Even as early 40s screwball comedies go, this is very… odd. I mean, it’s very, very funny, but it’s more a broad satire than a comedy, but it’s not at all clear what the target of the satire is (beyond the press and celebrity trials). It seems like any scene here could be a political point being made, but it could also just be random silliness.

One thing that could explain it is if this is based on a kooky stage show — it’s set in a very limited number of locations, and it’s got that frantic rhythm…

And then of course Ginger Rogers does a little tap number all of a sudden.

I didn’t quite know what to make of this movie at the start. But as it went along, I just thought it was absolutely brilliant. It’s way ahead of its time — it feels more like a 70s British satire than a 40s comedy. It’s so… relentless. But so much funnier than those 70s satires.

Ooooh:

A film adaptation of a 1926 play Chicago by Maurine Dallas Watkins, a journalist who found inspiration in two real-life Chicago trials (Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner) she had covered for the press.

I’ve never seen Chicago!

But… (spoilers) in this version she wasn’t guilty.

Flagg is right that it isn’t perfect, but it’s just so funny. All those little bits… And Ginger Rogers is amazing.

Roxie Hart. William A. Wellman. 1942. ⚅

How meta.

“Write what you know” is an old adage, but when it comes to movies about movie making — they’re usually now big money makers, are they?

Tsk tsk only bounders have Louis Vuitton!

Heh heh the most American thing ever.

So this movie is about immigration, which must have been a hot button subject in 1941. This was before the US entered WWII, I think? (Pearl Harbour didn’t happen until late in the year, if I recall correctly…)

But no! He’s a downright bounder!

I can see what Hazel Flagg means… it’s a very cynical script indeed. But surely the bounder is going to turn out to have a heart of gold after all!?

I’m not sure I agree that it’s a cynical script (unless the director changed it a lot). It’s more a… “sure, you’ve got reasons to be sceptical about all these Europeans, but here’s why you’re for letting them in all the same” move — it’s pro-European immigration propaganda, really. And very well done! Have your hankies ready! I loved it.

Hold Back The Dawn. Mitchell Leisen. 1941. ⚄

Hey, this looks great.

The CGI… not as much.

Obvious why she got cast!

I haven’t tried not to read reviews of this, but I just don’t remember: Is this a reboot? Or just another movie?

I guess the Alien “franchise” is pretty unique in that it started with two stone cold classics (in two different genres). Then David Fincher destroyed it, and it’s continued more as a normal 80s-spawned franchise… and there’s also a TV series now?

But I think I’ve seen them all, so while I have no particular enthusiasm for this thing any more, why not see this one too.

Huh, very odd — it’s like she seems rendered?

Hey, this is pretty good — all the gadgets seem very 70s futuristic.

The CGI, not so much.

Did I say that already?

Heh, props to them for doing a dummy instead of CGI, but the dummy could really have done with a bigger budget.

This movie feels like a very 2024 movie trying its very hardest to try to be the 70s Alien. It gets so many things right — the props department is just amazing, and it manages to recreate some of the creepy scenes.

The bad parts are the 2024 bits: You have the android giving fan service by repeating some of Sigourney’s tag lines, and it’s just totes cringe. Worse is how aggressively stupid even little details are (in a way that wouldn’t have been tolerated in the original Alien) — like the cryo fuel being really really cold for some reason, or everything flying off into the air all of a sudden when gravity is switched off, or or or.

The start, where they introduced the characters was very efficient, and then there were good scenes of chasing xenomorphs. Good performances, for the most part. Got boring halfway through, but I think the props alone qualify this as the third best Alien movie.

The Ian Holm thing was odd… at the start it was obviously a puppet, but then in some later scenes it was (bad) CGI… I have to google that.

Ah, right:

Since the character was always created through “a mix of techniques”, it meant recalibrating the various elements, both practical and digital, that brought Rook to life. “[Animatronic puppeteer] Shane Mahan actually did this animatronic of Ian Holm based on a head cast from Lord Of The Rings, and that was the only one in existence,” says Alvarez, noting that, further into production, the choice was made to lean much more on digital effects. “What we did [for the home entertainment version] was revert a lot more to the puppet,” the filmmaker says. “It’s way better.”

Here’s a comparison. Yeah, it’s better with less CGI.

Alien: Romulus. Fede Alvarez. 2024. ⚃