Scene That I Love: Garrison Meets X in JFK


Today is Oliver Stone’s birthday so, for all conspiracy-loving readers, here is a key scene from Stone’s 1991 film, JFK!  In this scene, Kevin Costner’s Jim Garrison meets the mysterious man known as X (played by the much-missed Donald Sutherland).  X explains the conspiracy to Garrison.

This scene certainly convinced a lot of people.  Personally, I think Oswald acted alone but one cannot deny Stone’s talent as a filmmaker.

4 Shots From 4 Films: Special Jean Renoir Edition


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking!

132 years ago today, the great French film director Jean Renoir was born in Paris!  The son of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Jean would go on to become just as revolutionary a force in the world of cinema as his father was in the world of painting.  Today, in honor of the birth and legacy of Jean Renoir, here are….

4 Shots From 4 Jean Renoir Films

Grand Illusion (1937, dir by Jean Renoir, DP: Christian Matras)

The Rules of the Games (1939, dir by Jean Renoir, DP: Jean-Paul Alphen, Jean Bachelet, Jacques Lemare, Alain Renoir)

The Southerner (1945, dir by Jean Renoir, DP: Lucien N. Adroit)

The Woman On The Beach (1947, dir by Jean Renoir. DP: Leo Tover and Harry J. Wild)

Review: Chicken Run (dir. by Peter Lord & Nick Park)


“I don’t want to be a pie. I don’t like gravy.” — Babs

Chicken Run is one of those animated films that seems simple at first glance: a bunch of chickens want to escape a farm before they become pies. That basic premise could have easily turned into a lightweight family comedy full of barnyard jokes and little else. Instead, the 2000 DreamWorks and Aardman production, directed by Peter Lord and Nick Park, plays like a miniature war movie, prison-break thriller, romance, survival adventure, and pitch-black satire all at once. It is consistently funny, but its comedy works because the stakes feel real. These chickens are not merely trying to get away from an annoying farmer; they are trying to survive an industrial system that sees them as disposable raw material.

The first thing that makes Chicken Run so memorable is how completely it commits to its central influence: John Sturges’s The Great Escape. Ginger, voiced with determined energy by Julia Sawalha, is essentially the Steve McQueen-like mastermind of a prisoner-of-war escape film, only without the motorcycle. She has attempted escape after escape from the Tweedys’ chicken farm, and every failure has made her more experienced, more stubborn, and more isolated from the flock. The farm itself is built and filmed like a prison camp: there are fences, watchtowers, guards, roll calls, surveillance, punishments, and a constant feeling that someone is always being watched. The chickens dig tunnels, build plans, assign tasks, debate leadership, and struggle with morale in a way that directly echoes the Allied prisoners in The Great Escape.

That influence is not just a clever parody. It gives the movie a real sense of structure and urgency. Ginger is not a character who simply wishes for freedom; she is obsessed with earning it. Every failed attempt lands her in the punishment shed, a tiny isolated box that is funny in its exaggerated stop-motion form but also genuinely unpleasant. The sight of Ginger sitting alone in darkness, listening to the rain and realizing that another escape has failed, establishes that the movie is willing to make her suffering count. She is not invincible, and the other chickens do not always believe in her. That gives her eventual success much more weight than it would have had in a more conventional cartoon.

The Tweedys are also far more sinister than the average animated villains. Mr. Tweedy, voiced by Tony Haygarth, is the bumbling half of the pair: nervous, confused, increasingly paranoid, and convinced that “the chickens are organizing.” It is one of the best-running jokes in the movie because he is absolutely right, but his wife refuses to take him seriously. Melisha Tweedy, voiced by Miranda Richardson, is the truly frightening one. She is cold, practical, greedy, and almost entirely without sentiment. When egg production drops, she does not consider improving conditions for the chickens. She decides to turn them into chicken pies.

That is where Chicken Run goes into much darker territory than its cheerful clay-animation style initially suggests. The film’s narrative is built around factory farming, confinement, exploitation, and mass slaughter. The chickens know that when one of them stops laying eggs, she is not being taken somewhere safe. She is taken away to die. The scene involving the elderly hen Edwina is particularly unsettling because it is handled with restraint. The audience never sees explicit violence, but the implication is unmistakable. The sound of the axe, the sudden absence, and the reactions of the other chickens tell the whole story. It is dark material for a family film, but it is never treated as a joke. The humor comes from character behavior and British deadpan timing, not from dismissing the fear these animals feel.

That balance is one of the movie’s greatest achievements. Chicken Run is undeniably an animated comedy, filled with visual gags, eccentric voices, and absurdly specific bits of dialogue, yet its themes remain surprisingly grim. The Tweedys’ new pie machine is not just a goofy invention. It is a huge, mechanized symbol of industrialized cruelty, a machine designed to turn living creatures into products at maximum efficiency. Once it appears, the farm stops feeling merely like a prison camp and starts feeling like something even more horrifying: a production line where the inmates are literally the merchandise. The comedy makes the movie accessible, but the darker ideas give it teeth.

Aardman’s stop-motion animation is essential to that effect. The chickens are expressive in a way that never makes them overly cute or polished. Their handmade look gives them texture and personality. You can see the fingerprints of the animators in the characters’ surfaces, the uneven little details of the farm, and the tangible construction of the machinery. Modern computer animation can create smoother movement and more elaborate spectacle, but Chicken Run has a physical presence that is hard to replicate digitally. The fences feel like real fences. The mud feels like real mud. The pie machine feels enormous and dangerous because it is a real object built in miniature and photographed frame by frame.

The design also helps sell the film’s strange mix of bleakness and whimsy. The Tweedys’ farm is gray, muddy, cramped, and oppressive, a place where every chicken coop resembles a barracks. Beyond the fence is a bright green countryside that feels almost mythic to the trapped flock. Freedom is not some vague emotional idea; it is visible right there, just beyond reach. That visual contrast makes Ginger’s desperation easy to understand. She is not asking for luxury. She wants sunlight, open space, and the ability to live without being counted, confined, or killed for failing to produce enough eggs.

Mel Gibson’s Rocky Rhodes enters the story as the possible answer to Ginger’s problem. He is introduced as a flying American rooster who crashes into the farm like a larger-than-life war hero. His nickname, “the Lone Free Ranger,” and his exaggerated confidence make him feel like a parody of classic American movie masculinity. Rocky is all swagger, charm, and improvised survival instinct, which makes him a good contrast to Ginger’s disciplined, strategic personality. He tells the chickens he can teach them to fly, and the entire farm becomes invested in the idea even when the plan seems impossible.

Rocky works because the film does not make him a flawless hero. He is entertaining and ultimately brave, but he is also a fraud. His supposed ability to fly is part of a circus act, and he has escaped captivity before by using a human-operated catapult rather than his own wings. When the truth comes out, it hurts because the chickens have placed their hope in him. Ginger especially feels betrayed, not only because Rocky lied but because she allowed herself to believe that someone else might finally have the answer. Their relationship has a nice edge to it; it is not a sweeping romance so much as a reluctant partnership between two strong-willed survivors who approach freedom in completely different ways.

The sequences built around the escape plan show how much fun Lord and Park have with action-adventure movie language. While The Great Escape is the most obvious inspiration, certain moments have an energy reminiscent of Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. There are close calls with traps, rapid-fire improvisation, looming mechanical threats, and escapes that depend on inches of timing. The climax inside and around the pie machine especially has that pulpy serial-adventure tension. Characters are dragged toward blades and conveyor belts, machinery rattles and groans, and plans collapse only for someone to invent another solution at the last possible second.

The final act also brings in a strong resemblance to The Flight of the Phoenix, particularly in the way the chickens turn desperation into engineering. The flock has to build a flying machine out of whatever materials they can gather, and the project depends on cooperation between characters with very different skills. Fowler, the elderly rooster voiced by Benjamin Whitrow, becomes crucial here. At first he seems like a pompous relic, forever talking about his days in the Royal Air Force and resisting Ginger’s modern plans. But his knowledge and experience eventually become useful. He gives the group the language, confidence, and organizational spark needed to turn their makeshift aircraft from a dream into something that might actually leave the ground.

Fowler is also one of the funniest parts of the film because he represents a specific kind of old British pride: stubborn, ceremonial, and deeply attached to the past. His stories about serving under “the old RAF” seem ridiculous until the moment the chickens actually need someone who understands the basic principles of flying. The film never makes him into a conventional action hero, but it allows him to reclaim some dignity. Like many of the supporting characters, he gets a small but satisfying arc.

The rest of the flock is memorable because they are not interchangeable background animals. Babs is sweet, distracted, and constantly knitting, but her innocent manner hides an ability to contribute when it matters. Bunty is blunt, cynical, and always ready to question Ginger’s plans. Mac, with her Scottish accent and technical expertise, is the group’s engineer and probably the person most likely to explain why a wild idea will not work. Fetcher, the rat, is opportunistic and cowardly, but he is useful in the way only a black-market scavenger can be. Even the two dimwitted farm dogs have personality, serving as comic obstacles while still making the farm feel guarded and dangerous.

What makes Chicken Run endure is that it never treats its characters’ freedom as a trivial goal. The story has jokes about eggs, knitting, chicken behavior, British class attitudes, and American bravado, but beneath all of that is a serious belief that a community can refuse to accept the role assigned to it. Ginger’s greatest strength is not that she has the perfect plan. It is that she refuses to surrender when every plan fails. Her determination eventually spreads to the other chickens, who stop seeing themselves as helpless inmates and start acting like participants in their own rescue.

The ending is satisfying because it feels earned. The chickens do not escape through luck alone, and they do not wait for a human to save them. They escape because they organize, take risks, use their talents, forgive one another’s failures, and choose action over resignation. That is a surprisingly powerful message for a film about clay chickens escaping a pie factory.

More than two decades later, Chicken Run still stands as one of the strongest animated films of its era. Its stop-motion craft remains beautiful, its jokes still land, and its references to The Great Escape, Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Flight of the Phoenix add an extra layer of fun for viewers familiar with those films. But it is the movie’s willingness to acknowledge fear, exploitation, and death beneath the comedy that makes it more than a clever genre spoof. Chicken Run is funny because it is inventive, but it is memorable because it understands that freedom means the most when it is hardest to achieve.

Join #MondayMania For Dying For A Bid!


Hi, everyone!  Tonight, on twitter, I will be hosting one of my favorite films for #MondayMania!  Join us for Dying For A Bid!

 

That’s right, it’s sorority drama!

You can find the movie on Prime and then you can join us on twitter at 9 pm central time!  (That’s 10 pm for you folks on the East Coast.)  See you then!

4 Shots From 4 Cinematic Films


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films.  As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films is all about letting the visuals do the talking.

Consider this latest edition of 4 Shots From 4 Films to be a part of my continuing atonement for only watching reality television.

4 Shots From 4 Cinematic Films

Contempt (1963. directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Contempt (1963. directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Made in USA (1966, directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Made in USA (1966, directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967, directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Two or Three Things I Know About Her (1967, directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Weekend (1967, directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Weekend (1967, directed by Jean-Luc Godard)

Monday Live Tweet Alert: Join Us for Bring Him To Me!


As some of our regular readers undoubtedly know, I am involved in hosting a few weekly live tweets on twitter and occasionally Mastodon.  I host #FridayNightFlix every Friday, I co-host #ScarySocial on Saturday, and I am one of the five hosts of Mastodon’s #MondayActionMovie!  Every week, we get together.  We watch a movie.  We snark our way through it.

Tonight, for #MondayActionMovie, the film will be Bring Him To Me!

If you want to join this watch party, just hop onto Mastodon, pull up Bring Him To Me on YouTube, start the movie at 8 pm et, and use the #MondayActionMovie hashtag!

Enjoy!

Brad reviews the new South Korean film HOPE (2026)! 


I’ve been seeing trailers for the South Korean action film HOPE (2026). Being a fan of the country’s cinema, it definitely piqued my interest. As I investigated a little further, I saw that it was written and directed by Na Hong-Jin who did the same for the unsettling THE WAILING back in 2016. Digging even deeper, I recognized actor Hwang Jung-Min as the lead of the film. He’s been great for a long time, starring in South Korean classics like A BITTERSWEET LIFE (2005), NEW WORLD (2013), VETERAN (2015), and the director’s THE WAILING. This being my birthday week, I decided I’d start it off with a bang by heading to the movie theater to see what this intriguing film has up its sleeves! 

The movie gets right into the action as we meet small town Police Chief Beom Seok (Hwang Jung-Min) in the middle of his investigation of the vicious death of a cow. The incident was reported by a group of hunters who think the wounds look out of the ordinary. Wondering if a bear or a tiger might be on prowl as he’s driving back, he arrives in town where all hell has broken loose. It seems there’s something causing death and destruction, but it’s way too powerful to be a bear or a tiger. I won’t say anymore because the fun of the first half of the film is discovering just what the hell is bringing such chaos to this normally sleepy harbor town. 

HOPE has a lot of good stuff going for it. The performances from the leads are at the very top of my list, beginning with Hwang Jung-min as the police chief. He has this ability to project goofy exasperation better than anyone else I know. A lesser actor might take this too far, but not Hwang. He is able to balance the film’s absurd humor while also being tough and fearless when he needs to be. He’s great here. Next up is Hoyeon (SQUID GAME), who plays police officer Sung Ae. I won’t say too much, but her character’s introduction into the film is incredibly fun and badass. I loved it, and you can’t help but love her as the film progresses. Finally, I really enjoyed actor Zo In-sung’s performance as one of the hunters who reports the suspicious cow death at the beginning of the film. At first he seems like a guy being set up as a victim, but he turns out to be much more than that by the end. I’ll have to give writer Na Hong-jin credit for creating such fun characters. I’ll mention here that Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander are also in the cast, but I won’t say anything more about their characters. 

After actually watching the film, I can say that writer-director Na Hong-jin really did come up with a very interesting premise for HOPE. The first half of the film is so fun as our characters fight for their lives and simultaneously try to figure out what the hell they’re dealing with. I would say this is the best section of the film. When we finally see what our ragtag group is up against, we get an exciting, non-stop action sequence that ends with a bit of luck and relief for our heroes. Up to this point, the movie has been a violent, funny, action-packed ride!

The second half of the film, while still enjoyable, isn’t quite as successful as the first. The primary issue is the extreme length of the film. HOPE clocks in at over two and a half hours. While it continues on as a non-stop action ride, I think this movie would be just as good at only two hours long by cutting some repetitive action sequences. The last part of the film introduces a whole new storyline solely to set up future sequels. HOPE had the biggest box office opening weekend in South Korea thus far in 2026, so the sequels will definitely be coming. I’m certainly looking forward to them, but if you’re looking for closure for any of these characters, you won’t get it here. There is an almost unbelievable mid-credits sequence that’s truly absurd, but it’s also not out of line with the craziness of the film we just watched. Don’t miss that part! 

For me, watching HOPE at the theater was 100% worth my time and an awesome start to my birthday week. It’s not a perfect film, but I truly enjoyed it, and I’ll be on the lookout for the sequels! 

4 Shots From 4 Films About Being Watched


4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films.  As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films is all about letting the visuals do the talking.

4 Scenes From 4 Films

19842

1984 (1956, directed by Michael Anderson)

F For Fake (1974, directed by Orson Welles)

F For Fake (1974, directed by Orson Welles)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984, directed by Michael Radford)

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984, directed by Michael Radford)

Lost Highway (1997, directed by David Lynch)

Lost Highway (1997, directed by David Lynch)

Review: Flight of the Navigator (dir. by Randal Kleiser)


“That is my family, but that’s not my home. My home is back in 1978!” — David Freeman

Flight of the Navigator turns a child’s worst possible homecoming into an unexpectedly funny, wistful, and imaginative science-fiction adventure. Released in 1986, it begins as a modest suburban mystery before expanding into a story about time displacement, missing years, alien technology, and the strange loneliness of returning home to a life that has moved on without you. It has the glossy, accessible surface of a Disney adventure, but there is a surprisingly melancholy idea at its center: what would it feel like to lose eight years of your life while everyone you love has had to live through them without you?

The movie follows David Freeman, a 12-year-old boy who disappears in 1978 after going into the woods to retrieve his younger brother Jeff. David wakes up in 1986, apparently having been gone only a few hours from his own point of view. The shock is immediate. His parents are older, Jeff is now his taller teenage brother, the family has moved, and David has become a long-unsolved missing-person case. This opening stretch is probably the film’s strongest material because it plays the scenario straight enough to make it genuinely unsettling. David is not simply a kid dropped into a flashy futuristic world; he is a child abruptly disconnected from the only reality he knows.

That emotional hook gives Flight of the Navigator more weight than many similar children’s adventures. David’s confusion is easy to understand, and the film wisely lets the situation breathe before revealing all of its science-fiction machinery. The sight of his family recognizing him after years of grief is touching, but it also comes with discomfort. David wants everything to return to normal, while his parents are overwhelmed by the impossible fact that their vanished son has returned unchanged. The movie does not dig into the full psychological consequences of that situation, because it is still fundamentally a family adventure, but it gives the idea enough attention to make the stakes feel personal.

Once NASA becomes involved, the story shifts into a more conventional but still entertaining sci-fi mode. Doctors discover that David has advanced knowledge in his brain that he cannot consciously explain, and the mystery leads him to a crashed alien spacecraft. The ship, known as the Trimaxion Drone Ship, is the movie’s most iconic element. Its smooth silver form, with no visible seams or conventional cockpit, still looks appealing because it has a simple, alien elegance. It is not overly busy or mechanical in the way many science-fiction vehicles are. Instead, it resembles a floating metallic organism, something sleek and strange that could plausibly have appeared in a child’s dream.

The ship’s computer, MAX, is what really gives the movie its personality. Voiced by Paul Reubens, MAX begins as a calm, efficient artificial intelligence but gradually becomes sillier and more mischievous after downloading human information from David’s era. Reubens’ performance is a major reason the character works. He does not simply do a recognizable Pee-wee Herman routine, although the playful vocal energy is certainly there. MAX’s changing voice and increasingly erratic sense of humor make him feel like an alien intelligence trying to imitate human behavior and getting it only partly right.

There is a fine line between amusing and annoying when a movie lets its comic sidekick become too hyperactive, and Flight of the Navigator occasionally crosses it. MAX can become a little much, especially during the later scenes where he starts cracking jokes, changing his vocal effects, and behaving like an overexcited child with access to interstellar technology. Still, that energy is part of what makes the film feel uniquely of its era. MAX is not as polished or emotionally sophisticated as later animated or CGI companions, but he remains memorable because he is odd. His humor feels less like a studio-tested collection of one-liners and more like a machine that has accidentally discovered cartoons, pop culture, and sarcasm all at once.

Joey Cramer carries much of the movie as David, and he gives the role more sincerity than the material sometimes requires. He is believable as a regular kid who becomes frightened, angry, curious, and eventually exhilarated by what is happening around him. David is not written as a perfect young hero. He can be stubborn and impulsive, especially when he decides he has to take control of his own situation, but that makes sense. Adults have spent much of the story examining him, restraining him, and treating him as a scientific puzzle. His decision to escape with MAX is reckless, yet it also feels like the response of a child who is desperate to reclaim some agency.

The film’s visual effects deserve credit for helping sell its larger ideas. By modern standards, the effects are obviously dated in places, particularly when the ship changes shape or moves at impossible speeds. Yet the movie uses its effects well enough that they remain charming rather than distracting. The morphing sequence in which the ship transforms into its sleeker form was especially impressive for the time, and even now it has an appealing practical-digital hybrid quality. It does not look completely real, but it looks imaginative. The ship has presence, and the movie understands the pleasure of simply watching it fly through clouds, skim across water, or streak through the night sky.

The electronic score by Alan Silvestri is another major part of the film’s identity. Silvestri is often associated with larger, more overtly heroic scores, especially in films such as Back to the Future, but his work here is more synthetic and futuristic. The music helps create a sense of wonder while also grounding the film in the mid-1980s. It can sound very much of its time, with prominent synthesizers and a clean electronic texture, but that is not a weakness. The score fits a movie about an ordinary kid encountering a cold, shiny, unknowable piece of advanced technology.

One of the better things about Flight of the Navigator is that it does not make its protagonist’s adventure entirely consequence-free. David gets to fly an alien ship, travel at incredible speeds, and encounter a universe beyond his suburban life. That is the wish-fulfillment element, and the film delivers it well. At the same time, the adventure exists because something has gone wrong in David’s life. His journey begins with loss. The movie never becomes as emotionally dark as its premise could allow, but it never completely forgets that David has been separated from his family and displaced in time.

The ending is satisfying because it returns the story to that emotional core. David’s ultimate choice is not just about whether he wants to keep flying around with MAX. It is about whether he can go home, even if home is no longer exactly what it was. The resolution is neat and arguably a little too convenient, but it earns its feel-good payoff. This is a family film, after all, and the movie knows that its audience wants the wonder of space travel without being left in despair over the time-travel implications.

In the end, Flight of the Navigator remains a warm, inventive, and slightly strange piece of 1980s science-fiction. It is not a perfect movie. Some of the comedy is broad, the adults at NASA are more functional than memorable, and the story occasionally rushes past ideas that could have been explored more deeply. But its central concept is strong, its spaceship is iconic, its score is distinctive, and its combination of melancholy and fun gives it more staying power than many nostalgia-driven family movies. It captures the feeling of being a kid who wants to escape into the unknown, while also recognizing that the people waiting at home are what make that escape matter.

Happy Birthday, Linda Gray!


My wife and I visited the South Fork Ranch a few years ago to celebrate her fond memories of watching DALLAS with her granny. It was a wonderful visit, and I surprised her for her birthday that year by buying her the entire DALLAS TV series on DVD. Since then we’ve watched every single episode of the original DALLAS television series, all of the DALLAS television movies, and every single episode of the reboot series! By my count that’s a total of 396 TV episodes and 3 TV movies. That’s a lot of hours… and Linda Gray was in most of them. Based on that alone, this beautiful lady seems like a beloved member of the family.

Happy Birthday, Linda! Thanks for all the wonderful memories. Here’s a sample of some of her best scenes on DALLAS!