Showing posts sorted by date for query The Godfather. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query The Godfather. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, September 10, 2026

Update: Now, I've Seen Everything Dept.: Superman

The Never-Ending Battle for Truth, Justice, and the American Way
or
(The Best Two Out of Three)

Nietzsche's concepts about the transcendent "Übermensch" simultaneously inspired the Nazi's to work towards their concept of an Aryan "Master Race," while also inspiring two weisenheimer Jewish kids from Cleveland to create their own "Super-man," set adrift like Moses among the stars to settle on a planet, which enabled him to "possess powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men." 
 
The silver screen has chronicled his "never-ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way," starting in the 1940's with feature cartoons, moving into serials, and then landing on the silver screen in legitimate films. Here's a look at them.
 

Superman and the Mole-Men (Lee Sholem, 1951) A black-and-white short film (running just under an hour), Superman and the Mole Men was a trial-run (a pilot, if you will) for the subsequent "Superman" television series starring George Reeves as the Man of Steel. Metropolis Daily Planet reporters Clark Kent (Reeves) and Lois Lane (Phyllis Coates) are assigned to cover the world's deepest oil-well, and find that something, or some "things," have come up through that well to see what's on the surface poking around their habitat. It being the 50's (of course, we were so backward then!) the town's populace fears the Invaders (probably around before them!), and set up a vigilante mob to deal with them. But Superman (being an unpapered alien, himself) pleads the case for tolerance--by turning the mob's guns into pretzels. Shot on a shoe-string budget (a ray-weapon carried by the Mole men was made out of an Electrolux vacuum cleaner!), Superman and the Mole Men is long on exposition, but short on costly super-heroics. Still, given the material, the actors give it their all. 

Coates
was always my favorite Lois Lane, tough as nails, and more prone to kicking an assailant in the shins than shrieking back in horror. And Reeves is all steel-jawed seriousness as Kent and Superman. There's none of the winking-at-the-audience that would come later in the series--Superman is all-business and Reeves plays the Man of Steel absolutely straight, like it's a mission. And because he believes in it, you have to take him at face value, even if the trappings that surround him aren't too convincing. Reeves would go on to play the Man of Steel until his death by gun-shot (ruled a suicide) in 1959.


Superman: The Movie (Richard Donner, 1979) For a movie that promised "You'll believe a man can fly" it couldn't be more elephantine. The Salkind family of producers bought the movie rights to Superman, and in an orgiastic frenzy to garner investors hired Godfather scribe Mario Puzo to write the script (sure seems like a natural!) and hired Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman to star. They had a movie! Well, sort of....Puzo turned in a massive script, Brando had his usually odd ideas to avoid work, Hackman was getting a little nervous. Things started to gel when Richard Donner was hired to direct. First, he settled things down. The script, which had been worked on by the Bonnie and Clyde team of Benton and Newman, was hammered into shape by Tom Mankiewicz. Then they hired the big guns, Lois Lane and Superman. For Lois, they picked Margot Kidder—not a glamour-puss, but a dame, who could convincingly play the "goes-all-gooey" side of the Daily Planet reporter. And for Superman/Clark Kent, they picked a skinny up-and-comer named Christopher Reeve, who wasn't all that sure he wanted the job. But Christopher Reeve made a fine, slightly self-deprecating Superman, and Superman made him a star.

The movie's all over the map, but moves at such a clip, you're not allowed time to notice. There's the austere Krypton section that ladles on the tragedy with Marlon Brando playing it absolutely straight. There's the Smallville segment with Glenn Ford, and an America so archetypal that they had to film it in Canada. And then there's the loopy Metropolis section, as Superman (who seems to enjoy the effect he has on ordinary mortals) must battle the nefarious Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman, clearly enjoying playing comedy) and his curiously buffoonish aides-de-camp (Valerie Perrine and Ned Beatty). The thing should fly apart at the seams, but Donner's rock-solid direction, Stuart Baird's don't-blink editing and John Williams' anthem-pumping score keeps the momentum going so the thing never touches the ground. It's a little bit of a miracle.



Superman II (Richard Lester & Richard Donner, 1980) Superman: The Movie was a miracle, but a costly one. Financed to be two movies, Donner was forced to concentrate finishing the one at the sacrifice of the second—sequences were re-shuffled* to meet the Christmas release date, and some things just weren't shot. Donner accomplished his primary goal, though, the first one was a flying success, and Donner was rewarded...by being fired. "Production consultant" Richard Lester--who directed the Salkind's near-perfect "Musketeers" movies--was brought in to finish Part II...with some provisos—to be considered the director of note, he had to have directed at least 50% of the picture. That meant scrapping some of the Donner footage. Hackman wasn't coming back, and Brando's already-shot footage was shelved, to relieve the producers of any financial burden. A lot of fans prefer II to the first one. But...they're crazy. Lester's touch is far more goofy and slap-stick than Donner's, to the point of silliness. Plus, Superman is given a whole roster of new powers to defeat the Kryptonian villains (and zap Lois into forgetting Clark is Superman). Some scenes like a super-brawl on Broadway are impressive, but others like the Krypton Trio in a poor-excuse-for-Mayberry not only don't play well but are insultingly juvenile. Plus, Superman sleeps with Lois. Hold that thought. You'll need it later.

After years of wondering what the Donner Superman II would have been like, the director was given unprecedented access to re-edit Superman II "his way," restoring long-abandoned scenes and even restoring Marlon Brando to the story! The result? Not very successful, but an interesting curiosity. The problems besetting Superman II were more than just digital editing could solve. It is neither a vindication for Donner, nor a smack-down of Lester. That would come later.

Above: York as Lara in Lester's version
Below: Reeve and Brando in their only scene together from Donner's cut


Superman III (Richard Lester, 1983) Just like the dumb idea of giving Superman extra powers he had never previously displayed or needed, at some point it was decided by the Salkind producing team that Superman alone wouldn't draw crowds. The solution? Bring in another box-office star, and one of the most beloved at the time was Richard Pryor, who had a knack for bringing in audiences. His improvisational brilliance had rescued poor material in the past, but even Pryor had little to work with here. He plays a computer savant who is coerced by evil magnate Robert Vaughn (who doesn't have quite the comedic chops of Gene Hackman) to build an evil empire run by a super-computer that could even kill Superman. That's one part of the movie. The other is that Clark Kent goes back home to Smallville to attend a high school reunion and re-links with his old sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O' Toole, trying vainly—she went on to play Martha Kent on TV's "Smallville"). Lois makes the briefest of appearances, either because her story had run its course—or Margot Kidder was in salary disputes with the producers, depending who you talk to. At one point, Pryor's Gus Gorman creates some half-baked synthetic kryptonite that turns Superman into a super-creep. As much as Reeve might have found it dramatically freeing to play Bad-assuperman, it's disheartening. The whole movie is.


Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (Sidney J. Furie, 1987)  III is bad, but it's better than this one. Produced by fire-sale film company The Cannon Group, the franchise was taken out of moth-balls with a story idea by Reeve where Superman decides to become a one-man disarmament program, taking all of Earth's nuclear weapons and throwing them into the Sun. One problem, though: Gene Hackman is back as Lex Luthor, and he's got a new plot to become the greatest arms manufacturer the world has ever seen. But first, he has to kill the Man of Steel, so he creates a Frankenstein's monster of a sun-powered strongman. Things get a bit hazy at this point, because prior to release, the film was edited by some 45 minutes making it practically unintelligible. Oh, well. Lois Lane appeared. Mariel Hemingway is there as a romantic rival for Clark for some reason...and Superman gets some even newer powers--this time, Great-Wall-of-China-rebuilding-vision. Flying and being able to squeeze diamonds out of coal doesn't have the same thrill it once had, apparently, especially when the effects are as flat and badly thought out as they are here (dare I say that the effects in Superman and the Mole-Men are more convincing?). Superman IV: The Quest for Peace pretty much killed off the series for close to twenty years, marking the last time Reeve would play Superman.


Superman Returns (Bryan Singer, 2006) Years in development that saw rumors of a Tim Burton version starring Nicolas Cage, a Kevin Smith script, and other wild schemes were finally brought to a screeching halt when Bryan Singer jumped from the "X-men" franchise to tackle his dream project--bringing back Superman. His Superman. The Superman from the earliest Reeve films. So Superman Returns has an oddly nostalgic feel to it--almost morosely nostalgic. By this time Brando was dead, and Christopher Reeve had finally succumbed to complications from his spinal injury. At times, Superman Returns feels like a wake. It doesn't help that Singer has so much love for the first two films that he can't treat it with anything less than an almost religious devotion. This Superman is treated like a tragic, lonely god, but it's tough to feel sorry for him when he's the most powerful guy on the planet. If Superman can get the Kryptonite blues, what hope do the rest of us have? Vintage Brando footage is restored for Kal-el's father. Kevin Spacey fills in Gene Hackman's shoes (inadequately) as Lex Luthor. And Kate Bosworth is a more mature, less fun Lois Lane (she lacks Kidder's almost-macho fire). The film only has a proper feel when Supes is doing some incredible stunt, like saving a falling airplane (easily the best sequence in the film). Also SR takes up a few years after the timeline of Superman II, so...that little Supes-Lois tryst? There's a little issue that goes with it. Brandon Routh looks and talks so much like Chris Reeve it's down-right haunting. Despite being a success at the box-office, it was still not the blockbuster that Warner Bros. expected, and Routh's turn in the suit ended at one (although he would return in the "Crisis" crossover event on the CW).
When Superman says he "has to catch a plane..."


The Man of Steel (Zack Snyder, 2013) Singer's lackluster Return of Superman (despite throwing a lot of money into it) did not produce a sequel. Instead, Warner Bros. (which seems destined to destroy any comics franchise it tinkers with and may be the second greatest threat to Superman besides kryptonite) put it on the back-burner. They managed to stay out of the way for another comics movie franchise, Graham Nolan's Batman trilogy re-boot. That was successful, both in concept and in the ledger books, so, thinking creatively, they tapped Nolan to executive produce a re-red-boot of Superman, away from the Reeves' legacy and starting fresh. Batman trilogy scribe David Goyer wrote the script and Nolan hired Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen) to supervise-direct.

Snyder made what is probably his best film, leaving his green-screen obsession for just the Krypton scenes, and using honest-to-gosh real locations for the story of Kal-el's journey to hero. An apt choice, as was the decision  to revamp the conception of Krypton (and Kal-el), making the character an outlier on both worlds. The other good thing about it, in association with the first, is the veering away, at least temporarily, from the usual super-hero tropes. This is an alien invasion movie where the Kryptonian villain Zod (Michael Shannon) and his minions come to Earth seeking the natural-born son of Jor-el (Russell Crowe) and Lara (Ayelet Zurer), an abomination in his eyes and the source for bringing Krypton (or something like it) back from extinction. And the Super-man (Henry Cavill) is not wearing tights while saving kittens from trees, he's wandering the country doing extraordinarily skilled manual labor jobs, until he has to "save the day" then disappears, heeding Earth-father Jonathan Kent's (Kevin Costner) warning that his uniqueness makes him susceptible to the whims of power.

That's all well and very good, but Man of Steel descends into the biggest brawl-fest between two super-beings ever put on screen, which, while momentarily interesting (and far superior to the struggles in Superman II), wears out its welcome very quickly and becomes as dull as a "Transformers" movie—while also bringing up the question (as Metropolis lies in ruins) "Why are super-heroes a GOOD thing, again?" This is not something you want to ask in a super-hero movie. Sure, you can believe a man can fly, but you shouldn't believe you'd prefer him in a town other than yours. It negates the whole "hero" thing...

When last we see him, he has set himself up as a reporter for The Daily Planet in Metropolis, but despite staving off an attack from survivors of his home planet, he now must contend with the suspicions of those on his adopted world.
Like any alien invasion movie, the military draws down on
the threat—an aloof and separate Superman


Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016) We cover this on the "Everything: Batman" article, but it's important to see the "Superman" side of things as well, as it is a direct follow-up to Man of Steel, even incorporating incidents from that film as a launching point for the central "conflict" of this film. The Metropolis conflagration caused the deaths of many of the Wayne Foundation's employees, causing Bruce Wayne to dust off his Bat-suit, figuring that a super-being with that much power has to be corrupted at some point, and it's better to take him down in a personal battle than after another catastrophe of some magnitude.

In the film (Henry Cavill's second and he's rather charmless in it), Clark Kent is a conflicted creature: firmly established as a reporter for The Daily Planet and as the partner of reporter Lois Lane off-Planet, he sees himself as a savior to those in need and is seen as an enemy to those in deed. Everyone in power secretly covets the powers and abilities he possesses and seek to harness it in some way, by hook or by crook. Looked at with suspicion, he is not the smiling, larky Superman of past films, doing good, but sad, troubled, because all the good he does comes with consequences, and all he can do is look to the women in his life who know him best and know his secrets—Lois and Ma Kent—for guidance. Plus, he's got this vigilante coming after him: as reporter Clark Kent, he wonders why this Bat-manhunter is taking the law into his own brutal hands, and also why he's targeting him, as well.

Besieged from all sides, the Last Son of Krypton, feels truly alone. But, taking example from what he thinks is his worst enemy, he learns the true lesson of sacrifice, giving his all, and falls in battle. 

Batman v Superman takes a big chance by killing off one of its big heroes, with the promise of resurrection (there's that Christ-allegory again!) in the very last shot, one that hearkens back to a mysterious moment when Clark/Kal-el makes his first leap with a single bound. It leaves one intrigued with how they'll pull it off.
 
 
Justice League
(Snyder-Joss Whedon, 2017)/ 
Evidently, bringing Superman back to life is a lot harder job than it would appear, at least if you're a Warner Brothers executive.
 
Where Superman falls into play in both versions of the Justice League story is that it is decided—by Batman in the short version and "the team" in ZSJS—to use Kryptonian technology and Flash-powers to bring Superman back to life. This is done far more easily than one would think, but, when revived, Kal-el is more than a bit pissed off. The timely arrival of Lois Lane—by design in JL; by accident in ZSJL—grounds him enough that he is able to snap out of his memory-lapse and returns to help the League finish the job of dispatching the minions of Apokolips. Both films feature a less-grim Superman than the previous versions with Cavill, although he's far more larky and jokey in Whedon's cut, as well as wearing the traditional blue-red Super-suit (Snyder places him in a funeral-black version).
 
By now, everyone knows the story: Snyder had planned two Justice League movies and filmed them back-to-back. Warner Brothers, responding to the less-than-anticipated box office of Batman v. Superman, changed their minds and wanted just one movie to be less than two hours and far less dark than BvS. It was a logistical nightmare and then Snyder withdrew due to a family tragedy. Warner hired Joss Whedon (because: Avengers) and it was his job to bring in a half-sized Justice League, have it make some sort of sense, and be lighter in tone. Not an easy job, especially with a lot of re-shoots needed to close gaps and bridge sequences. 
 
Still, the Snyder version is the fuller story—not short-changing the Aquaman, Flash, and (especially) Cyborg stories—bringing in Big DC Bad-Guy, Darkseid, and generally making a more consistent DC Universe. And Whedon's Superman is almost TOO happy after being raised from the dead and everything. 
 
Superman 
(James Gunn, 2025) When James Gunn was handed the super-keys to the DC Universe (after directing two Guardians of the Galaxy
 films and a quite bonkers version of DC's Suicide Squad), the question was "what would he do with it?"). This is the former Troma-guy who wrote and directed Super. His movies were weird, "out there" and somewhat heretical to slavish fan-boy expectations. So, what would he do with the "too-invulnerable-to-crack" Rosetta Stone character who'd been turned into a mopey, grim-and-gritty version of his former self by the last couple guys who tackled him? Gunn declared he was going to return Super-guy, who was "not cynical. And I think that one of my fears about doing Superman — because I was offered Superman seven years ago, and I was afraid it was too mainstream for me, too Pollyanna, too good natured, that I'm an edgier filmmaker than that. And the truth is, there's nothing more edgy than him not being cynical, just being a good-natured, kind guy. Because that is absolutely going against the grain in this world today. And I love that part of the movie."
 
So do I. Past directors of Superman have emphasized the alien nature, the "outsider" aspect of "The Big Blue Boy Scout" to the point of annoyance. Even George Reeves' Superman was an outsider with secrets kept from his closest friends. But, never from the viewers. Reeves would literally wink at the camera, bringing us into his world, not eating his heart out in a "Fortress of Solitude" (more like "Fortress of Depressive Self-Pity"). Gunn's version of him isn't so sure of himself that he doesn't think he's "above" us or infallible. He knows he's going to fail sometimes, and is just doing the best he can, given the values he was immersed in growing up in Kansas.
 
Then, Gunn does what Gunn does. Pulls out some of the sillier aspects of the DC magazine universe and stirs them into the mix, making Superman's world more diverse, more chaotic, and in contrast to our hero's sense of normalcy. 
 
I like it. It's not definitive. But, it'll do to have him around for awhile.

Super-Bonus:

Supergirl (Jeannot Szwarc, 1984) Back in the days after Superman III, but before IV, when it was kind of tough to pin Christopher Reeve into coming back to play Superman, the producers Salkind had it in mind to expand the franchise by creating an off-shoot, featuring Kal-el's cousin Kara Zor-el, whose family also survived the destruction of of the planet Krypton in the protectively-domed Argo City. Forced to flee the city in space to retrieve a misplaced power source, the Omegahedron, she comes to Earth as Linda Lee, but follows in her cousin's flight-path as Supergirl. 


The filmmakers do try to make it work. Helen Slater is a real charmer as The Maid of Might, and the cast is surrealistically amazing: Peter O'Toole, Faye Dunaway, Mia Farrow, Peter Cook, Brenda Vaccaro, but David Odell's script is a godawful fantasy mess. The vet's try their best with Dunaway's work feeling like an audition to play Cruella Deville...or her subsequent role as Joan Crawford. Composer Jerry Goldsmith gives a taste of what his "Superman" score would have been like--he and John Williams were trading off being assigned to it during its extended production. Supergirl is a bit better than Superman III and IV, but that's not saying an awful lot.


Supergirl (Craig Gillespie, 2026) "Not my monkeys. Not my circus." says Kara Zor-el (Milly Alcock), all of 23 solar years, another Kryptonian refugee, but whose up-bringing is a bit...different. An inveterate partier, she travels the galaxy from sun to sun (red when she wants to get drunk, which is often, and yellow when she wants her powers and abilities back—titles let us know solar categories) and she's drifting on a grief-drowning cosmic pub-crawl. She's not your gramma's Supergirl. She doesn't even resemble the current SuperMAN, who's nice and wants to help people with his powers and abilities far beyond mortal men. And women. 
 
But, even though his parents were killed on Krypton, Superman isn't an orphan (being raised by the Kents). Kara is. And her period of mourning is intense, and she has nothing to be grateful to Earth for. So, she drifts. And this story based on Tom King's comic-series "Woman of Tomorrow" tells of her pulling herself out of her funk, and doing some good. Of course, saving her dog Krypto is the motivation (hey, it "works" in the "John Wick" series), and if that doesn't attract the fan-boys, an extended cameo of Jason Mamoa in his dream role of cosmic-biker Lobo, is tossed in to amp up the testosterone.

Alcock is great, but Mamoa made a better Aquaman, and the thing feels like it's marking time rather than doing something that's unique in the "superhero" genre, which is getting fairly standard with the glut of "spandex" movies.
"Captain, we've lost an engine!...Oh!..Wait! Found it!"
 


* (Spoiler alert) The solves-all-problems time-reversal ending of II's script was thrown onto I, and the cliff-hanger ending of I (the space-bound nuke hijacked by Lex Luthor unwittingly frees three Kryptonian villains from "The Phantom Zone") was jettisoned--no one knew for sure there would be a Superman II though it was promised at the end of the 10+ minutes End Credits

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

"What Are You Looking At?" (New Year's Eve 2025)

Half a Blog is Better than None (Or is it?) 
 
Welcome to the Blogging By Cinema-light Annual Report for 2025.

I know for you investors out there, you'll want us to get to the bottom-line first, so here we go.

No. We did not make a profit this year. As a result, there will be no stock dividends. This will come as a disappointment to no one...as no one is an investor.
 
On the other hand, we didn't have any losses (despite a considerable down-turn in productivity), so we do not foresee any lay-offs. As I'm the only employee, this comes as a huge relief (and thank god, I do my own performance reviews...which are along the lines of "meh..."). But, as well, it comes as a bit of a disappointment, as my hands are getting a little "crampy".
 
So much for old business... 
 
  
Now....about the "elephant in the room." (Embarrassed throat clear) Yes, you are correct. There haven't been any "new" posts for awhile.* No, you are wrong, the blog is not shuttering, and new content is coming soon...(well, you're seeing one, so, yeah!)
 
Why the scarcity of posts? Several reasons:
 
1. Life gets in the way. Yeah, I'm not going to get into it, but my attention was needed elsewhere. 
 
2. The original purpose of the blog doesn't really apply right now. I started the "writing-about-film" thing because, after seeing a film, my mind would be pre-occupied with its details, dialogue, and mise en scene to the point of distraction, trying to unlock its "secrets." My mind would get cluttered with such details, and writing about them was the one way I had of "downloading" my thoughts. That made my mind open for...you know...life, and things like that (that is, if the time spent writing didn't deprive me of living it).

Well, these days, I'm seeing fewer films, and I'm certainly not cluttering my mind with their details. So, the original necessity to "download" isn't as imperative. 
 
3. Most movies I've been seeing lately have been, shall we say..."underwhelming." Despite the quote from Ratatouille at the bottom of the page, I do not like writing bad reviews. And, unless it's really funny, they're not much fun to read, either. On the other hand, if it's funny, then there will certainly be an element of cruelty to it (at least from this writer) and that's just not "fair." Movies are a collaborative art, and if you're gonna slag a movie, the shrapnel is bound to hit someone. There's enough of that going on in the world these days, and I don't like contributing to it. Oh...there are days...there are really days when I'd like to sink my teeth into the jugular of some hack-job sham of a movie and, through agitated neck-whips, rip it to pieces. But, I'm getting "up there" in age, and just writing that sentence put a "crick" in my neck.

Anyway, I have quite the list of underwhelming films, with no overwhelming need to praise or bury them.

So, I haven't been sweating over a keyboard lately, writing new content. Despite that, Blogging By Cinema-light still garners views--more than ever, it would seem. 1.31 million this year alone, in fact. Here, as we do every year is a screenshot of the most popular posts (or most viewed) from 2025:
Honorable Mentions:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps 221 views
The Greatest Show on Earth 121 views
 
A lot of shuffling here, from last year, but not a one of the posts from 2025 made it into the Top 10. Dominating were the "Outside Agitators" scene from The Graduate (presumably from people googling "outside agitators," a term that reared its ugly head again last year) and the "Furnace of Hell" scene from Toy Story 3 (it was the most popular post last year, as well...I chalk it up to "malaise"), but new additions include perennial favorite Hostiles (...don't ask me), two of those mammoth National Film Registry posts (more on that later **), The Way, Way Back (again, don't ask me...), Margin Call, the Kevin Costner "Scene" from Molly's Game, and a review of mine I didn't think was too shabby...for Casablanca. I like that.
 
And here are the most popular posts from since BxC-L was first launched:
Honorable Mentions: 
Black Panther 1.72k 
Ernie Pyle's Story of G.I. Joe 1.7k
 
The Batman stills reigns supreme (because he's Batman!), and the post about The Post is still at No.2. But, two "Don't Make a Scene" posts (The Graduate and Toy Story 3), knocked Black Panther and Ernie Pyle's Story of G.I. Joe out of the Top Ten, and one of the "Scene's" from American Graffiti knocked out Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri.
We celebrated two milestones last year (by "celebrated" I mean that I took note of it)—we reached the 2 million mark...and then the 3 million mark...in total views. That just makes me shake my head in wonder and bewilderment.
 
It took more than a decade for this blog to get its first million views. I got to the second million in a year and a half. The third, which just ticked over in the odometer last week, took 9 months. And (here's the interesting part) for half that time, there was no new content. At all. And the views kicked up just as fast.  That's just weird to me, but the internet has always been weird, especially in these AI Overlord day.

Speaking of which...I have already done one post on the deficiencies of the so-called "revolution" of artificial intelligence, and vowed to never use it again...ever. If I had, of course, there might have been more content this year...it just wouldn't have been mine.

But, you can't avoid this hallucinating crap anymore. Google, for instance, has an "AI mode" that encapsulates a summary on search subjects. Use it with caution.
 
For instance, I used it to see what information it provided about this blog. A lot, to my surprise. And a lot of it wrong, not to my surprise. Bear with me. If this post was dry before, it's going to get REALLY dry, and may be of interest to no one but me. But, it bothers me how messed-up this regurgitated garbage can be.
 
To wit:
 
"Blogging By Cinemalight" is a
movie review blog. The blog features film reviews and analysis, including a recurring series called "Don't Make a Scene," and is run by a writer named James Wilson. 
 
Content and Focus
The blog primarily focuses on film reviews and commentary, often discussing various cinematic techniques, directors, and the cultural impact of movies. It covers a wide range of films, from classic cinema like Casablanca and All About Eve to recent releases such as Past Lives and The Bikeriders. 
 
A notable feature is the "Don't Make a Scene" series, which sometimes involves multi-part entries that deconstruct specific aspects of a film or character. The blog's style is described as insightful, with a focus on genuine human interaction and storytelling rather than overt grandstanding or excessive technical jargon. 
 
Recognition
James Wilson, the writer behind the blog, has also contributed to other film-related platforms, such as the "MovieRob Minute" podcast/series, where he appeared as a guest. His work has been cited and linked to by other movie review blogs.
 
Where to Read
You can access the blog posts directly at its primary address:
It also maintains a social media presence: 
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses 
 
Okay, that was the overview, and it wasn't bad (considering "AI can make mistakes"). It even got in a mention of my pal MovieRob, whose "Genre Grandeur" I try to contribute to. Cross-promotion is always nice.
 
But, Google gives you the opportunity to delve deeper into the subject with AI-generated questions, like "What is Blogging By Cinema-light about?"
 
"Blogging By Cinemalight" is
a movie review blog run by a writer named James Wilson. The blog, which can be found at bloggingbycinemalight.blogspot.com, features reviews, "Don't Make a Scene" entries, and other film-related commentary. 
 
Key information about the blog:
  • Content: The blog covers a wide range of films, from classic cinema to recent releases, and includes series such as "Don't Make a Scene" and "Anytime Movies Wrap-Up".
  • Author: The primary writer is James Wilson.
  • Platforms: In addition to the Blogger site, the blog has a presence on Facebook.
  • Collaborations: The author occasionally collaborates with other film reviewers, such as with the "MovieRob" blog. 
The blog is an ongoing project, with new posts appearing as recently as late 2025 in the search results provided. 
 
What topics or film genres does James Wilson focus on in Blogging By Cinemalight?

James Wilson's reviews on "Blogging By Cinemalight" cover a
vast and eclectic range of film genres and topics, demonstrating an appreciation for all types of cinema, rather than a specific focus on one. His reviews frequently analyze how a single film can cross or subvert typical genre expectations. 
 
The breadth of his coverage includes:
  • Classic and Vintage Films: He reviews a significant number of older films, spanning from early cinema (e.g., Hell's Angels from 1930) to classic Hollywood.
  • Horror and Thriller: The blog features a notable number of reviews for films within these genres, including classics like Psycho, Rosemary's Baby, and Sisters.
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy: Films such as Source Code and Everything Everywhere All at Once are reviewed, often with an emphasis on how they explore themes of humanity and inspiration.
  • Drama and Historical Narratives: Wilson covers a variety of dramatic films, including historical dramas and those focusing on social issues like inner-city poverty or police brutality.
  • Action and Espionage: He discusses action-packed films, including spy stories and police procedurals.
  • Animation: Animated features, including Pixar films like Up and Elemental, also receive attention.
  • Comedies and Musicals: He covers various forms of comedy and even delves into musical adaptations. 
Does he analyze film theory or just focus on plot and acting?

James Wilson's reviews in "Blogging By Cinemalight" go well beyond simple plot summaries and acting notes; they engage in deeper levels of analysis, including
themes, cultural context, and some aspects of filmmaking craft, which fall under the umbrella of academic film criticism and theory. 
His analytical approach includes:
  • Themes and Worldview: Wilson often steps back from the immediate details of a film to examine its "messages," worldview, and how it fits into larger cultural debates. He explores the "human condition" in films and how they present themes of love, family, and social issues.
  • Filmmaking Techniques: While prioritizing themes, he does incorporate discussion of how a film's composition, editing, music, and lighting contribute to the overall rhythm, mood, and narrative progression. This attention to aesthetic choices is a key aspect of film theory and criticism.
  • Character and Acting Analysis: He provides in-depth analysis of characters and acting performances, but these discussions are usually tied to the overall meaning and themes of the story, rather than just technical performance.
  • Genre and Narrative Structure: His reviews often discuss how films relate to or subvert their genres, touching on narrative conventions and how filmmakers manipulate structure to evoke specific responses from the audience. 
In essence, he uses elements of film theory and advanced analysis to enrich the discussion of a film's impact and meaning, making his reviews more than just a "book report" on a visual medium.  
 
It's funny it added that last line. Frequently, when writing these things I've felt like I was writing a book report...and they're not fun to write or to read. Ask any teacher.
 
What's the author's background?
 
The author of "Blogging By Cinemalight,"
James Wilson, appears to be a passionate and experienced writer with a background in English Literature and professional experience in content writing and digital media.
 
While his professional background is not explicitly in film production or academic film studies, his background in literature and professional writing contributes to his in-depth, analytical approach to film criticism. 
 
Key elements of his background relevant to his blogging are:
  • Education: He holds a bachelor's degree in English Literature.
  • Professional Experience: He is a seasoned content writer with a decade of experience, focusing on creative and technical copy across various B2B and B2C industries.
  • Personal Interest: He is an avid consumer of digital media and enjoys watching films in his free time.
Writing Philosophy: His literary background and experience in persuasive and analytical writing likely inform his blog's focus on narrative structure, symbolism, and directorial intent, rather than a technical industry perspective. 
 
His background suggests a strong foundation in analyzing stories and communication, which he applies to the medium of film in a rigorous and insightful way on his blog at bloggingbycinemalight.blogspot.com. 
 
Yeah. It shoulda stuck with "the background is black, edged with red curtains." Still, it could've been worse: a couple weeks before these appeared, I was just referred to as "Wilson" and had decades of experience in road construction and spent a year as a commercial fisherman. It must have gotten me confused with one of the other billion James Wilson's out there. 
 
I don't have a BA in English Literature.
 
I have no idea what that "Professional Experience" summary means...much less having a "decade of experience" doing it. 
 
What films does James Wilson consider essential viewing?
 
James Wilson does not have a single, formal list of "essential viewing" on his blog, but he has shared a personal list of his
top 30 favorite movies of all time in a Facebook group, which can be considered an indication of films he deems highly valuable or essential viewing. 
 
This list includes a variety of films from different genres and eras, such as Citizen Kane, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Psycho, The Godfather, Blade Runner, and Jaws. It also includes comedies like The Producers and animated films such as The Incredibles. The full list can be found in the referenced document. Wilson also considers films like Ordinary People essential, noting its strong cast and meaningful themes. 
 
 
What films or genres does James Wilson of Blogging By Cinemalight seem to favor?
 
James Wilson of "Blogging By Cinemalight" demonstrates a broad and eclectic taste in film, with a particular appreciation for
classic cinema (especially film noir) and movies that defy easy genre classification, often blending comedy with drama or suspense. He seems less focused on specific genres than on detailed analysis of narrative structure, character development, and thematic depth. 
 
Apparent Film Preferences
  • Classic Films and Film Noir: Wilson frequently reviews older films and has participated in "Genre Grandeur" events focusing on classics like Casablanca. He notes that many movies in the film noir genre fall into his favored "Incredible Mess" category of storytelling. The blog archives show reviews for numerous black-and-white films and older releases, such as The Big Sleep, Frankenstein, and Julius Caesar.
  •  
  • Genre-Blending Narratives: He appreciates films that blend genres or defy conventional categorization, such as the comedy-horror Ready or Not or the complex description of Risky Business as "teen comedy? sex comedy? coming of age? social satire?". He analyzes how films use and subvert genre tropes, even in modern Pixar rom-coms like Elemental.
  • Character-Driven Stories: His reviews often focus on character motivations, emotional impact, and personal journeys. He notes films that are "messy, awkward, wounded, sweetheart" movies like The Holdovers and those that provide "life-lessons in miniature".
  • Thematic and Social Commentary: Wilson shows an interest in films that engage social concerns or offer deeper thematic resonance. He describes Hairspray as a "moving plea for racial integration" and Past Lives as a "quietly subversive take on Western romantic sensibilities".
  • Diverse Range: The extensive blog archives show reviews of everything from Monty Python and the Holy Grail to Schindler's List, Star Wars, and Parasite, indicating a very wide-ranging interest that covers drama, comedy, sci-fi, horror, and international cinema. 
Overall, James Wilson favors films that are well-written, thematically rich, and offer a strong analytical hook, regardless of their specific studio, age, or primary genre classification.
 
Reading about yourself from something that knows only what it knows from the internet is a mixture of "Oh, that's nice" to "WTF?" I don't remember doing a 30 favorite films thing on Facebook, but I might have when I first joined. I don't like lists. I find them more interesting for what they leave out, than what they leave in. Mark this one as "sketchy." 
 
What’s James Wilson’s favorite film or genre?

James Wilson of the blog "Blogging By Cinemalight" has stated that his all-time favorite movie is
Harold and Maude (1971). He has expressed his deep affection for everything about the film, from its Cat Stevens soundtrack to its "enlightening messages". 
 
While he has not specified a single favorite genre, his blog posts and articles indicate an appreciation for a wide range of genres, including: 
  • Classic Cinema: He often features classic films and even puts up framed posters in his office for movies like Vertigo and Touch of Evil.
  • Dramas: He has written positively about intimate family dramas and films that handle serious, emotional themes, such as Ordinary People.
  • Crime/Comedy: A list from another source that seems to match his taste listed Raiders of the Lost Ark, Halloween, and Dredd as top favorites, suggesting an appreciation for action/adventure and horror genres as well
  •  Overall, his reviews suggest a broad and eclectic taste, focusing on films with strong narrative depth, character development, and emotional impact across various genres. 
I've never reviewed Harold and Maude. It is not my favorite film, nor have I stated that it is. I've seen it, but I've never reviewed it. I have never seen Dredd, although I've read the comic-book. The non-hallucinogenic answer to the question of my favorite movie is wildly apparent to any regular readers of the blog (I have five followers), so much so that I've declared a non-official moratorium on the subject.
 
So, that leads to the next question:
 
Why is Harold and Maude his favorite?
 
(I interrupt sarcastically: Oh, yes. Please, DO tell...) 
 
James Wilson's primary reason for
Harold and Maude being his favorite film is its powerful and enlightening message about embracing life to the fullest. 
Specific elements he highlights include:
  • The Message: He noted that the central message—that one should enjoy life and be oneself—"really resonates" with him. The film contrasts Harold's obsession with death and isolation with Maude's vibrant, free-spirited approach to life, offering a profound take on living authentically and finding joy in the moment.
  • The Soundtrack: Wilson is a big fan of the music, stating that the songs by legendary artist Cat Stevens are "beautiful" and that the film made Stevens one of his favorite artists.
  • The Characters: He appreciates the performances, specifically mentioning Ruth Gordon's portrayal of the "charming, sassy and rebellious Maude". 
 The film's ability to blend humor and pathos while inspiring viewers to appreciate the preciousness of life is what makes it a deeply personal and enduring favorite for him. 
 
The source for this mishegas is listed here.  If you clicked on it, you'll notice that I'm nowhere near it...not even in the comments.
 
So, in summary, I leave on a cautionary note. 
 
Readers, beware the beast "Artificial Intelligence." If you've had a negative view of the human race before, the good news is now there's something worse. And its cavalier respect for truth, makes its only true use to be...in government. Just think: it's being used right now to write bills, white papers, and even important documents that lay out philosophies and strategies that will have real-world consequences on real-life people. 
 
With a little luck, some judicious skepticism, informed voting, and a critical eye, we'll do another one of these next year.
 
Hope it's good for you. 
 


 
 
* Specifically, September 11th—which was a re-post from my earlier movie-blog. The last "newly-new" content was August 27th! 
 
** There will certainly be a 2025 edition of the yearly rundown of the new inductees of The National Film Registry. But, not for awhile...this time, through no fault of my own.

For some reason, instead of the new additions being announced in mid-December, and I say this tentatively, they will be released mid-January 2026. Why it has been delayed would be mere speculation on my part. Maybe it was due to the month-long government shut-down...the month delay certainly lines up with it. 

But, there might be another reason. The current resident of The White House likes to put his grubby little fingers into everything these days, legal, Constitutional, or not. The Film Registry is certainly not of national importance, but when did that ever distract the current Prez from actually doing his job (actually, come to think of it, that might be a good idea). One can only imagine what a Trump-list of films would be that are "culturally, historically, or aesthetically  important", but one can be sure it wouldn't lean so heavily on "DEI" content. Instead, you could expect Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, Ghosts Can't Do it, Zoolander, Celebrity, Two Weeks Notice, and Marmalade to be on the list as well as a smattering of McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza and Macy's ads. Trump is so far up his own ass that only something involving him could be considered "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." After all, the other day, he said he was "an aesthetic person."