by “Doc” Hunter Bush, Staff Writer

Howdy one and all, and welcome to Everything Old Is New Again - the monthly column spotlighting Remakes, Adaptations and Legacy Sequels coming to screens great and small in the ensuing month. If you’re unfamiliar with how it works: I will seek out available trailers & clips for relevant projects, give them a watch, and deliver to you a short breakdown of what the trailer looks and feels like, as well as what I know (if anything) about the original source material for the project. And if that weren’t enough, down near the bottom of the column I’ll spotlight a thing or two that aren’t new but still meet EOINA criteria, which I personally recommend.

Horoscopes are fun, right? I’d just like to share the gist of one I read this week. It essentially said “boy howdy, you sure are busy with many exciting things and you’re going to be very happy BUT you’re also gonna be exhausted and you better get used to it”. It’s not wrong, either. There are quite a few irons in my personal fire, but I’ll always put things on the back burner to fire off another EOINA for y’all.

So keep your eyes on MovieJawn, our Podcast Network, and our Patreon in the future for lots of fun stuff coming, but without further ado: let’s talk movies!

PREMIERES

All the new projects coming to screens big and small

June 8th:

Ms. Marvel (6 episode weekly series)
Where: Disney+

Based on the Marvel Comics character created in 2014, Ms. Marvel follows a teenage girl from New Jersey as she discovers she has super powers and will definitely have ties to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. I’ve been very upfront with my continued exhaustion at the neverending onslaught of Marvel projects, and to be honest, most of the MCU miniseries output I’ve seen has been pretty underwhelming, serving mostly to get things in place for the next movie (rather than, y’know, developing things organically and over time). But (and there’s always a but) a LOT of Ms. Marvel looks fun. In general the small-scale-ness of Spider-Man has been the stuff that has most reliably worked for me and Ms. Marvel has lots of that. The similarities are there: ostensibly normal high schoolers discovering they have superpowers and trying to balance these two sides of their lives, etc. But Ms. Marvel has a fresh perspective: Kamala Khan (Iman Vellani), a Pakistani American Muslim girl from Jersey City, NJ. who has a family.

You rarely get a female POV in superhero stories, and almost never that of a young girl. DC’s Wonder Woman is not only a living goddess, but a grown woman before her super adventuring begins, while Marvel’s Captain Marvel is an alien, a military pilot and, yes, a grown up. Etc., Etc. Even when characters are dubiously young, they’re usually not kids, so that right away is interesting. The family aspect is likewise unique, as Peter Parker (the closest touch point) is famously an orphan raised by his aunt. Then there’s the tone, which is silly and comics-centric, with word balloons and a general doodling-on-your-binder aesthetic throughout the whole trailer. This matches the tone and feel of Kamala’s comics pretty perfectly from what I remember and, as seen in Into the Spider-Verse, can work incredibly well without removing emotional weight or the feeling of danger.

What doesn’t thrill me is the obligatory It’s All Connected, MCU-ness of it all. Like, obviously this is connected to the greater Marvel Universe; Kamala is obsessed with the Avengers and Captain Marvel, that’s not what bugs me. What I could do without is that it seems like some government types (S.H.I.E.L.D. perhaps?) are going to show up and Kamala will be thrown into a grander scale adventure. I personally don’t need that. Not right away. I’d prefer to see Kamala doing the old school Spider-Man thing of: dealing with threats to her immediate area and then disappearing into obscurity to maintain her secret identity and protect her friends and her lifestyle. Of course, eventually she should join the Avengers and have all kinds of large-scale adventures, but getting to see that escalation is what works better for me.

I’ll give at least some of Ms. Marvel a look and keep my fingers crossed that this time they get the mini series format right and make something that works. But I’m not holding my breath.

9th:

Jurassic World Dominion (dir. Colin Trevorrow)
Where: in theaters

I have not been a very huge supporter of these latest Jurassic Park films. The first one felt too much like a copy of the original for me, the second had more unique-feeling moments and concepts but seemed to abandon them faster than a tender-fingered chef tosses a hot potato, and they both were just full of the same soulless, boring, unengaging CGI dinosaurs. So I’m not the best person to seek an unbiased opinion on this latest entry. I will say however, that the trailer for Dominion at bare minimum seems to finally be expanding on something rather than merely copying it. In 1993, Stephen Spielberg (with screenwriter David Koepp) adapted Michael Crichton’s 1990 story of genetic engineering unlocking dinosaur DNA for fun and profit and the film, unlike the titular Park, was actually both fun and profitable and everyone, include Stephen Spielberg hisowndamnself tried to recapture that specific magical feeling and (importantly) failed. Your mileage may vary but there’s nothing really memorable or impactful in any of the expanded JP filmography that resonates the same way that most moments from the original did. Jump to 2015 and Colin Trevorrow’s requel (the term for a where it’s a same-enough story to refamiliarize new viewers but not a full-on remake) and, well, my issues are as stated above.

But, as I said: Dominion seems like it’s finally using its strengths in smart ways. Y’know what’s completely impractical to try to do with (infinitely superior) practical effects dinosaurs? A large-scale, dinosaurs-overruning-the-globe story. In this way, tackling something of this scope, the CGI dinosaurs are totally justified. I also, personally, liked that there’s not only at least one feathered dinosaur, but it’s an aquatic one? Nice. I still have zero interest in this franchise currently, it’s not adding anything meaningful to my enjoyment of the original, only treading the same ground, a perpetual motion machine that exists only to keep on existing (and thus collect money).

It’s cool, not everything has to be for me.

17th:

Lightyear (dir. Angus MacLane)
Where: in theaters

In 1995, Toy Story introduced us to Woody, an old-fashioned pull-string, soft-body generic cowboy toy and his shiny new rival Buzz Lightyear, an aggressive plastic, action franchise toy. The differences between the two toys physically underlines the differences between the eras from which they came, which underlines the theme of (I believe) the entire Toy Story franchise: change. Now 27 years later, we’re getting to experience what I would have naturally assumed would be the franchise adventures of this spaceman toy. But y’all know what they say about assuming:

So …yeah… This is the real guy? That the toy? Is based on? Let’s unpack that. Though I didn’t catch a specific year in the trailer, Buzz (voiced by the above Chris Evans) mentions “...star date 3901.” and they clearly have much more advanced space exploration technology than we do now, currently, in real life, ok? Keep that in mind. In this trailer Buzz is launched into space, thru a man-made (or at least not naturally-occuring) transportation gate of some kind and ends up 62 years, 7 months, and 5 days into the future where there are both robots and aliens - the robots might be made by the aliens or may in fact be the alien life forms, it’s unclear (also Zurg, Lightyear’s nemesis from all other BL appearances, is also present but I’m not sure if he’s a robot or a biological entity anyway). Anyway, presumably Buzz will spend the film attempting to return to his own time.

So this is supposedly the story of the real guy that the toy is based on? Yet it clearly takes place in a technologically advanced future? But it must have happened long enough ago that the story has been turned into a toy line and whatever else by 1995? That’s …VERY confusing. And stupid. And that’s all I can think about when I watch the trailer! But. That aside, this looks kind of fun; just a sci-fi action adventure yarn with some comedy and, as an added bonus: not voiced by Tim Allen. Chris Evans is definitely a come-up in that regard. He played Captain America for Pete’s sake! Bearer of America’s ass! Tim Allen meanwhile, is just an ass.

Not going to theaters for this but will check in when it hits streaming.

24th:

The Black Phone (dir. Scott Derrickson)
Where: in theatersBased on a short story from supernatural horror author Joe Hill (Horns, NOS4A2), this looks quite good. If I have one complaint (which may not end up being the case) the trailer sure feels like it’s giving away the whole damn movie, don’t it? We see a young boy named Finney (Mason Thames) being abducted by a serial kidnapper called the Grabber (Ethan Hawke) - who has a whole magician aesthetic and at home wears a weird sort of comedy/tragedy mask (?) - and waking up trapped in a basement with a disconnected black phone. The phone allows him to speak to the Grabber’s previous (now dead) victims, who are attempting to prepare him for a daring escape. Meanwhile, Finney’s sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) is being guided by psychic dreams to where Finney is being held.

The fact that both the kids have some kind of psychic, supernatural abilities leads me to believe that it’s a family trait and not some kind of random happenstance. It would be pretty cool if there was a twist that this Grabber was somehow doing the lord’s work, eliminating evil psychic children, but that would be pretty grim I guess. But as I said, the trailer seems to be giving me the whole layout of the film. Of course, I don’t know how everything ultimately shakes out, but it feels like I have a decent idea.

I seem to remember an earlier trailer that let the reveal that the phone isn’t connected to anything, and thus that the ringing and conversations are then technically impossible, play as a small reveal and if that’s an accurate memory, that seems a much better way to play it, to me. And again, this might all just be the first and second act of the movie with an entirely secret, wild third act that they’re keeping close to the vest. I have no idea. It just sure feels like they’re showing a LOT.

Regardless, I’m definitely interested in this one. Cannot wait to stream it. Hope I can avoid any spoilers.

SPOTLIGHT

Older EOINA-appropriate projects that get my personal thumbs up

The Kids in The Hall (2022) (8 episode series)
Where: Amazon Prime

Holy hell, ya’ll. The Kids in The Hall, a Canadian sketch comedy troupe made up of Dave Foley, Bruce McCulloch, Kevin McDonald, Mark McKinney, and Scott Thompson had a fantastic sketch show that ran on HBO from 1988 - 1994 (and later in reruns after Saturday Night Live, with which they shared a producer in Lorne Michaels) before they burned out on that kind of schedule. They attempted to copy the Monty Python model of longevity by making a film every few years, but their initial attempt (1996’s Brain Candy) was not only a commercial flop, but due to the discordance of interests and personal goals of the Kids themselves, ended up effectively ending their partnership for a handful of years.

Then they did some touring together, a Canadian miniseries in 2010 called Death Comes to Town, and now: they’re back! I covered this return in last month’s column, but that was before I’d seen any of it and y’all, I am delighted to say: It’s hilarious! There are a bunch of callbacks/returning characters but not in a way that you NEED to have watched the original series (the best way to do it) BUT if you do watch the 8 episode series and enjoy yourself, I’d suggest checking out the documentary Comedy Punks (also on Prime) which explains the story of the Kids in great detail (and with a TON of early Kids footage!).

Personally, after doing both of those things, I was itching to dive back into The Kids in the Hall. The original series is available on Prime as well (some seasons w/commercial interruption via whatever “Freevee” is) but I recommend tracking down the dvds as I did long ago, for an uninterrupted viewing experience.

Well that’s it for this month. There’s just always SO MUCH content, I’m sure I’ve missed/overlooked something, and if I have: let me know with a comment below. Likewise if you end up checking out anything I’ve covered and wanna share with me your two cents; I’d love to hear it. I don’t write this column because I just L-O-V-E remakes, adaptations, and/or long-gap sequels so much, I do it to start conversations. Let’s talk about movies!

Everything is varying levels of bad lately (there are few moments, across few days where I don’t feel like I’m actively under the weight of some truly depressing and grim event or reality), but movies - as the famous pizza proverb goes - even when they’re bad, they’re good. Watching movies remotely with my MovieJawn pals (and some non-Jawnies as well) is a highlight of my week and by putting out this column, I hope I can provide a similar outlet and relief for any of you.

Thank you for reading and thanks to MJ for hosting a posting. You can find me on twitter, insta, or letterboxd, and if you’d like to hear some more of my movie opinions, I cohost the Hate Watch/Great Watch podcast w/Allison Yakulis. June in Pride month, so we’re covering specifically LGBTQ+ films, and as it happens we’ll have 3 episodes so we’re kicking things off on the 1st with The Babadook (Jennifer Kent’s 2014 Australian horror flick starring the titular gay icon) with guest Nicole Krecicki. Then on the 15th we’re joined by Krystal T.L. Brackett to talk about an annual Mt. Mausoleum watch: The Birdcage (Mike Nichols’ 1996 remake of the 1978 French farce), and closing out the month with Bound (the Wachowskis’ pre-Matrix heavily queer heist noir scorcher) on the 29th with our guest Gabby Reeves! We hope you’ll join us!

Until next time - Long Live the Movies!