9 To 5

I have seen this movie before — I was in my early teens and probably saw this on VHS? So I remember nothing about it, except the title track, which is a bit of an earworm. But while I don’t remember anything specific about it, I do feel like I enjoyed it?

I did think it was more of an 80s movie than it seems like it is — I mean, I was expecting bigger shoulders; like a mid-80s thing, but it’s from 1980! It’s literally a seventies movie!

But the reason I’m watching it now is because it’s part of the Hazel Flagg collection.

Is it being metaphorical already?

To watch it, I had to get this gorgeously designed British DVD — it doesn’t seem to be available on bluray? Which just seems absurd for a blockbuster like this.

It looks quite unrestored, too — quite grainy. Fortunately the DVD is anamorphic, at least, so that’s good. But it just looks really odd! It’s got that over-sharpened VHS look, complete with pre-echoes and all. It really looks like it’s been transferred from VHS.

The director here had a very short career… but then again, he died at 47.

Some quite notable movies, though.

Tee hee. Peak 70s.

It’s very amusing, but it’s … It’s zany, but it should be zanier? Just kicked up a notch? But I mean, I like it.

Corny but satisfying ending and all.

9 To 5. Colin Higgins. 1980. ⚃

China Seas

(It’s from the Hazel Flagg collection.)

Romance is in the air…

See?

There’s a lot of stuff going on in this movie — a lot! There’s (at least) two love interests, somebody is going to steal some gold, there’s double-crossing, there’s a coward officer, there’s a typhoon, pirates, and several people are run over by a steamroller! It’s one of those movies where they’re throwing in everything they have…

… and it’s pretty entertaining.

(Even if it’s unexpectedly brutal.)

Dastardly Asians!!!

It’s pretty good. I mean:

Irving Thalberg had worked on the film since 1930 when he assigned three different writers to come up with three different treatments. By 1931 Thalberg had decided on the one storyline and spent the next four years working on a script with two dozen writers, half a dozen dir/and three supervisors.

It certainly feels like it’s been through dozen of script doctors who had added stuff, but it does work — it’s an entertaining movie.

But it’s a bit creaky.

China Seas. Tay Garnett. 1935. ⚃

Superman

Yay! We’re not starting with an origin story? Origin stories are the way Surf Dracula reproduces.

On the other hand, this is James Gunn, so it’s all kinda gross?

Cute CGI dog, though.

Eh… This looks kinda bad? I mean, the compositing? And of course the colour grading is all “let’s make everything grey” which I find really offputting.

I have to give it to Gunn — he’s gotten us into this movie extremely efficiently — nothing boring or dull, but it doesn’t feel too hectic, either.

Yes, that’s what all boardrooms look like. They have to save on energy.

Whatsisname is perfect as Lex Luthor — some of the other casting so far has been eh. Good Lois Lane, too.

Oh yeah, I read about this scene. It is indeed kinda boring, and Gunn’s hyperactive editing style doesn’t help.

Heh heh.

There’s a lot of pretty amusing gags here — they just keep on coming. I’m still slightly bored, though? I mean, it’s better than virtually all other super-hero movies, ever, but that’s a very low bar.

I liked it. Gunn’s a wise-ass, but his heart is in the right place. And he manages to do CGI-filled action scenes that still feel exciting — many a director fails trying to do that.

And it’s not that it felt too long? It probably could have done with being edited down a bit, but it’s an amiable movie.

So I’m gonna give it this, on a super-hero movie score scale:

Superman. James Gunn. 2025. ⚄

It’s so lenticular.