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.

It’s a pretty good little movie? If you’re planning on watching it, don’t read this blog post. It’s better to go in without knowing anything.

Oh, I get it.

I understand what they’re after with this colour grading, but it is brutally ugly, which is wearying after a while. And it’s shot on early digital video, which makes it doubly horrible.

Well… the structure of this movie works against it. The first part was fast-paced and initially confusing, but then we figured everything out. And immediately after we’ve figured everything out…

They show us everything that’s already happened from a different point of view, and this doesn’t really do much than tell us what we’ve already guessed.

(But it does add a lot of jokes. Pretty good gags.)

Oh, and now they’re going to do it all again and perhaps surprise us this time around?

No, that was just a fake-out.

Well… it’s a pretty good movie — there’s some original stuff in here. But it did feel a bit padded, and I rather lost interest after a while.

JCVD. Mabrouk El Mechri. 2008. ⚃

I don’t think I’ve seen this before? But it’s certainly a name I’ve seen around a lot. Perhaps I read a Mad Magazine parody of it?

But I thought it was from the 70s, so I’m shocked to learn that it’s from 1963! I thought it was one of those 70s New Hollywood movies…

Yes, it’s another movie from the Hazel Flagg collection.

Well, OK, this does seem like one of those 70s New Hollywood movies in mood at least.

Hud is such a rebel… Those poor flowers!

The birds!

This seemed so weird… the Paul Newman character is a real dick (he’s probably going to have a Character Arc), but he also seems kinda stupid? But then I realised — is he supposed to be, like, 25? His nephew seems like he’s supposed to be a teenager (actor: 21), so perhaps he’s supposed to be slightly older? (Newman’s 38.) That would explain things.

I know, I know, but I sometimes wish that characters would go “OK, I’m coming over, and I’m 25” or something. It’d make things less confusing!

I love lighting like this — it makes no sense, but it sure looks good.

Heh heh, I just got my wish fulfilled: Hud said 1) that the nephew is 17, and 2) “you were born when I was your age”, so 3) he said that he’s 34! I know maths!

That is a pretty lazy name for a disease.

What’s the way to the Bates Motel?

Despite winning a bunch of awards, this movie is pretty spiffy! And Patricial Neal’s performance is indeed spiffy.

But I think, like, the fourth fifth of the movie is kinda weak? Fifth sixth? That is, the first half is really interesting, and the very ending doesn’t at all go where you expect… It’s very good.

Hud. Martin Ritt. 1963. ⚄