But more of: “What needs to happen for the show to reach a meaningful and proper resolution?”

Usually this comes in the form of a goal that needs to be accomplished; a bad guy that needs to be defeated; and/or a question that needs to be answered. These are almost always set up in a show’s pilot.

Some other shows, for examples:

  • In Battlestar Galactica (newer version), the Cylons destroy the main characters’ homeworld in the pilot; thus, the show’s finale had the characters defeating the Cylons and finding a new homeworld.
  • In the pilot for Lost, the passengers are stranded on an island; and the finale showed all of them either finally getting off the island or choosing to stay.
  • In the pilot for Avatar: The Last Airbender, Aang realizes that the world is out of balance, and he’s the only one able to put it right by defeating the Fire Nation / Fire Lord Ozai, which he does in the four-part finale.
  • Murder-mystery shows or seasons, like BBC’s Broadchurch, for instance, thrive on answering the question “Who’s the killer?” (the murder is set up in the pilot), with the show or season being resolved when the killer is caught/identified.

Now, granted, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Not every TV show does this. Grey’s Anatomy, for instance, doesn’t have any overarching goal or bad guy or question to be answered. Neither does BBC’s Sherlock or The Last Airbender‘s sequel series The Legend of Korra.

Like The Blacklist, maybe they have conflicts or bad guys that are specific to a given arc or season, but a show like Grey’s Anatomy can continue indefinitely so long as the main character is still alive. These are more “character shows,” and are very much driven by the main character’s various adventures and development, rather than a specific conflict introduced in the pilot.

image

The Blacklist, though, is a conundrum to me, because, I can’t really tell what has to happen for the show to have a proper conclusion. Because, there were two things that TBL gave us in the pilot that could indicate its endgame ingredients: the actual Blacklist itself and the connection between Red and Liz.

Except that, as TPTB have said, the numbers on the Blacklist are arbitrary and, theoretically, could continue indefinitely. It’s not like Red showed up with a list of 100 people, and thus, we know the show will end when all 100 people have been caught. Most of these people Red didn’t know about until AFTER he turned himself in to the FBI in the pilot.

And, that’s the beauty of a procedural. Just like with Grey’s Anatomy: as long as Ellen Pompeo renews her contract, the Shondaland writers can keep bringing on new doctors and new sick people for them to treat. Likewise, as long as James Spader renews his contract, The Blacklist writers can keep making up Blacklisters all the way down to 300 or whatever.

(For reference: I looked it up on The Blacklist Wikia, and the lowest number we have is 192, and of the 192 “on the list,” about 70 percent have been seen in an episode, although not all of them have been captured/killed and could theoretically pop up again. And, granted #192 is a villain from one of the comics. So, in-show, the numbers have gone down to #184. And, even then, we still have 30 percent of the current Blacklist spots unaccounted for.)

This means that, really, the writers probably aren’t operating under the logic that once all the Blacklisters are addressed, the show is over. Because Season 7 could be the last season, and there could still be slots on the list left unfilled.

So, that means that, for the Blacklist to have a significant and proper ending, it has to address the connection between Red and Liz, and the Mystery of The Night of the Fire.

image

And, I’m not entirely sure if the show set out to do this – hang the entire resolution on answering the question “Who is Red to Liz?” I feel like I remember S1 interviews where they said that question wouldn’t be answered until the finale. But, to drag a show on for seven seasons without giving the main character or the audience any answers to *THAT* question is ridiculous, for several reasons, including:

image

1) People have way too much time on their hands to theorize about this. See: Tumblr.

Say the viewers correctly guess your theory; by the time you get around to revealing it, they will either be unimpressed or underwhelmed. Like, “Yeah, we called that two years ago.” This is exactly what happened in the Blacklist’s S3 finale, when even the most casual of fans had guessed that Kirk was Liz’s “dad,” that Liz had faked her death and that Kaplan had helped.

Or, if the answer you give them doesn’t satisfy their curiosity or doesn’t fully answer their questions or has plotholes or flawed logic or is just straight-up dull in comparison to some of the wild theories that are out there… people are going to be pissed and/or disappointed. See: the bulk of the Star Wars fandom after The Last Jedi. Or fans of Lost.

2) The fallout from answering the question might be more interesting than the build-up to the question itself.

Let’s take a look at BBC’s Broadchurch again. That show did it correctly, because, as a miniseries, it was able to ask and answer the question of “Who’s the killer?” in a shorter window of time (8 episodes in S1, IIRC). That way, fans didn’t run themselves ragged trying to figure it out or get bored waiting for answers. And, even more impressively, once they’d answered the question in the first season, they addressed the fallout of the revelation in the second season. We got to see how the killer’s identity, arrest and confession affected the lives of the other characters. Not a lot of shows are willing to do that, I think, and I really like the direction they took with it in S2 and S3.

3) The question has to be broad enough that you can play around with it for multiple seasons.

Let’s look at another show: ABC’s “Forever.”

This show was, unfortunately, very short-lived – lasting only one full season – but I think it has a lot of similarities to The Blacklist in terms of feel and set-up. It was also a crime procedural with a unique twist and a pretty talented cast. It thrived both on the dramatic, plot-driven moments but also on the small, quiet character-driven moments.

In the pilot, we are introduced to Dr. Henry Morgan who is immortal, and we quickly find out that he’s not the only one. In the pilot, he’s contacted by a fellow immortal, Adam, who says that they’re both looking for death.

Now, it’s pretty clear from the pilot what the resolution for the show, if it had ever gotten a real one, would’ve included: answering the question “How did Henry and Adam become immortal?” and having them find a way to die; Adam (who is Henry’s antagonist) would need to be defeated; and Henry would either need to die finale or find a way to die whenever he wished down the road.

So, rather than simply asking the question “How did Henry become immortal and can he die?” the show also set up an antagonist for Henry to defeat (Adam) and a goal for Henry to achieve (death).

But, when comparing that to The Blacklist, the same ingredients for a resolution are pretty shaky: the list itself, as we’ve discussed, is arbitrary and could theoretically go on forever; and Liz and Red’s connection seems to point us back to The Night of the Fire, which we get bits and pieces about every now and again, but we really should have more answers by now.

With Forever, it was different, because neither Henry nor Adam knew how they became immortal or how they might be able to finally die.

With The Blacklist, the frustrating thing is that Red is clearly withholding vital truths from Liz, and the information that he has hinted that he needs her help to attain hasn’t been addressed and probably WON’T be until they establish Red and Liz’s connection first.

image

I guess, there is a possible solution and that is: the show’s finale won’t be Liz learning the truth, but rather her coming to terms with the truth by embracing whatever we find out her connection to Red is.

So, then, assuming S7 will be the final season, what needs to happen in that time for the show to come to a meaningful and proper resolution?

Maybe, unlike many of the shows I’ve discussed above, The Blacklist‘s endgame elements are plot-driven but character-driven.

From a character perspective, we know what needs to happen by the series finale: our two leads have to reach whatever they set out to find (either together or separately) in the pilot.

In the first episode, Liz longed for a family. She had a husband; she wanted them to adopt a child. Right now, she’s had to temporarily let Agnes go. So, she needs to get Agnes back and create a safe and stable life for her daughter. Would that include a husband/father figure?

In the pilot, Red hinted that his greatest desire was a home, saying, â€œI haven’t been home in years.” Is he hoping to find some sense of peace and belonging after being hated and hunted for decades?

I imagine you’ve already guessed where I’m going with this line of thought…

My real point is, though, that the Blacklist has gotten hung-up on a question that, IMO, it should’ve answered or at least partly answered a long time ago. I think that this show would’ve been stronger if there’d been an established goal or Big Bad, and – if they’d decided to hang the endgame on answering a question – at least pick a question that doesn’t involve one character constantly withholding information from another because not only is it frustrating for the audience, but it will make for very formulaic and static interactions between your two leads.

If Red and Liz’s relationship is going to evolve, then they need to be on equal footing. Or at least more equal footing.

Ah, so maybe my notion that we should be looking for plot-driven elements to properly resolve this show was flawed. After all, there is no goal to accomplish, except for maybe covering the entire Blacklist. And, the question “Who is Red to Liz?” will have been sort of answered by this point – again, with the argument that maybe Liz has to come to terms with that revelation, etc. And, of course, there is no overarching Big Bad whose defeat would signal that the show is over because the main conflict would be resolved.

Or is there?

Because, when you think about it, Raymond Reddington (James Spader’s character) checks off a lot of the requirements of a Big Bad.

Let’s take a minute and compare Red to a Big Bad from another show, Avatar: The Last Airbender.

In that show, the overarching antagonist is Fire Lord Ozai, whose defeat in the series finale signals the end of the show as the instigating conflict has now been resolved.

image

Even though his face isn’t shown until the third and final season, his presence hangs over the whole of the show. He’s the one who scars Zuko and sends him into exile to find the Avatar; he’s the one who’s hoping to conquer the Earth Kingdom; he’s the one who sends Azula after Zuko, the Avatar, etc.

And, as the show’s Big Bad, he is… big and bad. (Big not meaning physically large, but rather prominent and influential.)

Ozai is one of the most powerful benders in the ATLA universe; he’s also the ruler of a very powerful nation. This means it won’t be easy for Aang (the hero) and his allies to defeat Ozai and his forces. Ozai is also ruthless as well as ambitious, and he’s set on world domination.

He’s also very cunning, manipulative and has no qualms about deceiving people – especially if it means he gets what he wants. Again, that’s why Aang (the most powerful being in his universe) is the only person who’s able to defeat him. Because not only is Ozai physically powerful, but he also knows how to outmaneuver people both psychologically and politically.

These are traits Big Bad-type characters have almost universally. (Emperor Palpitine from Star Wars and Voldemort from Harry Potter are other examples.) They have to, in order to be imposing and a large enough threat that it would take several seasons or books or movies for the hero(es) to defeat them.

Now, this isn’t a requirement, but something I find compelling is that Ozai is closely connected to at least one of the show’s main characters. (He’s Zuko’s father). This type of dynamic tends to make the ongoing conflict between a show’s hero(es) and villain(s) more meaningful – if there’s some kind of shared history.

Maybe they’re family members (Ozai and Zuko), former friends (Naruto and Sasuke from Naruto), former teacher/student (Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader from Star Wars), or maybe the villain inflicted some kind of previous injury on the hero. (I’m thinking of the DCAU’s Darkseid who, at one point, had brainwashed Superman into becoming his servant.)

So, could Raymond Reddington be a Big Bad?

image

As other people have discussed before, Red is a very complicated and nuanced character. One minute he’s patting a little kid on the head and buying a vending machine for a rundown DMV; the next, he’s killing a roomful of people seemingly without batting an eye.

And, let’s be clear, Red definitely has a persona. He wants other criminals to fear and respect him; and whether he actually enjoys having all this power or not, he certainly has gone to some questionable methods to achieve it.

But, encompassing his persona into it, Red is an imposing and powerful man who can be ruthless, cunning, manipulative, and has no qualms about deceiving people when it benefits him – such as when he doesn’t correct Liz about misconceptions she has that would require him to divulge a truth he wishes to keep from her.

And of course, Red’s presence has loomed over the Blacklist since the pilot, albeit in a more direct and obvious way than Ozai in ATLA. Even though Red’s not officially part of the Task Force – he’s only supposed to pass information along to them – he oftentimes plays with them like puppets. For instance, in episode 5×17, he literally admits to STEALING A WITNESS FROM THE TASK FORCE, and the only consequence of that is Liz and Cooper getting a little miffed, and neither really takes action to ensure that Red isn’t the one making the Task Force’s decisions any more. For someone who’s only supposed to be an informant, Red runs the damn place.

And, like with Ozai, Red has personal ties to one of our main characters. He definitely knew Liz’s parents, as he stole her bio-father’s identity, and seems to have been responsible for saving her life the Night of the Fire. Ultimately, both he and Liz are connected by what happened The Night of the Fire, which impacted both of their lives – for better or for worse.

image

Now. Don’t twist it and start thinking that I believe Red is a villain. He is, overall, an anti-hero. He and Liz have been antagonistic at times, yes, but they’ve been on the same side for about 75 percent of the show thus far. But, we should all definitely be able to realize and admit that Red has some villainous qualities. But, as an anti-hero, he should.

So, if Red is the Big Bad of the show like I theorize, does that mean that he has to be defeated in the series finale to have a proper ending, as I said previously?

Well, yes.

It’s occurred to me several times before that the series finale will be the Number 1 name on the Blacklist, which I conjecture will be Raymond Reddington (or, perhaps our Red’s real identity).

All the way back in Season 1, I theorized on social media that the ideal ending would be something reminiscent of the anime Code Geass’ “Zero Requiem” scheme.

For those of you who haven’t seen it, Code Geass’ finale involved the main character Lelouch setting himself up as a villain for the entire world to unite against. Then, he had his friend Suzaku kill him and thus bring about world peace.

image

And, for a long time, there was a popular Code Geass fan theory that Lelouch, after supposedly dying in the finale, actually survived. (This was proved correct in the series’ sequel movie Code Geass: Lelouch of the Re;surrection.) Lelouch had gained some powers over the course of the series, and other characters were shown to be able to “die” but then resurrect themselves, essentially.

If I were writing The Blacklist, I would write something similar to this ending.

But let’s step back for a second. Because if you want to write the ending to a show, book series, movie series, etc., you really have to look at its beginning.

Let’s look at an example: one of my all-time favorite shows, 30 Rock.

In the pilot, we are introduced to Liz Lemon (Tina Fey’s character) and Jack Donaghey (Alec Baldwin). Liz, much like our Liz on TBL, is hoping to start a family but must find a work/life balance. Jack is looking to climb the corporate ladder and eventually become CEO of General Electric, and wants to innovate and improve things. And, they are initially antagonistic with each other.

However, by the finale, Liz has finally gained the family she’s always wanted (two adopted kids and a husband), but now struggles with the WORK part of her work/life balance. Jack, after becoming CEO of KableTown (which took over NBC after GE), finds himself unsatisfied in life, and sets off to sail the world. He quickly turns around, however, after immediately coming up with an idea for clear dishwashers, and is last seen working as an executive for a new company (although it’s never specified which one). And, they have become the closest of friends, finally admitting out loud that the platonically love each other.

image

Basically, the characters went full-circle from where they set out. Liz finally got everything she wanted; Jack realized that power and ambition aren’t everything; and they became great friends after initially being enemies.

Now, as we touched on a little bit earlier… what did we learn about Red and his goals from the pilot? What does he have to accomplish by series’ end?

The VERY FIRST THING that’s said on the show is Gray telling Red, “Must be good to be home again, sir,” and Red responds that they will find out. This already tells me that, by the end, Red will need to have found a home or a sense of “home.” It’s also one of the first things he tells Liz: “You get back home much? I haven’t been home in years.” Already, the show is establishing a connection between Red, Liz and the idea of home/a family.

Red makes the comment to Liz: â€œEverything about me is a lie; but if anyone can give me a second chance, it’s you.” Again, this notion of the truth about Red and Liz being able to trust him (maybe love him?) are tied together in this line of dialogue during their first encounter. So, he wants Liz to find out the truth about him? Or, at the very least, he wants Liz to give him a second chance.

He also says, â€œHere you are, about to make a name for yourself, about to capture Ranko Zamani. I’m going to make you famous, Lizzie.”

image

So a few things to unpack here: we ARE given some things that need to happen, either plot-wise or character-wise in/by the series finale:

1) Red needs to find a home or a sense of home.
2) Liz needs to find out the truth about Red and/or give him a second chance.
3) Red needs to make Liz famous.

And considering that “Raymond Reddington” isn’t his real identity, even though he believes he now embodies it more than the RR ever did, it makes sense that Red would want Liz to give him a second chance as John Smith (or whatever his real name is). But Red also indicates to Liz that he’s going to make her famous by helping her to catch criminals. And who’s a bigger criminal than “Raymond Reddington”?

That’s why I think a Code Geass / Zero Requiem ending would fit very well.

image

Red has told people on several occasions that he deserves to pay for what he’s done. So it makes sense that a possible series finale would have him dying, but again, we have to look at the beginning of the show to see what a significant and proper ending would be.

Does Red really need to die to pay the price for what he’s done? Especially considering that the pilot sets him up as someone who wants redemption and a sense of home.

No. I think that the criminal, the persona of “Raymond Reddington” has to die, and our Red will either take up his old name and identity again, or take on a new one entirely.

Maybe he will fake his death WITH the help of Cooper, Liz, Ressler, the FBI, etc. Or maybe, he’ll fake his death WITHOUT their help, so that even Cooper and Ressler won’t be looking for him anymore. And, if he arranges it so that it looks like Liz was responsible for finally stopping him, then he will have made her famous, just as he promised.

Could you imagine if, in the series finale, Red arranges his death so that it’s public – for all to see. There are hundreds of officers on scene, news helicopters flying overhead. He needs people to see and know that Raymond Reddington – one of the most wanted criminals in the world – is finally dead. Potentially at the hands of FBI Agent Elizabeth Keen.

image

Just like with Lelouch in Code Geass, he would make sure that his death (whether supposed or actual) was very much a public display.

And, again, I keep harking back to Red’s line: “I’m going to make you famous, Lizzie.”

Yes, Liz definitely became an infamous criminal after killing the attorney general and going on the run in S3a. But infamous and famous aren’t really the same. They’re related, but very much different. He didn’t promise he would make Liz an infamous criminal herself; no, he promised he would help her CATCH criminals. And, again, of ALL the Blacklisters we’ve encountered throughout this show, no one seems to be more notorious or as ‘big of a fish’ as Raymond Reddington.

image

As I’ve discussed before, Red is very much like a Byronic hero. The most famous Byronic heroes (IMO), Edmond Dantes from The Count of Monte Cristo and Mr. Rochester from Jane Eyre, BOTH are seen as semi-villainous in a way. They aren’t perfect, and have to change over the course of the story. With Dantes, he’s become so caught up in his revenge, that he has to take a step back, realize how far he almost went, and then try to set himself right before he sails off with his much younger love interest for his “happy ending.” Likewise, with Rochester, he has become so caught up with finding his happiness, that he deceives the woman he loves and nearly leads her into committing a grave sin/crime. Later, he ‘pays the price’ for his deception by losing Jane, his home, his wife and his sight. And only after he’s become humbled does he find his happy ending with Jane.

To put it more plainly, Red as the Big Bad of the show wouldn’t need to die.

He would simply have to be defeated.

Just like with Ozai in ATLA. A major discussion in and leading up to the finale is that Aang won’t take Ozai’s life because of his belief that all life is sacred. And, in the end, Aang finds a way to defeat Ozai and leave him powerless forever WITHOUT killing him.

Another example is how, in Naruto, the Big Bad is Sasuke. At the end of the show, he and Naruto come to a sort of stalemate in their final battle and he lives to reform his ways and help Naruto keep the world safe.

So, in my theory, Red fakes his death, and then he and Liz ride off into the sunset?

Yeah, pretty much.

image

Again, with all Red’s parallels to the Byronic hero, they would both be able to find what they were ultimately looking for in each other. Liz would find the family she’s always wanted through Red, and Red would find his home or sense of home in Liz and Agnes.

Remember Red’s second goal from the pilot: Liz is the ONLY person who can give him a second chance. He can’t find his home or his happiness with anyone else.

So, assuming this whole theory is correct, there are really are four possible scenarios for the series finale, and some I see as more likely than others:

1) Red well and truly dies in the finale, and there’s no question that he’s dead. – I give it a 5% chance of happening.

2) Red dies, but his death will be ambiguous. Maybe there would be a shot of Liz and Agnes on the island Red mentioned in S4b, and off to the side will be a man in a hat or something. And there will be all these fan theories that Red didn’t die, and there will be all these posts pointing out the evidence that he really did; and ultimately, TPTB will say it’s ambiguous on purpose. (Much like what happened with Code Geass.) – 25%

3) Red “dies” for all the world to see, but a few characters know that he’s actually alive and has taken on a new identity. What will be ambiguous will be whether he ends up with Liz as a romantic interest. Maybe there will be a shot of him and Liz walking through the park with Agnes, each one on either side of her, but no one will ever explicitly say that they’re “together” now. And, of course, fans will argue that there was sufficient evidence to assume that they are together, but it will still be JUST ambiguous enough that no one will be able to say for sure, because TPTB will try to keep everyone happy and not really confirm it one way or the other. – 40%

4) Red fakes his death and he and Liz are definitely a couple in the finale. Kissing. Holding hands. Maybe with some wedding rings. And Agnes calls him â€œdad.” He and Liz both “ride off into the sunset” as much of a couple as Dantes & Haydee or Rochester & Jane. – 30%

image

So… in summary: I think the series finale will have Red figuratively dying in the series finale as the show’s default Big Bad. He will ditch the “Raymond Reddington” persona, and in doing so, somehow make Liz famous. After faking his death, he will find his home and second chance with Liz (and Agnes). And Liz will find the family she’s always wanted with Red.

Thanks for reading this whole damn thing again. When I get to writing about The Blacklist, I just can’t keep it short. 🙂

Show Time: Should you watch “Perfect Harmony”?

Given that I’m a huge fan of NBC’s The Good Place and I enjoy Superstore, it was no surprise that, when watching those two shows on Thursday nights, I inevitably checked out the show that’s smack-dab in between them in the lineup — NBC’s new half-hour comedy Perfect Harmony.

A quick synopsis: Arthur Cochran, a retired Princeton music professor (played by Bradley Whitford), becomes depressed after his wife’s death, and — while attempting suicide — stumbles across a small-town church choir in desperate need of some fine tuning. In deciding to become their director, he begins to establish a new purpose for himself and make new friends — even if he’s not all that jazzed about it.

So, after watching the first four episodes…

Would I recommend Perfect Harmony? Sure. Why not?

The good:

While it’s still in its infancy as a show, I think it’s hit the ground running pretty well. In comparison to the first few episodes / first season of The Office, 30 Rock and Parks & Rec, this pilot and first three episodes are a few miles ahead of those shows’. The pilot itself is a bit rough, as it throws a lot at you in pretty quick succession. I mean, the first minute of the pilot/entire show is a depressed guy who’s high and/or drunk almost committing suicide, asking for a sign, and then hearing the nearby church’s choir sing off-key. But, I guess that’s also a good thing, because it’s a very trim and efficient pilot. Everything matters, and it’s all packed in real tight.

So far, the performances that have really shined are Whitford’s and Anna Camp’s, who plays Ginny, the choir member Arthur has the most interaction with. They do very well in their scenes together, and equally well playing opposite other actors. Whitford gets to go through a whole spectrum of stuff just in these first few episodes — grieving, disinterested, annoyed, pleased, relieved, etc. Overall, he can effortlessly play a total grouch who’s somehow still lovable. Meanwhile, Ginny is a wife and mother who’s going through a divorce with her soon-to-be-ex-husband (who’s also in the choir), while trying to hold it all together for their son, Cash. The tween who plays Cash does a pretty good job, considering he has to frequently act opposite the show’s two big stars (Whitford and Camp). The other cast members have been great in the limited screen time they’ve had so far, and I imagine we’ll see more of them in the coming episodes.

For the most part, the comedic bits are well executed, to the point where a few of them have made me laugh out loud. And the singing — when they actually do it — is pretty good. I mean, it has to be. 1) The show is about a choir; and 2) it needs to be good for NBC to sell the songs on iTunes afterward. *insert eye roll here*

One more thing is that the show pretty much nails the attitude and overall disposition of a choir director. One of the reasons the show caught my interest at all is because I’ve been part of a somewhat high-profile choir in Denver on-and-off for three years, so I know how wacky and weird the ‘choir life’ can be. And the show succeeds in showing how choir directors are not the friendliest of people toward their choir members. Despite everyone in the room being adults, they somehow have the ability to make their singers feel like schoolkids who need constant direction. I guess it comes with the job. To be a choir director, you have to be vocal, commanding, detail-oriented, and a huge perfectionist. And Arthur’s characterization very much nails that in the scenes where he actually gets to direct his choir.

The bad:

To be quite honest, I’m not sure how long it’ll be until I get tired of the ‘intellectual outsider has to deal with backwoods hicks’ premise. I’ve spent plenty of time in small towns, and you’d be surprised at some of the high-minded conversations I’ve had with their residents. It just depends on the people you meet. Sure, there are small towns where people are very poorly educated, and whose priorities are more on the day-to-day things rather than big-picture issues that effect a larger portion of the population. But, I think it’s unfair of the show to paint with large brushstrokes when it comes to small-town people. But, I do recognize, as we get farther into the show, these characters should become more three-dimensional by virtue of spending more time with them and seeing them in different situations.

And given that so many of the jokes in the show (thus far) are predicated on Arthur being too stuffy, intellectual and high-maintenance to understand ‘small town culture’ or whatever… or the reverse where the small-town folks don’t understand his sophisticated references, etc. … the whole thing can get a bit old pretty quickly. So, let’s hope the writers figure out they can’t dip into that well forever.

The show also gives Arthur House-like superpowers of being able to tell everything about a person based on their body language or whatever. He also does the Sawyer from Lost treatment of giving everyone little cutesy nicknames when he first meets them, but I think that was mostly in the pilot.

The in-between:

One more thing I’ll note is that, despite the entire show being centered on a church choir, I think NBC tackles it in a way that makes it approachable for both people who are religious/spiritual and those who are not. So far, the songs performed on the show haven’t been super-religious or anything. They reference Ave Maria and Handel’s Messiah, but what would normally be a very religious premise is treated with a more secular approach, making it available to more people. Which is fine. I mean, it’s a church choir. You think they’d be singing more hymns and whatnot. But, again, it’s less ostracizing this way.

On the whole, I have to say that the entire ~church~ / religion conversation is tackled in a very weird way. Arthur does seem to have a bit of contempt for the whole thing, but it’s not clear whether that’s because it’s a church or because it’s a church in a small town where people tend to be simple, small-minded and ignorant (which he prides himself that he is not). While at the same time, those characters on the show who are believers and church-goers tend to talk about their faith in platitudes and jokes. There’s very few moments (so far) where a character’s beliefs are treated seriously, and they get to voice some complex issues about their life, their challenges, their goals through the lens of their faith.

Thus, it’s not clear whether the show’s creators / writers are trying to make fun of church-goers (or people who live in small towns, for that matter) or whether it’s trying to approach the subject of religion in a way that’s fair but also keeps the plot an arms-length from the subject’s complexities. It is a half-hour comedy that’s supposed to appeal a very diverse audience, so I don’t blame them if they’re trying to do the latter.

So, in answer to the question “Should You Watch Perfect Harmony?” I say: Yeah.

Ultimately, it’s pretty harmless. Its premise isn’t as unique or spectacular as The Good Place is, nor is it as funny as 30 Rock was. But, then again, this is a show in its infancy. Maybe it’ll get better as goes.

Catching the Classics: Parts 11-20 (RECAP)

My little weekly experiment is now officially a year old! (Actually a little more than.) And, because I’m recording Part 30 this week, I decided I would put together another recap post for all of you. And, I plan to do another for Parts 21-30 here in the next few weeks.

While the first 10 iterations were a bit rough, I feel like we — that being me and the Nerds — started to get into a rhythm with these next 10. I picked out a pretty diverse set of movies; I was recording my little sound blurbs in a timely manner; and I set a weekly reminder for myself to send them to Nerds every Friday evening. And the Nerds became very good about regularly including them as part of the show.

So, because I don’t want to transcribe everything I said about these movies on the podcast, the blurbs below are a condensed version of my various voice recordings that I sent the Nerds.

I don’t have time to go back and find every single episode that these CtC iterations appeared on, but I can tell you that CtC-Part 20 was during Reel Nerds Podcast Episode 392: Dead Cat Walking (Pet Sematary review).

And, a quick note: the ratings for all the movies are out of five stars. So 5 stars is perfect, 4 stars is really good, etc.

Also, SPOILER WARNING FOR ANY/ALL OF THESE MOVIES!

So, without further ado, here are recaps of the next 10 iterations of Catching the Classics (with Corinne!)

Catching the Classics – Part 11: Shaun of the Dead

Overall, wow, this is such a good movie! I was blown away by how tight the writing is, how much everything connects, and how everything comes back into play at some point. The gore effects were convincing, but not super disturbing. It’s probably more rated R for the language and not so much for the gore. It’s probably on a similar level to Zombieland in that respect.

Of anything, the writing really stood out to me as a very efficient and direct film. It puts you right into the action; and the opening scene is a great way to introduce your characters succinctly.

Shaun of the Dead: 4 or 4.5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 12: Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Surprisingly, I didn’t know too much about the movie — basically that it was about aliens and that it was directed by Steven Spielberg. And, while I understand it’s a very popular movie in many circles, I didn’t care for it.

There were a few good sequences, don’t get me wrong. One example I can give is when the aliens come to abduct the kid at the farmhouse. And another is the shot of the alien’s ship flying over the truck while the main character is surprised and confused about it. But, overall, I feel like a lot of other ‘alien encounter’ movies do this same premise but far better.

Two major problems with the movie are how unlikable the characters are, and how it ultimately feels long and boring. The last 30 minutes or so — where the aliens come in to the human base at Devil’s Tower — takes forever, and really doesn’t make a lot of sense when you stop to think about it. Why did the aliens abduct all those humans? Why are they giving them back now? Why are these other humans, like our main character, deciding to go with them? How did the humans and the aliens arrange for this little exchange? Wouldn’t the government be upset with the aliens for abducting all those other people earlier? Why would they think it was okay for our main character and the others to go with the aliens now?

So, all in all, the movie didn’t land for me whatsoever, giving this series its lowest-rated movie so far:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: 2 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 13: The English Patient

This is a movie that the Nerds said was going to be long, drawn-out, boring and horrible. And, really, it wasn’t as bad as they had led me to believe. Sure, some parts of it were long, but I’d be willing to watch it again some day. Maybe not anytime soon, but some day.

While I knew the basic premise and some of the cast members, I was pleasantly surprised at how it all came together. I enjoyed the score, the overall look and cinematography, the costumes, the sets, and the performances. It’s a very beautiful movie all around.

I really didn’t mind that things were told out-of-order, but one thing that bugged me about the story was how it felt like there were scenes missing sometimes. One example is after Colin Firth’s character finds out about his wife’s affair with Almasy, we never see any fallout from that until the sequence with the plane. And there seemed to be a big gap in the timeline between when he found out about the affair and then tried to kill himself and/or Katharine and/or Almasy. But, there was no buildup to this weird homicidal/suicidal rage. Why decide to do that now? So, it probably would’ve helped to see the immediate fallout of him finding out. Did he share any tense scenes with Katharine or Almasy? Granted, the movie is 3 hours long so you can’t get bogged down in the weeds, but it would’ve helped to have those scenes, because otherwise, it feels like there are pieces missing to this story.

The biggest drawback, though, is how unlikable the characters are. I’m not rooting for the main couple to be together, because she’s already married and I can’t root for people whose relationship — by definition — is deceitful and unethical. Also, not sure why the scene where she tells him about the thimble was made out to be this big reveal. She told Almasy multiple times throughout the movie that she was in love with him, but that she couldn’t be with him because she was already married.

Also, side note, I was far more invested in Hana and Kip’s relationship than I was in Katharine and Almasy’s. I’m so thankful Kip didn’t die in that scene where he’s defusing the bomb.

The English Patient: 3 or 3.5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 14: It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

I remember watching Rat Race as a kid, which I believe is a remake of this movie. And, to be honest, I think I like Rat Race better. (I haven’t seen it in years, but I enjoyed it when I was young.) Overall, the film has some great stunt-work and comedic bits, but it’s way too long.

The premise is an interesting idea, and you see how it all unfolds from the initial five men who go down to see the dying guy at the beginning. But, the filmmakers easily could’ve cut the movie down 45 minutes or an hour, and it would’ve been just fine. Many of the bits go on for far too long, to the point where they’re no longer funny — they’re just awkward.

I also didn’t appreciate the way the movie treated its female characters. The mother-in-law is unbelievably annoying, to the point where it’s exhausting; her daughter gets one nice moment in the state park, but that’s it; and the dentist’s wife is beyond dull — so dull that they could’ve replaced her with a sack of potatoes and it would’ve been more interesting. And, then the police captain is certainly a product of his time — ogling his female coworker in one of his first scenes.

Now, I actually watched the movie with my mom when I was home on vacation. She recorded it as part of a “car race” double-header on Turner Classic Movies. The other movie in the doubleheader was The Great Race, which I grew up on and enjoy far more than this movie. Also, it treats its female characters with actual respect — giving them agency, personalities and senses of humor. And for another movie about a car race — although a more formal one than Mad World‘s — it keeps the plot moving, and characters aren’t lingering in any one location for too long. Which isn’t the case here.

In summary: just go watch The Great Race instead, because it’s a much better movie!

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: 2.5 or 3 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 15: Sixteen Candles

The only reason I watched this movie was because someone on the Screen Junkies’ Movie Fights had tried to make the case that this was the worst romcom of all time. He had argued that the movie is terrible because it portrays date-rape and sexual assault in a very casual way, in addition to being misogynist/sexist, racist and homophobic. And, I have to say that I agree with most of that.

Initially, it started off well, though, with the opening sequence at the main character’s house. There are a few funny bits of dialogue and sequences with her parents and grandparents. Overall, the movie has some comedic elements that still land, but, the actual plot and content hasn’t aged well.

My biggest grievance was with the male love interest (pictured above with Molly Ringwald’s character). He comes off as super-creepy in his interactions with her, but he’s somehow even worse when he’s dealing with his current / soon-to-be-ex girlfriend, whom he “trades” to ‘the nerd’ for his crush’s underwear. Ugh.

I had fun with it, weirdly, but it was more in research sort of way since the whole point was to see how poorly it had aged.

Sixteen Candles: 2 or 2.5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 16: Pretty in Pink

Another John Hughes movie! Even before I watched it, I knew James Spader and Molly Ringwald were in it; that there was a character named Ducky; and that it was another John Hughes teen-romcom.

On the whole, it’s far less problematic than Sixteen Candles. Initially, I found Ducky’s obsession with Andie and his inappropriate comments to her and other girls very problematic; but by the end, you could see that he had grown and realized he shouldn’t force a relationship with someone who didn’t want to be in a relationship with him.

I was also definitely rooting for Andie and Blaine; I thought they were remarkably mature and honest with each other for 18-year-olds. The whole part where Andie confesses that she doesn’t want him to see where she lives — I thought that was a great moment for her.

One thing that irked me the whole time was the continual emphasis on the characters needing to fit in with their high school social strata. It makes sense in most other teen-romcoms and ‘coming of age’ movies, because they’re usually underclassmen. But, here, they’re graduating in a few weeks. So who cares what your friends think about the person you’re dating! After graduation, you don’t have to see any of these people ever again. (And you probably won’t anyway.)

So, yeah, I really enjoyed it. I’d definitely watch it again, especially because James Spader is in it. Yes, he’s a douche bag, but he plays a douche bag as only James Spader can. 😉

Pretty in Pink: 3.5 or 4 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 17: The Truman Show

Of all the movies I’ve watched for the CtC series thus far, I think this is the one that has aged the best. While I knew the premise and the ending beforehand, I immensely enjoyed this movie’s setup, characters, and writing.

It has a perfect mix of drama and comedy. One sequence that stands out to me is when he’s trying to leave town in the car with his “wife,” and he goes through the roundabout, then makes her drive over the bridge, and then drives through the fire line. It’s both hilarious and is a dynamic scene that keeps the energy up.

And, even though I knew how it ended, I was so engulfed in the finale where the creator/creation dynamic between Truman and Christof culminates. You can see that Christof looks at Truman with genuine paternal feelings, but he’s only a father to Truman in the most unethical way possible. And, of course, are his attempts to stop Truman driven more by his feelings, or is it because he doesn’t want the show to end? I believe it’s more of the latter, but you can see the mixture of both in Ed Harris’ performance.

Also, this might be my favorite Jim Carrey performance ever, but then again, I haven’t seen him in most of his dramatic stuff. So I have a small sample size.

By the end, I wanted to see more than just Truman walking through that door at the end. I wanted to see him actually encounter the ‘real world’ for the first time, reconnect with Sylvia, and maybe go to Fiji. But, I know that’s not the story they were trying to tell. It’s about “The Truman Show” (the show within the movie) and not just Truman. It was about the experience of the show, what it means for the world of entertainment, what it’s done to Truman and his psyche, and those who watch it.

So, I’m happy to say that this movie has earned the CtC series’ third-ever perfect rating:

The Truman Show: 5 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 18: Se7en

This was another entry where pop culture osmosis ruined basically every plot point of the movie — the premise behind the murders, the characters’ motivations, and the ‘twist’ ending. I think this is to the movie’s detriment, because my experience as a first-time watcher was ruined given that the cool build-up and suspense was gone. I didn’t love it or hate it; it was okay. It was worth watching, but I doubt I’d watch it again.

Overall, the performances were great — Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, and Gwyneth Paltrow. And while Kevin Spacey is a problematic human being, to say the least, he can play a creepy and privileged white guy really well. Weirdly, the part of the movie I liked the best was the credits at the beginning. Also, shout-out to Howard Shore — his music worked well at building up the tension in several scenes.

Se7en: 3 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 19: Terminator 2: Judgment Day

Let me say right off the bat that I’ve never seen the first Terminator or any movie in the franchise, except for Terminator: Salvation, weirdly. And while I don’t remember much from it anyway, pop culture osmosis had already ruined many of the movie’s plot points for me, such as which time-traveling character is the bad guy and which one is the good guy. And, that the film ends with the T-800 “dying” voluntarily to preserve the timeline, and that John Connor was really broken up about it.

In actually watching it, though, I felt like the movie was really long. The last action scene, in particular, seems to go on forever. But, I did like how the movie gave you just enough exposition — not too much or too little — about what had happened in the previous Terminator movie, which would help people like me to catch up. The adult actors do a great job; the kid isn’t the best but he’s not terrible. The best part for me was the second act where John and the T-800 are bonding — it reminded me a lot of the Iron Giant. And, as an aside, the effects hold up really well.

T2: Judgment Day: 3.5 or 4 stars

Catching the Classics – Part 20: Night of the Living Dead

While I recognize its value as a cultural touchstone, it was hard to get past the low production value and awkward acting. I wondered at the time whether it was an independent film — and the Nerds later confirmed it is — but with these, I like to judge films on their own merit, without looking over IMDB trivia or special features or directors’ commentaries, etc. If it’s a “classic,” it should hold up to modern audiences without giving you a bunch of context, right? (Now, granted I have cheated on this a few times. I think I looked up some background on Grave of the Fireflies, which I cover in Part 29. But, from now on, I’ll try to refrain from doing that, because I want to be consistent in how I approach these films.)

My overall impression of the movie, though, is a cross between The Twilight Zone and Birdemic. It has the philosophical ambition of a Twilight Zone episode, because it wants to capitalize on paranoia and mob mentality, which is prevalent in much of TZ. I really like how it examines the psychology of these characters as they face the crisis of a zombie epidemic. I really enjoyed the second act when the guys come up from the cellar and have a conversation with the main character as to who’s in charge, who they should listen to, etc. And, I liked the opening scene with Barbara running away from the cemetery during the initial zombie attack.

But, at the same time, it’s weighed down by a low production value, occasional wooden acting, and filming techniques that sometimes reminded me of an awkward student film. I was frustrated at the 180 Barbara’s character did — from intelligently running away from the zombies and taking refuge in the farmhouse, to just sitting on the sidelines while everyone else made the decisions.

I don’t generally like horror movies because I get really tensed-up, which is what happened during the initial sequence in the cemetery and Barbara running away; but by the third act, it all felt incredibly cartoonish and I didn’t even care anymore.

So, while it was a movie that generated a lot horror tropes, and I feel conflicted about my overall experience in watching it, the weaker points really hold it back from getting a higher rating from me:

Night of the Living Dead: 3 stars

Terror In The Mountains: Telluride Horror Show 2019

After a six year absence I returned to the great Telluride Horror Show. The first two times I went it was with the other Nerds. However, sometimes life gets in the way and since our last visit to the beautiful mountain town, I’ve had a son and James has gotten married and had a daughter.

So, it was with great excitement that my wife, (the most beautiful, most understanding woman ever) said it would be awesome to go back to Telluride for a vacation and horror movie watching.

Since our absence, Telluride Horror Show has grown a lot. There is now a third venue to screen the films. And in previous years I took the warning of movies selling out with a grain of salt. This is no longer the case as I was 17 minutes early to a screening of a film only to be turned away because it was sold out. It was so cool to see how much this film festival has grown in popularity as it is such a unique experience. On the way to our last film on Saturday night, our driver (no we are not rich, it was included with our hotel room) said he too has seen how much The Horror Show has grown and commented how cool it was to see the leaves falling and people in spooky costumes.

Below is a review of all four movies I was able to see this year. If you have the opportunity and you love horror movies Telluride Horror Show is worth the trip.

Wounds (2019) Directed by Babak Anvari

Wounds, making its Colorado debut is an uneven, sometimes meandering horror film. It goes for shock and ambiguity and it doesn’t quite pull off either.

Will (Armie Hammer) is a bartender at a dive bar in New Orleans. His girlfriend Carrie (Dakota Johnson) is a student(?) at Tulane. They seem to be having problems, however this is never truly explored, and it’s just implied as Carrie is distant and withdrawn from Will. Will seems to be coasting in life, as it again is never really explored but he dropped out of college for some reason and is now a bartender.

Will also has a crush on Alicia, (the always great Zazie Beetz). But she has a boyfriend, Jeffery and Will doesn’t see what she sees in him.

One night at the bar a fight breaks out between two men, a group of college kids start filming the fight. After the fight breaks up the college kids run out of the bar when they learn Will has called the police. One leaves behind a cell phone that Will takes home.

At home Will receives an ominous text message, which he ignores. Soon Will and his girlfriend are soon terrorized not only by the college kids but something else as well.

Wounds sets up a lot. It delivers on almost none of its lofty ideas. Themes and storylines are introduced sometimes without any payoff or reason. Why is the dude who fights at the bar refusing medical attention? Why does he ask Will to stay because of “nightmares”? Why does Carrie mistrust Will so much? Why does Will like Alicia so much? Did they date before? Was she only a customer who flirts with Will? What the hell is the Book of Wounds? How do the college kids have this power and why do they murder people? Why is Will such an asshole? Is the whole film exploring the disease of an alcoholic? What do the cockroaches mean?

As you can see the film asks a lot of you, without giving you much in return. I don’t mind horror films that don’t give all the answers, but if you ask your audience to be smart, don’t make a dumb movie with dumb characters. Johnson is given literally nothing to work with. Hammer fares better because he is given the best lines and the most fleshed out character. Beetz is great as always as she is given a sympathetic arc.

I haven’t seen any of Anvari’s other films, but his vision is flat here. Shaky cams to show panic and forced perspective to show Will being followed by a car(!) don’t help. He’s much better at the quiet moments between Will and Alicia.

I didn’t dislike everything. It has some funny moments. As mentioned above, Will and Alicia have some great moments and Anvari seems much more comfortable with those.

A scary movie that isn’t scary and sinks under its lofty ideas derails Wounds from becoming anything more than a ho-hum affair with a lame ending.

Grade: C-

Scare Package 2019, Directed By Multiple

Scare Package is a horror comedy that made is US debut at Telluride Horror Show is a funny, gory anthology that is a treat for horror fans.

Billed as 7 filmmakers. 7 Tales of Terror. 0 Working Cell phones, Scare Package delivers nearly an hour and forty five minutes of horror glee. The first tale we meet Mike, his job is to make sure that the horror movie goes as planned so he is cutting power, pointing signs the wrong way and placing demonic toys in the attic just right, but he wants more. Does Mike dare to become a part of the film itself?

The wraparound tale involves Rad Chad’s Video Store where Rad Chad is training a new employee, Hawn the ins and outs of the video business. They watch videos that introduce us to each segment.

To tell you the ins and outs of every segment would ruin the greatness that lies within the film. There is a surprise cameo, tons of fun gore (especially in One Time In The Woods) and the whole cast and crew are having a blast.

Being an anthology, Scare Package does suffer from the occasional let down. All the segments have their moments but some are such a wild ride that what comes after is bound to suffer when they are not as crazy. But even the stories that don’t live up to the wild, zany ride that most of Scare Package is, they do a great job telling the self-aware horror that encompasses the whole film.

Scare Package is destined to be a favorite among horror movie fans and midnight screenings for years. The audience I saw it with was laughing and cringing, sometimes all at once.

Grade: A-

The Deeper You Dig, 2019 Directed By John Adams, Toby Poser and Zelda Adams

The Deeper You Dig made its Colorado debut at Telluride Horror Show and was the biggest surprise of the show.

Echo (Zelda Adams) is a teenage girl, who goes out sledding on night. Kurt (John Adams) is flipping a house down the road. After a night of drinking, Kurt decides to drive home. When Kurt feels a bump in the road he assumes he killed a deer. To his horror, it’s Echo. He picks up Echo in a panic and takes her to the home he is working on. He places Echo’s body in the tub. Ivy (Toby Poser), is Echo’s mother and also a psychic calls the police after Echo doesn’t come home. Ivy soon learns that her daughter is dead and suspects Kurt might have something to do with it.

The Deeper You Dig, is truly a remarkable film. The Adams Family shot, edited, and composed some of the music for the film. What really stood out to me was how well the film was shot. Almost every frame of the film is carefully thought out, not only for blocking but for lighting and what is in the frame. The level of detail is simply outstanding. In the Q and A that followed the movie, John Adams said that what makes the film look so good is that each member of his family brings their strengths to certain scenes. That too is amazing because the film is cohesive and I could not tell a difference in the film from one scene to the next.

While most of the film is solid, the mythology of the ghost story sometimes collapsed under its own weight. The script lacked some polish and the film succumbed to some cheap jump scares. The jump scares seemed even more unnecessary as the film stands on its own as a quiet character study.

The Deeper You Dig was a pleasant surprise. It was a film I decided to see at the last minute when my wife decided to take a nap. I am glad I saw it. The Deeper You Dig is a beautifully shot, well made ghost story.

Grade: B-

Porno, 2019 Directed By Keola Racela

Porno is a horror comedy that made its Colorado debut at Telluride Horror Show. And buckle up because Porno is one hell of a ride.

Five employees of a small Christian town theatre discover a dark secret below the theatre. An old film that unleashes a sexy and deadly succubus that terrorizes them and gives a new meaning to sex education.

 It’s another night at the movies for Abe and Todd. BFF’s who are tired of watching either Encino Man or A League of Their Own. When a drunk (maybe) homeless guy trashes the theatre and discovers a hidden basement with a deadly secret. What appears to be a movie theatre destroyed by fire, the teenagers soon find a movie reel that appears untouched. They force Heavy Metal Jeff, the projectionist to play the film. The film appears to be a horror film which the teens call a “Porno”. What the film does is unleash a sex demon who preys on the teenagers and their character flaws.

Porno is balls to the walls insane. It starts a little slow, but that’s ok as it allows us to like the main characters and care when something bad happens to them. Porno also has gore and nudity to spare. The performances are all great. With Robbie Tann as Heavy Metal Jeff stealing every scene he is in. Director Keola Racela is also on point throughout the picture. From the pitch perfect replication of a 70’s grindhouse film, to the appropriately awesome soundtrack the aesthetic of the film is top notch.

One gripe I had is the film did not stick the landing. The execution was solid but it was a little overstuffed and was not properly explained.

Porno is going to be a late night favorite in the horror community. It has loads of gore and nudity to help sell the film, but it’s the character moments that will make Porno have a longer shelf life than most other late night popcorn favorites.

Grade B-

Scroll to top