Bullet Train (2022)
Dir. David Leitch
Starring: Brad Pitt, etc.
61/100
I can understand why film executives greenlit this film, and I can understand if some of them thought this could be a hit. The cast and the general premise is solid. Indeed, the film, with a playful Tarantino vibe, started off fairly well, and the characters quickly appealed to me, specifically Pitt’s character and the “twins.” (The other characters were kinda flat to me.) Indeed, i quickly thought the bad press I heard about the film would prove to be wrong. Alas, it wasn’t. That’s not to say the film was terrible, although I couldn’t call it good. Ultimately, it’s one of these films that does a decent job of holding your attention to the end, but by the end of the film you conclude it’s not a good film.
***
I’m not motivated to explain detailed reasons the film didn’t work, but I think it just comes down to a failed story, and some of the characters being dull, partly because they’re underdeveloped. For example, the subplot with the White Death and yakuza guy and his family really felt really flat to me.
This is a Czech New Wave omnibus film. I’ll write about each section of the film below.
“The Death of Mr. Baltazar”
Dir. Jiri Menzel
A car breaks down with three people in it–a husband and wife, who are really into cars, and another older man, who they seem to ignore. After fixing their car, they head off to a auto race. The film spends time showing the amount of people watching the race. Throughout the film, the husband and wife make references about cars and race car drivers, while the man talks about other things, mostly to himself.
The story may be depicting a difference between generations or classes–it’s hard to tell. There’s a joke at the end where there’s a connection between the married couple and the man, that I’m not sure exactly how to read. Also, one of the drivers dies, and I’m also not clear on the significance of that.
“The Imposters”
Dir. Jen Nemec
Two older male patients are talking in their hospital room, each reminiscing about their earlier careers–one, a journalist; the other, a singer.
***
One or both die, and a man preparing the body to be taken away mentions that both were lying about their careers. He expresses some sympathy for them doing this, but another man, who seems like a doctor, rejects this idea. Later we see him reassuring a patient, but the film suggests he’s actually a barber.
“The House of Joy”
Dir. Evald Schorm
Two insurance agents visit an eccentric painter out in the country. The painter says he will sign an insurance policy and while one of the agents gets the paperwork ready, the painter shows and explains the pictures he has painted on the walls of his house.
***
As he’s about to sign the insurance, the painter’s mother pops out from under her bed covers and prevents the son from doing this. One of the agents is highly annoyed by this.
In this process, we see a painting of Jesus, on a metal sheet cutout. Apparently the government (or some patron) paid the painter to paint this Jesus. The painter did this and then placed him on a wooden cross alongside a road. A few cars crash into each other because of this painting, and the main and his mother remove it.
***
I don’t have a clear idea about this, but I did like the paintings featured in this segment
“The Restaurant, the World”
Dir. Vera Chytilova
I’m not sure what to make of this, but there were some interesting images–specifically the man and bride (not his wife) moving in slow, blurry motion in the rain, while he ties up some trees to secure them.
“Romance”
Dir. Jaromil Jeres
A tryst between a young man and a Roma girl.
The Graduate (1967)
Dir. Mike Nichols
Starring: Dusting Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross, etc.
72/100
I’ve seen this once or twice a long time ago, and all this time, I think I’ve badly misunderstood this film. Before I explain, the AFI lists this as #7 all-time greatest American film. I would put the following films ahead of it: Singin’ in the Rain (#10), It’s a Wonderful Life (#11), Star Wars (#15), Psycho (#18) Chinatown (#19), Annie Hall (#31) Godfather II (#32), and a lot more.
***
(spoilers)
Let me start by explaining my initial understanding of the film–namely, I thought it was basically a romance, with some comedy. What changed that is the way the two facial expressions of the two characters at the end of the film. Actually, I recall not really being unsure about this when I watched on the initial viewing. But I basically didn’t think it was that significant.
But my view changed when I saw this explanation:
I’m not sure rebelling, particularly against their parents, is the driving motivation for Ben and Elaine–that’s the part that seems slightly off. Same with characterizes Mrs. Robinson marriage as an act of rebellion. It could have been, but I initially thought her pregnancy forced her to get married–and in the process she abandons her interest (career?) in art, which was her college major.
Whether they are rebelling against their parents or not, Ben does seem lost and anxious about his future. I tend to think he and Elaine have a genuine connection, albeit may be not so deep. Perhaps, Elaine’s parents sending her away is the impetus behind Ben’s impulsive desire to propose to Elaine.
In any event, I do think there is uncertainty and maybe unease at the end, and I think of two things this could mean. One, the same existential dread Ben experiences at the beginning reappears at the end–that is, his marriage has not allowed an escape. Two, like video, they realize they’ve acted too rashly, and they realized they may be trapped. This second reading would be a kind of indictment on the younger generation of day–maybe especially those in the free-love crowd. (There are other parts that are consistent with this. The fish tank and swimming pool symbolize a sense of being trapped and controlled by his parents. Also, the montage sequence–where Ben moves from his parents home to his trysts with Mrs. Robinson suggests that both are situations were Ben is controlled and trapped.)
Real Genuis (1985)
Dir. Martha Coolige
Starring: Val Kilmer (Chris Knight), Gabriel Jarret (Mitch Taylor), William Atherton (Prof. Jerry Hathaway), etc.
62/100
I’m not sure why, but I’ve been in the mood to re-watch this, and it just so happened to be streaming for free on youtube. I remember mildly enjoying this when it first came out. It don’t think it’s a great movie, but it’s mildly engaging. I think the 80’s vibe made the film appealing, including the 80’s soundtrack. There are Groucho-esque gags for Kilmer that don’t work completely, but I liked what they were going for. Overall, the irreverent, zany genius appealed to me and Kilmer did a decent job. He’s the primary reason this film was interesting to me.
The Hustler (1961)
Dir. Robert Rossen
Starring: Paul Newman, Piper Laurie, George C. Scott,
71/100
The Color of Money (1986)
Dir. Martin Scorsese
Starring: Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Mary Elizabeth Mastriontonio, etc.
68/100
There are some relatively straightforward films that I have trouble understanding what they’re about, on a deeper level. The Hustler is one of those films. In the previous viewings, Paul Newman’s performance satisfied me, and I never had a strong desire to get to the bottom of the film. Here’s an example of the Newman’s cool that appealed to me:
But on this viewing, I did spend some time trying to understand the film. I don’t think I’m quite there yet–and this post will be a continuation of the messy process to get to the bottom of the film.
(Note: I’m also going to also throw in an interpretation of The Color of Money.)
***
(spoilers)
I’m not sure if the following interpretation is actually the interpretation. I also know that my own personal circumstances color my perception of the film, which contributes to my interpretation of it. Having said that, I think this interpretation does fit the film.
Here it is in a nutshell: The film examines ambition, mostly from a male point of view–ambition for either money (represented by the Bert) or greatness through excellence (represented by Fast Eddie)–and the cost of this ambition (e.g., losing or destroying important relationships). To take this a bit further, the film could be about the tensions between patrons, artists and the people the artist loves.
Given the title, we could argue that the film is a critique on both the ambition for wealth and greatness. That the pursuit of both is a kind of sham–i.e., a form of hustle.
In the sequel, Eddie seems to forget this. At the end of The Hustler his pursuit of greatness is prematurely ended. And in the intervening years, he transforms into Bert. But meeting Vincent seems to remind him of who he once was and this rekindles his desire for greatness (via pool). Perhaps the film is about finding his way back (while also corrupting and possibly ruining Vincent).
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
Dir. Milos Forman
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Will Sampson, etc.
71/100
I saw this film, which is #20 on the AFI all-time great movie list, because I’ll be moderating a discussion on it. I read the book in college, and it’s been a long time since I’ve watched this movie. I thought it was a good book and a solid film. I’m not sure it deserves the ranking it does.
***
I want to mention one problem I had, and a more controversial take on the film. First, the problem. McMurphy attempts to sneak in hookers and alcohol, after he learns that the administrators can hold him indefinitely in the hospital. (Prior to knowing this, he thought he would automatically be released after 68 days, the time he had remaining on his prison sentence.) And he seemed genuinely upset and worried when learning this.
Yet, he pulls this stunt. It’s the sort of move that gives me pause about his sanity, which provides a segue to my next point. The film doesn’t explicitly address whether McMurphy is sane or not, but I previously assumed that he is sane–defiant, impetuous, and wild, yes, but not crazy. While I still suspect this is the film’s stance, I’m less certain, based on my observations of the character.
Similarily, I’m less sure about the Nurse Ratched character, although I’m quite sure the film wants audiences to perceive her as a villain. In terms of the overall film, I thought Ratched and the institution was a stand in for authoritarian forces in society–either the government overall or those on the political right.
However, except for Ratched’s handling of Billy’s sexual tryst, I have some doubts about whether we can perceive her and the institution, overall, as villains. What would a more humane and commendable approach look like, with regard to the treatment of patients? In the dispute over watching the World Series, is Ratched’s rationale–structure and routine are important for many of the patients–invalid? I’m not so sure.
That she is passive-aggressive seems like a fair description, but is her intentions and decisions really harmful to the patients?
Is McMurphy’s requests always reasonable?
I know that I’m prone to see her and the institution as a whole in a negative light, while perceiving McMurphy’s rebelliousness in a positive, romantic light. But if I were to put aside that expectation, and just analyze what I actually see, I’m not sure I’d arrive at this conclusion.
One last thing. I’ve been reading The Analects of Confucius, and I do think this is greatly influencing my response above. One takeaway I’m getting from this reading is the degree to which the individual is secondary in Asian societies. This is not a new idea to me, but by studying Confucius’s ideas, I’m getting a more granular and maybe deeper understanding of this idea. As a result, I’m gaining a keener understanding of the degree to which Western societies are individualistic–and I’m also gaining a greater appreciation on the downsides of this. To describe all of this in detail would take too long, and would be outside the scope of this review, but maybe in another post.
About five years ago, I watched this again for the first time since my 11th grade English teacher showed it in class, and my response this second time is similar to yours.
I did see Ratched very differently, not evil or wicked but someone committed to doing the job as she was trained to do it. Also, when I was 16 I never noticed how hot she is. And she’s not very old. My memory of her was so different from what I saw in my latter viewing.
McMurphy being possibly insane made it better for me too, although these days there’s just no sanity/insanity line anymore, as we have learned so much more about mental health. I can see Ratched with more sympathy now than in the 80s, but I also see McMurphy with more sympathy — more as a man and less as a symbol.
Before my rewatch, I’d never have put this in my top 100 films, but it’s possibly in my top 50 now. The acting: so, so good; this film made me rethink Jack Nicholson, inspiring me to watch several of his other movies from around the time. The pacing: excellent. And this feeling I get that everyone in it kind of gets a bad deal makes it so much a better movie for me.
…and my response this second time is similar to yours.
I’m surprised–pleasantly–to hear this. I just had the feeling like I would be the only one (or one of the few) who reacted this way.
I did see Ratched very differently, not evil or wicked but someone committed to doing the job as she was trained to do it.
But from the dvd excerpts, Forman thought of her as evil–he just wanted a more subtle performance. I don’t see it that way, or I don’t think it works so well. It’s not clear that she’s evil or that McMurphy is largely normal and sane.
Also, when I was 16 I never noticed how hot she is.
I saw this in college or in my twenties, but I had read the book first. Milos Forman originally cast Angela Lansbury and Collen Dewhurst for the role (and someone else whose name I can’t remember). Those are the type of people I had in mind when I read the book. I think I viewed Louise Fletcher with that expectation. But like you, she was looked younger and more sexy than I remember. (No doubt my age now has a lot to do with it.)
Before my rewatch, I’d never have put this in my top 100 films, but it’s possibly in my top 50 now.
I think I think less of the film–especially if the allegory of authoritarian state no longer works.
And this feeling I get that everyone in it kind of gets a bad deal makes it so much a better movie for me.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’d like to hear you expand on this.
The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)
Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Barry Keoghan. Written and directed by Martin McDonagh. Streaming on HBO Max.
NOTE: I don’t spoil the plot of this film but I do give away the overall mood, which some people would consider a spoiler.
The Banshees of Inisherin is up for nine Oscars, and it’s worthy of eight of them.
Pádraic and his best friend Colm hit the pub at 2:00 every afternoon on their lonely island off Ireland’s coast. When Colm ends the friendship, their neighbors and acquaintances are stunned, certain this must be a temporary disagreement.
Yet Colm feels his time on earth is too short to spend with the likes of Pádraic. He wants his life to mean something, and drinking with Pádraic won’t do it.
There is potential for a great movie here. The dialogue is outstanding, at turns clever, poetic, odd, hilarious, and mysterious, and the actors who deliver it are amazing, especially Colin Farrell as Pádraic and Kerry Condon as his loving, graceful sister Siobhán. All four principal actors have deservedly been nominated for Academy Awards.
However, this is not the sweetly pastoral reflection on life during wartime it starts off as. It’s a reflection on war — specifically the Irish civil war of 1923, but generally any war — and its many participatory and collateral victims. The characters do gruesome things to themselves and to each other, and while some have their eyes on better, less lonesome lives, others can see only the red in their own eyes.
I don’t mind that it’s a depressing movie draped over very funny components. Heck, I love a good, depressing movie. I do mind that for all its creativity in character development and storytelling, it makes its points about war with cartoonish violence and simplified symbolism.
It scores 80s and 90s for its acting and dialogue. It scores 30s for story and theme. A so-so movie with excellent parts is still not much more than a so-so movie.
I’m splitting the difference and giving it 51 out of 100. Don’t see it if you can’t handle a real downer of a film.
Ash is the Purest White (2018)
Dir. Jia Zhangke
Starring: Zhao Tao, Liao Fan, etc.
72/100
I’m not sure why this film held my attention to the extent that it did. The plot isn’t all that interesting. The girlfriend of a small time, underworld leader, saves his life, but gets sent to prison in the process. When she gets out, she goes looking for him.
While the plot may not be interesting, Zhao Tao is. I think she’s the main reason the film hooked me. She not only displayed an admirable loyalty and love, but there’s a inner strength that reminded me of actors like Barbara Stanwyck and Anna Magnani. If this were a Hollywood film, she might have gotten an Oscar nomination.
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Dir. Howard Hawks
Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, etc.
77/100
I haven’t seen a lot of screwball comedies, but this, along with His Girl Friday, is one of the best I’ve seen. Interestingly, the Grant-Hepburn pairing didn’t appeal to me when I first saw this, as I had seen The Philadelphia Story prior to this film, and I never liked the former.
But I really liked Hepburn and Grant in this. One of the things that makes me laugh the most is seeing someone exasperated. And Cary Grant’s character is constantly exasperated in this movie. But this wouldn’t be sufficient if Hepburn wasn’t convincing as this chaotic force of zaniness. She, and, really, the film overall, have a Marx Brothers vibe, which is a good thing. (I’d love to see a contemporary film like this. By the way, I believe Peter Bogdanovich attempted to do this in What’s Up Doc?, with Ryan O’Neal and Barbara Streisand attempting to recreate the roles of Grant and Hepburn. Unfortunately, I didn’t care for that film.) What’s interesting to me is that Hepburn’s character could have been more annoying than funny, but, for me, she mostly was the latter. (If I recall correctly, that wasn’t the case with Streisand’s performance.)
Here’s an earlier scene that describes what I’m talking about, and it’s the scene that really hooked me. In the scene, Grant is playing golf with someone considering to donate a million dollars to the museum Grant works at. Hepburn is not with Grant, but she mistakes his golf ball for hers.
(Note: I just activated the free two-week viewing for the Criterion Channel.)
August 32nd on Earth (1998)
Dir. Denis Villaneuve
Starring: Pascale Bussières (Simone Prévost), Alexis Martin (Philippe), etc.
58/100
Villaneuve is director I like, the type of director whose films I’m interested in seeing without knowing anything about them. This is Villaneueve’s debut film. Had I not known Villaneuve was the director, I would have been impressed, and thought the director was one to watch. The filmmaking is interesting, with a really strong opening.
However, the overall film is a bit uneven. The film involves a woman who wants to have a baby. She asks her friend, Phillipe, to sleep with her. Phillipe reluctantly agrees, on one condition: they must have sex in a desert.
One last thing: I liked Alexis Martin in this. I could see him being in Jean-Pierre Jeunet film.
Roadgames (1981)
Dir. John Franklin
Starring: Stacey Keach, Jamie Lee Curtis, etc.
60/100
(Note: Part of Criterion Channel’s 80’s horror series.)
An Australian film involving a truck driver (Keach), a hitchhiker (Curtis), and a serial killer. That was enough to interest–that and the fact that I never heard of this film before. (I’m guessing it was never released in the U.S.)
This is one of those films where the executives, actors, and everyone involved could have believed this would be a box office success. I could definitely see what they were going for, but, for me, there were things that just didn’t work out–most notably Keach. He’s trying to be this well-read truck driver who has read enough detective fiction that might enable him to actually catch a killer, and in the process he’s supposed to be charming and likable. Keach is not terrible in this, but falls short in my view. There moments of comedy, suspense and action. They’re all OK, but not much more than that. The ending isn’t entirely satisfying as well, although, again, it’s OK.
It’s the type of movie that would have been just been OK on a boring Saturday night.
Dead and Buried (1981)
Dir. Gary Sherman
Starring: James Farentino, Jack Albertson, etc.
65/100
If this wasn’t a made-for-TV movie, it sure looks like it. Sheriff Dan Gillis (Farentino), after receiving a masters in criminology, returns to his small town of Potter’s Bluff, to be the town sheriff. While there, visitors of the town begin dying, and strange things begin to happen. I’m not into horror, but I saw more as a mystery or detective story.
***
One thing prevented me from giving rating this in the 30s-40s. It really made the concept of the film, or at least I liked it. However, while I liked the overall concept, there is one huge problem–namely, the reason Gillis is unaware of what’s happening. There are also related incidents–e.g., the mortician going telling Gillis he lost the body; the hotel manager, Ben, telling Gillis that the photographer has come back to life. Why the elaborate ruse for Gillis? Why does he need this at all? For the most part, it didn’t completely ruin the film (although I had low expectations), but some satisfying reason for all of this might have made the film a lot better. (For example, maybe Gillis was one of the only person that believed he was alive–maybe because he had such a strong will to be alive. The mortician, Dobbs, liked this about him, so he created this elaborate ruse in order to allow Gillis to have a satisfying “life.”)
Sunset Boulevard (1958)
Dir. Billy Wilder
Starring: Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich von Stroheim, etc.
The film disappointed me on the first viewing, probably because my expectations were really high. With lower expectations, I enjoyed this a lot more. Several short comments: I liked the way this film looked; the film reminded me that I like William Holden; it also reminded me that Wilders’s films have well-written dialogue.
***
There are several notable, well-respected films that seem to be about the way Hollywood destroys women (e.g., Vertigo and Mullholland Drive). Add this to list. One would think that these films would be more disturbing for moviegoers and maybe even hurt the film industry. Or at least it would dampen the interest in being a Hollywood star. (And maybe the interest isn’t very strong for most people–although maybe that’s because most people don’t believe this is even a possibility.) But that doesn’t really seem to be the case. The support for Hollywood movies (and TV series) still seems quite strong.
On a somewhat related note, films like this make me think about the way in which sexism and even misogyny seems to be so pervasive and deep-seated in our society. Sadly, like poverty, both seem like something that we’ll never get ride of.
The Blob (1958)
Dir. Irvin Yeaworth
Starring: Steve McQueen, etc.
68/100
I had low expectations going into this, and that contributed to my enjoyment and the final rating. The effectiveness, on what was low-budget fx (or what would be low-budget nowadays), surprised me.
The story was pretty simple as well. A meteor crashes to Earth, releasing a goo-like substance, which can absorb (eat?) anything and is impervious to almost everything.
The one thing that could have been improved, in my view, is the way the denouement.
Manhunt (1941)
Dir. Fritz Lang
Starring: Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett, George Sanders, etc.
66/100
(I love the image below and it’s a big reason I watched the movie.)
The movie is a bit dated, but I rather enjoyed it, particularly the way the story evolved and the visuals. The premise is interesting: During WWII, a British, big-game hunter, Captain Alan Thorndike (Pidgeon), seeks to assassinate Hitler, while the Nazis try to apprehend him.
I suspect of the action/suspense set-pieces will n
***
Some of things I liked:
Thorndike attempt to escape Germany on a ship and then having a Nazi pose as Thorndike. (That seemed like an interesting twist initially, although it didn’t amount to much.)
A young Roddy McDowell. I always liked him.
Joan Bennett is alluring. I don’t know if she’s considered a big star, but I don’t think I’ve paid much attention to her. She’s on my radar screen now.
One problem I had involved the handling of Thorndike’s moral and psychological aversion to killing and then his eventual realization that killing Hitler was justifiable exception seemed clumsy and awkward. I believe this was an American film, but this aspect of the film seemed aimed at British upper crust (i.e., the highly civilized subset of the UK), attempting to convince them that the war against Hitler and Nazi Germany was totally justified.
Amateur (1994)
Dir. Hal Hartley
Starring: Isabelle Huppert, Martin Donovan, Elina Lowesohn, Damian Young, etc.
Hartley’s made a handful of films that I really like (e.g., Trust, The Unbelievable Truth, Meanwhile, etc.), and I am interested in any film he makes. For some reason, I never heard of this film, so I was excited to see it.
The film involves two stories: an ex-nun turned adult film writer, Isabelle (Huppert), who helps an amnesiac (Donovan) find his identity, and a former adult film star (Lowensohn) trying to start a new life.
One of my favorite things about Hartley is his dialogue. Unfortunately, what makes his dialogue is largely absent here. Also, the acting in Hartley’s films can feel something from college students, at least under the surface, but the writing and maybe one or two actors can elevate and carry the film. Huppert is good, particularly her comedic moments, but most of the other actors (including Hartley regular, Donovan) often don’t make it and come off flat.
Still, the film’s story and structure is interesting on a dramatic level. I’ll say more in the next section.
***
The amnesiac, Thomas, has a violent, dark past. But his amnesia frees him from that, and he is a new, better person. On one side of him is an ex-nun, who writes x-rated stories and also claims to be a nymphomaniac, even though she’s a virgin. She wants Thomas to be the first to make love to her. Moving in the opposite direction is Thomas’s wife, Sofia, who is running away from Thomas and the world of porn.
But Thomas has a chance to find redemption by helping Sofia escape for Thomas’s dangerous associates from his past. Ironically (again), Isabelle can now serve God by helping Sofia find safety and maybe even help Thomas find redemption.
The ending reminds me a little of Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant. That character has a dark past, but also makes an attempt at redemption by letting criminals go (or something to that effect). But in the end, God, Fate, or the cosmos won’t let him off. Same with Thomas.
Having said that, the film does, perhaps, suggest Thomas has found some deeper redemption. Someone asks Isabelle if she knows Thomas, and she answers in the affirmative. Thomas was a stranger and an amnesiac. Isabelle’s answer suggests that she knows him, the bad, but also the good. (Also, prior to Thomas’s death, Isabelle give Thomas his loaded gun–which suggests she believes he’s redeemed. Prior to that Thomas expresses contrition as well.)
The one lingering question I have: Why “Amateur?” Who does that refer to? Isabelle? Amateur at being a spiritual person? (That doesn’t sound right.) Does amateur refer to people in general? Amateur at what?
(Here’s an answer, from Hartley in Filmmakermagazine:
When asked to explain the title of his most recent feature, Amateur, Hal Hartley responds, “There is a nice anecdote about Hitchcock once dismissively calling Charles Laughton an amateur. Laughton responded, ‘Well, I love my work.’ That is the meaning of the word I intended. You know the root of the word is ‘one who loves.’”
So, is Isabelle one who loves? That would make sense, but the “amateur” is still a real odd word choice, if so. Maybe the word also signifies that lack of expertise and experience–but not lacking in love.
There’s also this:
Hartley imagines that if he were to make a film titled The Professional, it would “deal with the implication of submitting your own personal morality to standards which don’t personally have anything to do with you.” Such was for Hartley the point of his 1990 feature Trust in which “a character refuses to take a standard corporate ideal of efficiency and submit to it, or even contribute to it.”
This comment reinforces the idea that amateur refers to Isabelle. Isabelle says that the Virgin Mary appeared to her three times, telling her not to be a nun. But she didn’t listen. Eventually she leaves the convent, but is still open to God’s leading. The nuns may be equivalent to professionals, and maybe colder, institutionalize religion. She must break away and be an “amateur” to do God’s work. I think this is a stretch, but maybe not much.
More from the article:
In effect each of the other three actors plays out in his or her role the particular fate of Donovan’s character – they are all beginning new lives with the associations of their old ones still intact. As Hartley points out, “All the characters are in some way unprofessional: Elina is an unprofessional con artist, Isabelle is a unprofessional pornographer, and Martin is an unprofessional human being. Each of them end up doing things out of a sense of love.” And the last character, Edward, who is at once the most essential and the most peripheral, is also the ultimate amateur, an amateur at love.
Party Girl (1995)
Dir. Daisy von Schlerer Mayer
Starring: Parker Posey, etc.
67/100
If I met someone like Parker Posey, I’d guess I wouldn’t get along with her. She seems annoying and maybe even snobby. But that’s not the vibe I get at all; indeed, I find her strangely appealing. It’s one of the main reasons I watched this film, and she didn’t disappoint me.
I wouldn’t say this was a great film, but it was entertaining; and I enjoyed the film’s 90’s vibe. Additionally, when this movie came out, I would not have been interested in this movie, as it looks like a silly Hollywood film, and I would expect to dislike it. That was not my reaction.
The film’s title is a little misleading. A more accurate title might be, Party Girl, Library Girl. Twenty-something Mary (Posey) is great at hosting raves, but she’s looking for something more. In steps her godmother, a librarian, who gives Mary a job as a library clerk. I don’t want to say more, but there is also a subplot involving a good-looking Lebanese guy who runs a falafel cart. (The film takes place in New York.)
There’s nothing really outstanding about the film, but there’s nothing awful, either. And if you like Posey and you’re in the mood for a 90’s flick, this is a good pick.
The Daytrippers (1996)
Dir. Greg Mottola
Starring: Hope Davis (Eliza Malone D’Amico), Anne Meara (Rita Malone), Parker Posey (Jo Malone), Liev Schreiber (Carl Petrovic), Pat MacNamara (Jim Malone), Stanley Tucci (Louis D’Amico), etc.
86/100
(Illustration by R. Kikuo Johnson, who is a Maui boy. Stylistically, the art is similiar to Adrian Tomine’s, which is a really good fit for the movie.)
If someone told me this was one of the all-time best American independent movies, my initial reaction would be nodding my head. At the same time, I can say with certainty that this is not an all-time great movie, but this should in no way be taken as a slight. Some films can be smaller, in terms of ambition, and in terms of achievement, but still be utterly wonderful. In an way, the smallness makes it more charming and endearing. I can’t think of many films like this, but this is one of them. (I sort of feel similar about Be Kind, Rewind, but The Daytrippers may be the better film. While this is an independent movie, but in terms of well done entertainment, it beats out 99% of Hollywood films (although that’s a low bar). There’s a good anecdote from Mottola that conveys what I mean, but let me first describe the film.
Eliza and Louis are a happily married couple, but one day Eliza finds a love letter sent to Louis. She reveals this letter to her family–that is, her mother (Meara), father (McNamara), sister (Posey), and her sister’s boyfriend (Schreiber). They convince Eliza to go into the city and talk to Louis about this–and they decide drive together, giving her moral support. And this begins the day trip–i.e., a compressed road trip. That’s what this movie is, hence the title.
If that’s not enough to entice you maybe the following anecdote will do the trick. Mottola said that on the night before shooting (I think), James L. Brooks calls him saying he’s interested in directing the movie, but he’d likely have to recast the film. You see Mottola, on a lark, sent the script to Brooks. Coincidentally (?), Brooks just called right before shooting. I really like Brooks, I think he could have made a good movie with this script, but I’m glad Mottola decided to direct the film himself and stick with the actors he cast. (I believe this was Mottola first feature film; he made it on $55,000–at least to start and shot the film in 17 days.)
I tell this story because the film is in the ballpark of a James Brooks movie–maybe James Brooks “lite” is an apt description, although that shoulds slightly derogatory–but I don’t mean it that way, just the opposite really. The drama is lower-pitched, less intense, and the comedy may have the witty dialogue from A+ writers, but this make the film more appealing to me.
Suspect (1944)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Charles Laughton (John Marshall), Rosalind Ivans (Cora Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), etc.
67/100
A film that held my attention (although it was unpleasantly stressful at times, due to the nature of the film)
John Marshall, a kind decent man, who lives with his hateful wife (Rosalind Ivans’s strong performance really justifies the use of that adjective), starts a friendship with a young, beautiful woman. I’ll stop there.
There’s one or two things that made this film interesting and maybe even novel to me, but they’re spoilers so I’ll go over that in the next section.
***
This has a common film noir situation: the protagonist commits murder, tries to get away from it, but usually doesn’t. Usually, greed, stupidity, or some other human foible or moral defect contributes to the protagonist’s doom. But this film is a little different. Here, the protagonist’s decency and conscience leads to his demise–and the inspector chasing after him uses both to finally catch his prey. On some level, this lead to a satisfying conclusion.
What I didn’t like was the inspector–not just the actor, but also some of the scenes involving him. Specifically, I didn’t care for inspector’s first apperance, when he visits Marshall after the latter’s wife’s funeral. With no real basis for doing so, he turns the screws on Marshall, by describing how his wife could have been murdered. It was a flaw that I could overlook, but I still think it weakened the film. To be fair, the filmmakers may not have had the time or funding to establish this character and the way he suspects Marshall, but putting in these scenes could have made the film a bit stronger.
One other curious tidbit. The film takes places in the UK, using a mix of American and British actors. What’s interesting is that the American actors don’t attempt to speak with a British accent. The film just plays this as if nothing is unusual about it. For the most part, I thought it was fine.
Criterion channel currently features three film adaptations of Ernest Hemingway’s short story, “The Killers,” one I really liked. In this post, I’m going to comment on the three films, as well as the short story. There will be spoilers ahead.
I don’t really want to say anything about the story or films, but the short story is only 7 or 8 pages.
But if you must know something about them, here’s a short synopsis. Two men enter a small diner, looking for a man. They know enough to know that the man often comes in to eat in an hour or so. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
Two of the Hollywood versions are variations and expansions on the short story–using the short story as a springboard and resulting in something very different from it–while the one from the Soviet Union is a faithful adaptation.
The Killers (1944)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Edmund O’Brien, Eva Gardner, etc.
75/100
After reading Hemingway’s “The KIllers,” I’m sure some readers will ask and want to know about Ole Anderson’s background–specifically, what lead to his eventual fate. This is a film for those readers, and in that way goes back in time to answer this, not unlike Citizen Kane. (Indeed, on the Criterion collection site, there’s an article describing the film as “the Citizen Kane of film noir.”).
In this way the film is very different from the short story. Leaving out the backstory creates an entirely different effect–one I actually prefer. Still, this film adaptation is engaging and entertaining, although when I first saw this, several years ago, I don’t remember liking it as much as I did now. At that initial viewing, I don’t think I had read the short story. On this second view, I read the short story right before watching the film. I think that helped me enjoy the film a bit more (even though I prefer the short story.)
I love the opening sequence–the visuals and the music (everything prior to entering the diner)
The Killers (1956)
Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky, Marika Beiku, and Aleksandr Gordon
Soviet Union
20:32 minutes
Tarkovsky and two other students made this short adaptation in film school. It’s a more faithful translation, but It’s just OK, even considering it was a student film.
One deficiency: The killers just don’t have the appropriate menace, and the actors that play George don’t express the right degree of fear and unease. (The Siodmak version gets this right for the most part.)
The actor who plays Ole does do a solid job of conveying a sense of doom and resignation, though.
The Killers (1964)
Dir. Don Siegel
Starring: Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes, Angie Dickinson, etc.
73/100
Where Siodmak’s adaption seeks to provide reasons for the assassination, characters, this time the hitmen, not an insurance claims adjuster, try to discover why the victim doesn’t resist the assassination. Additionally, the film builds its story on some problems that those wanting to kill the Swede/Johnny North would have likely discovered–namely, Swede/North live in a way that suggests they don’t have the money, and if they don’t have it, who does?
The film that results is pretty satisfying, and Siegel could made this into movie made for the big screen instead of for TV, this film might have been a lot better. It’s not a great film, but it’s more interesting in relation to the other adaptation.
Just a few other comments. The love scenes between Cassavetes and Dickinson are very effective, particularly the dialogue. This aspect of the film really surprised me.
A final word about the short story and the film adaptations
The two Hollywood versions satisfy the reasons the assassination and the Swede’s/North’s acceptance of it. But to me, that diminishes the short story. Without these explanations, the story feels a lot more universal, involving perhaps an inherent sense of guilt that we all feel, and the way some may accept the doom that awaits them because of this. Or maybe it touches on the truth that death awaits us all, featuring a person who has finally accepted this truth. (Nick’s reaction, wanting to leave the town, suggests the dread and unease one feels when seeing someone reach this point, seeing them wait to eventualy die, is dreadful.)
I really liked the opening music (composed by John Williams, listed as Johnny Williams):
Criss Cross (1949)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Yvonne Di Carlo, Dan Duryea, etc.
73/100
For me, this was a gripping and satisfying film, particularly in terms of the story. Also, the print, like all the other prints of Siodmak’s films now streaming on the Criterion Channel, is gorgeous. I will say that one aspect made the film a little less satisfying.
The only other thing I want to say is that Yvonne Di Carlo was surprisingly beautiful in this. I had only known her from her roll in The Ten Commandments and The Munsters TV show. There are scenes where her beauty surprised me (but there are other scenes where her personality soured these impressions).
4/21/23
Phantom Lady (1944)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Ella Raines,Allan Curtis, Franchot Tone, etc.
66/100
I was really excited about this film a third of the way through. Why did I never hear of this before? Unfortunately, by the end of the film, I no longer had that question. It’s not the film was terrible, but there were a few significant problems that diminished the film for me.
First a brief description.This is one of those films where a man is framed of a crime, and the movie involves proving his innocence. As I alluded to, I found the set up really engaging and entertaining.
I’ll go into my problems in the next section.
***
(spoilers)
The short explanation: Too many unbelievable things occurred, including the way the villain frames the protagonist. Let’s dig in.
1. The murderer, after killing Henderson’s wife, he has to hurry to bribe the bartender, the drummer, and the singer. Even if we don’t think this is rather convoluted, there are many other people who could likely testify that Henderson was with another woman.
2. How does Carol (Raines) know to seduce the drummer? It’s almost as if the film left out a scene that the drummer denied seeing a woman with Henderson. But there must have been other people there who said they didn’t remember Henderson with a woman, too, so it’s not clear why she would focus on him.
3. The inspector coming in at the last minute was a bit too deus ex machina.
In spite of these flaws, I enjoyed watching the film for the most part.
Variety (1983)
Dir. Bette Gordon
Starring: Sandy McLeod, Will Patton, etc.
62/100
(Note: I didn’t fully process this film, and if I did so, my score could really increase. However, if I wait to fully analyze the film, I’ll probably never write this review.)
The premise interested me: Christine (McLeod), a struggling, young woman in New York City, gets a job as a ticket salesperson at a porno movie house. The film shows the way this experience affects her, and the people she meets. (I also wanted to see New York at this time.)
In a way, I think this description makes the film sound better than it was. I suspect Sandy McLeod’s performance, which seems lacking, was one of the main reasons the film didn’t work for me (although maybe I just never gave the film enough thought.)
***
Christine’s reaction to pornography is interesting in that it seems to appeal to her, or at least not something that repulses her or leaves her cold. On some level, I wondered if the audience was supposed to assume that people like Christine and Mark, her boyfriend, are supposed to be repulsed by porn. In this film, Christine seems to at least find it alluring, although she seems to keep it at arm’s length.
Related to this fascination, is her fascination with Louie, who seems to might be part of the mob. Here again, the film may deal with the allure of that which is dangerous and/or forbidden. It’s an interesting idea, but the film fell a little flat for me.
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take One (1968)
Dir. William Greaves
76/100
74 minutes
I really like Criterion Collection’s cover art for this:
An ambitious film that perhaps didn’t fully realize it’s ambitious. Still, I felt excited watching this film, right from the opening scene. (By the way, I believe I did try to watch this before and based on that impression, I thought this film would be a good one to help me fall asleep. I was totally wrong about that!)
I think it’s good to go in blind, but I’ll give a brief description in the next section.
**
The idea of the film is to film one scene of a man and woman having an argument (and the film uses different actors in the roles), as well as the filmmakers filming the scene. Not only that but the filmmakers also discuss the film, and I emphasize filmmakers, as people besides the director weigh in.
I’ll say one more thing. I recently re-watched Fellini’s 8 1/2, and I came away disappointed. At certain points of watching Symbio, I felt like this was a better film. I’m not sure that is the case, but I had way more enthusiasm for Symbio than I did for 8 1/2.
***
I haven’t fully processed this film, but I want to jot down some preliminary thoughts.
Besides moviemaking, the film also seemed to try to explore the differences between the way movie characters talk about sex and the way real people do. One of the crew members brings this up, and the odd fellow featured at the end seemed to dovetail nicely with these points, as the latter talks about sex in a frank and even crude way….Actually, maybe the film is partly a critique about the artificial way films depicts conversations about sex.
One last point. One interesting element is the effect the lack of structure has on the film. This creates confusion and uncertainty for the film crew, but that leads to interesting comments from them.
(Edit: Ugh, I forgot to comment on some of the visuals–specifically, the use of split screens, which I really liked. Also, I enjoyed watching the various actors play the same scene….Hopefully, I’ll come back and do a more thorough review on this. By the way, I just learned there is a part 2 to the film, made in 2005. Cool!)
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take 2 1/2 (2005)
Dir. William Greaves
60/100
99 minutes
I would divide this in three parts. The first third started where the first film ended–focusing on the two new actors we see at the end (Audrey Henningham and Shannon Baker). It also includes some conversations with the crew, which I wish Greaves would have included in the first film. The second third of the film takes place in 2005, starting with a screening of the first film and a Q&A with Greaves, Steve Buscemi (who produced the second film) and some of the original cast and crew. In this section, we see the beginnings of a new film being made, with Henningham and Baker, now in their 60s or 70s.
I had two big problems: First, Henningham and Baker were probably the two worst actors in the first film. Honestly, Greaves not using their scenes is totally understandable to me. At times, it was painful to watch, especially Baker. And this also applied to the 2005 scenes. (Henningham was very attractive, and at the end of the first film, I was curious to see more of her, so I was initially enthused to watch the footage of her.)
Second, the film features conversations with the crew, which feels like an attempt to capture lightning in the bottle twice. (It includes one of the most outspoken crew members from the original film.) It just feels contrived, artificial, and there really isn’t many great comments.
I had difficult watching the first third of the film.
In the last third of the film, the movie focuses primarily on the Henningham and Baker, working on their scenes. They bring in a third actor/coach who does these improv exercises with the actors. These scenes really drew me back into the film. The actors began exploring their characters a lot more, digging deeper into the way they felt. I imagine it’s what might happen in rehearsals. What was cool was that the acting did get a lot better in my view, and that was interesting to watch. This whole section really saved the film for me.
One last comment. They were film during the New York City Marathon, and someone makes a comment about how no one knows about their filming, and most of the people don’t care, as they’re more interested in the marathon–or something to that effect. We hear the crowd cheering and Greaves includes some footage of the marathon. I’m not sure how or if it really fits in with the film.
Shanghai Express (1932)
Dir. Josef von Sternberg
Starring: Marlene Dietrich (Madeline “Shanghai Lily”), Clive Brook (Capt. Donald “Doc” Harvey, Anna May Wong (Hui Fei), Walter Oland (Henry Chang), Lawrence Grant (Reverend Carmichael), Eugene Pallete (Sam Salt), Louise Clausser Hale (Mrs. Haggerty)
68/100
The headshots of Marlene Dietrich in this film really stand out.
There is a love story in this film, but it also feels line an ensemble, adventure-comedy movie (or at least adventurous and comedic for its time). A group of Europeans are on the train the Shanghai Express, during a revolutionary war China. Two of these Europeans–Madeline and Doc were in love in the past. The Chinese government is also on the hunt for revolutionary spies.
The movie is good to look overall, with interesting editing and fade-outs–not only the way it films Dietrich, and the atmosphere captured by von Sternberg is also very good.
Unfortunately, I think the film is very dated–specifically, the acting of Brooks and to a lesser degree, Dietrich. Brooks is a handsome actor, but he has this stilted and sometimes self-pitying way that not only seemed like bad acting, but it was also annoying. Dietrich wasn’t much better (which was a little surprising because I think she’s a solid actor). Both really diminished the romance of the film, although it didn’t complete ruin it.
(Remaking this film might not be a bad idea, Casting the right romantic leads could really make this film, as a kind of romance adventure, with some comedy thrown in. I’m envisioning something like Titanic with more interesting supporting characters and humor. Or maybe has Baz Luhrman direct and bring his flair to the film. Another idea: Make the romantic leads an interracial couple.)
My daughter recently told me she hates black-and-white movies. I told her that some of them can be really beautiful and cool to look at. Orson Welles’s version of Othello would provide good examples of this, and it’s one of the main reasons I think highly of this film. I haven’t read or watched a Othello in a long time, so I may give the film a lower rating if I had a more vivid recollection of the complete version. Somehow I don’t think this would be the case, as the cinematography, locations (e.g., castles, courtyards, and catacombs in Venice, Morocco, Tuscany, Rome), and Orson Welles, as an actor, particularly his voice, are all terrific.
A great visual expression of a man captured by the green-eyed monster:
Touch of Evil (1952)
Dir. Orson Welles
Starring: Welles, Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, etc.
64/100
I never thought much of this film the first time I saw it, nor did I really enjoy it. On this viewing, I appreciated it a little more, but the biggest difference was the print quality. The pristine black-and-white version I watched was really pleasure to see. I would compare to listening to music on a great sound system after listening to it on a smartphone speakers. (I had similar recent experiences with films like Night of the Hunter and The Killers.)
Nam June Paik: Moon is the Oldest TV (2023)
Dir. Amanda Kim
62/100
This is an American Masters film about avant-garde video artist, Nam June Paik. I knew very little about Paik before watching this, but I still felt that sense of dissatisfaction I feel when watching a documentary about an artist. Almost invariably I feel like these films don’t spend enough time digging into the person’s art–their ideas, philosophy, techniques–and instead spend more time on anecdotes and biographical information. The latter is important, but I wish these films spend more time on the former.
There were aspects of Paik’s approach that I found interesting. First, he fiddled with the technology behind the TV, ostensibly because he wanted artists and people in general to be able to manipulate the images and sounds of the TV–instead of giving total control to broadcasters. Second, and relatedly, he did this because he wanted individuals to be able to “talk back” to the TV, making it more interactive, instead one way.
These two ideas may not have blossomed into something interesting, but the very concepts themselves are really interesting.
Overall, I didn’t really come away too impressed with his work. It seems a bit dated.
Margot at the Wedding (2007)
Dir. Noah Baumbach
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black, etc.
67/100
Character-driven, situational family dramas (with a smidge of comedy)–sometimes feeling like autobiographical episodes. That’s how I’d describe Baumbach’s films. Whether the film is ultimately successful–and often the films seem lacking–the characters and the acting always draw me in and hold my attention. Some films can be difficult to watch. Not Baumbach’s films. Indeed,if I want to be engaged, I would look for one of his films to watch. What’s interesting is that the word “entertaining” doesn’t seem like the right adjective (at least not in this case), but I’ve enjoyed watching every film of his I’ve seen.
In this film the situation involves a weekend at the childhood home of two estranged sisters, Pauline (J. Jason Leigh) and Margot (Kidman). Pauline is going to marry Macolm (Black). There we learn about both character, their upbringing and their relationship with men, and their parenting.
Not a great film in my view, but it was entertaining and interesting.
I became intrigued in this film for two reasons: 1) Criterion Channel streamed the film, and I had never heard of it. That I never heard of an 80’s film, particularly one the Criterion folks would stream piqued my curiosity; 2) the Museum of Modern Art secured the film for its collection. My understanding is that MoMa also bought a print of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I wondered: could Basket Case be as good? (Yes, it’s a horror film.)
These thoughts followed me as a I watched the film. Actually, after about 15 minutes, I started wondering why MoMa secured the film for the collection. And I periodically asked myself this question throughout the film.
Before saying anything else, I would be curious to know if Mitchell has seen this. To me, there’s a chance he’d like this as this is the type of movie that USA Up All Night would screen, and I know Mitchell liked those films.
If you look up the film on the internet, a lot images show too much in my view, so I would recommend avoiding images of the film. Now, here’s a brief and general description of the film: A young man from upstate New York heads to the city, looking for a few individuals from his past. While on the journey, he carries a wicker basket.
***
I can definitely understand this film achieving cult status–particularly the nature of what’s in the basket and the way the film features this. Personally, I’m ambivalent about it. There is a charm and effectiveness, while also being cheesy at the same time. (I never really found the film humorous, though.)
While watching this, I kept trying to think of a deeper reading of the film. For example, I toyed with the idea that the film was about the way families often have one member that has difficulties, making them a challenge for the family. Because they’re part of the family, one or more individuals remain loyal and loving, but that can lead to the person and/or family’s demise.
Criterion Channel is featuring 80’s Asian-American cinema, and I saw two in their collection.
Living on Tokyo Time (1987)
Dir. Steven Okazaki
Starring: Ken Nakagawa, Minako Ohashi, etc.
71/100
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie I could use “shaggy dog” as a descriptor, but this one is it. (I need to find the origins of that term.) I almost gave up on this film, mainly because I didn’t care for the acting, but something just clicked. I’ll go into that, but before, I do here’s a quick synopsis. (I should note here that I saw a re-edited version on Criterion Channel.)
A young Japanese woman, Kyoko (Ohashi) comes to America and wants to stay, but her visa will be ending. In comes, Ken (Ken Nakagawa), a low-key guy trying to hit it big in a rock band. Someone at Kyoko’s work place suggests that she marry Ken, as a way to stay in the states.
Now, here’s where I think the film started to click. When Kyoko moves in with Ken, they don’t really seem to have many conversations, because Kyoko barely speaks English and Ken doesn’t speak any Japanese. Ken is also not a very communicative person. He not only seems introverted, but an ennui so substantial seems to possess him that it seems to have infected his facial muscles as well. And yet….Ken is starting to become interested in Kyoko. I found this amusing, and it also made me care more about the character and what would happen. (I also liked that Kyoko would also refer to him as “Mr. Ken.”)
***
One of my favorite dialogue from the film: Ken’s walking with a co-worker, talking to him about his feelings for Kyoko.
Co-worker: I don’t know, I used to think there was something called magic. And then after about five years, I thought maybe there’s something called magic; and after about ten years, I figured there wasn’t.
Ken: Well, I think I got it.
Co-worker: Magic?
Ken: Yeah….I think I’m in love.
Co-worker: Well, that’s different. That’s different than magic.
Ken: I thought they’re the same thing.
Co-worker: Well, they start out the same, probably. I mean, magic and love are the same thing, but I figure if it lasts for a while, it’s love. If it doesn’t last for a while, then it’s magic.
Dim Sum: a Little Bit of Heart (1985)
Dir. Wayne Wang
Starring: Laureen Chew, Kim Chew, Victor Wong, etc.
74/100
If I had to choose an Asian-American film best depicting mother-daugther dynamics, I would choose this film over Joy Luck Club or Crazy Rich Asians.(I know I liked this film more than the other two.) Wang channeling Ozu, gives us characters that seem like real people, which enhanced the dramatic moments. Kim Chew, who is Laureen Chew’s actual mother, really stands out. She really brings a gravitas to this film, delivering a quiet, but powerful and poignant performance that I think could be worthy of an Academy nomination. (I don’t think Kim Chew is a professional actor, either.)
The film is about Geraldine (Laureen Chew), a single woman, taking care of her elderly mother (Kim Chew). The mother believes she will die soon, and wants Geraldine to marry, so that the mother can die knowing she will be cared for. Geraldine has ambivalent feelings about getting married (or at least ambivalence towards the man her mom wants her to marry). And yet, she’ll consider this, out of love for her mom.
The film is a low-budget, quiet independent film, but not inaccessible to mainstream audiences (although I doubt this would make a big splash at the box office, although given the acclaim of Minari, maybe it would.)
I was unfamiliar with filmmaker Janicza Bravo, but I watched several of her short films streaming on Bravo, and I enjoyed most of them, especially two of the films. The shorts feature awkward, and sometimes quirky misfits–in the same universe as Wes Anderson mumblecore movies. But these films aren’t just notable for the characters, but the direction as well. Bravo doesn’t have the same meticulous dollhouse aesthetic as Anderson, but these movies look good, much better than a low-budget movies. (I have no idea what the budgets are, but they look good if not better than Hollywood film.) The films are about 15 minutes long.
Here a few comments about each of films.
Gregory Go Boom (2013)
Starring: Michael Sera, etc.
82/100
Sera plays a wheel-chair bound young man who longs to move out of his sister’s house. In the film, he goes on three dates. Sera is an typical role perhaps, but he’s still effective in this. Funny and disturbing at the same time.
Pauline Alone (2014)
Starring: Gabby Hoffman, etc.
83/100
An odd young woman in several different encounters. This was probably my favorite of the four films, with “Gregory” being a close second.
Woman in Deep (2016)
Starring: Alison Pill, etc.
34/100
I didn’t care for this, but a part of me feels like I missed something.
Man Rots from the Head (2017)
Starring: Michael Sera, etc.
60/100
Black-and-white film that reminded me Barton Fink and Eraserhead. Like those other films, I don’t think I fully got this one.
California Split (1974)
Dir. Robert Altman
Starring: George Segal, Elliot Gould, etc.
47/100
Two compulsive gamblers meet and form a kind of friendship, and we follow them engaging in various gambling activities. The film also features two prostitutes. There’s one fairly novel element to the film, and I’ll reveal that in the next section.
**
Altman seemed to like doing variations on either film genres, and that’s one appealing aspect of his filmmaking. In this film, he does something similar by placing largely recontextualizing urban low-lifes–in this case gamblers and prostitutes–in a sururban setting–possibly suggesting that these type of people actually exist. I say this because the film has almost feels like an exploration into this specific milieu, although I have no idea if this was a real phenomenon in 1973 or now.
Overall, though, the film didn’t really work for me. For one thing, I understand that this was supposed to be a comedy (according to Ebert’s review). Had I not known this, I would not have labeled the film that way.
The dramatic elements also didn’t have much of an impact, although I’m not exactly sure of the reason.
***
I’m not quite sure about Bill’s (Segal) feelings at the end of the film. Off the top of my head, he seems deflated, in spite of winning, because he never felt that “special feeling”–i.e., a kind of lucky zone–he just said he was. My best guess is that for Bill–representing many middle class Americans–largely lived an empty existence and he sought that “special feeling” in gambling to fill that emptiness. That is, Bill wasn’t primarily interested in money or even the thrilling way one could make money via gambling. Instead Bill wanted to feel that sense of invincibility when one feels one can’t lose. Bill admits he only pretended to feel that way, and so the wining was ultimately hollow for him. Charlie’s (Gould) reaction, in contrast, is what we would expect–he cares about winning money and likely the excitement of winning it via gambling. But Charlie seems like someone who makes his life as a gambler–the type of guy you’d associate with low-level con men, pimps, thieves, and mobsters–so his reaction makes sense. Bill, on the other hand, is a journalist for a local publication, and seems to be gambling out of a deeper need.
Rumble Fish (1983)
Dir. Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Matt Dillon, Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Nicholas Cage, Chris Penn, etc.
77/100
A sympathetic depiction of a teenaged hoodlum, Rusty James (Dillon), trying to live up to the image of his older brother. The film is shot in black and white and features a score by Stewart Copeland.
**
The film lacked the dramatic impact that it needed, which I’ll say more about later. However, in spite of that, I really liked the direction–particularly the visual aspects of the movie. I’m tempted to say this is as good as anything Coppola has done in the past, and, because of that, it feels like a film that should receive more attention. Again, I loved the visuals.
As for the lack of dramatic impact, the film may not be entirely to blame for this. Since this film, there have been many films about teenage gangs–e.g., Boyz in the Hood, City of God–that are far grittier and hard-hitting. Something like Rumble Fish feels quaint and innocent in comparison–and to some degree Coppola’s filmmaking lends itself to this feeling. The filmmaking, including the black and white photography, create a more stylized and even theatrical feeling. In contrast, the black and white photography gives Raging Bull a colder realism (although there are definitely stylized moments in that film).
Even though the film takes place in the early 80s, it feels like a 50’s teenaged gang movie, and by the 80’s there seemed to be a more romanticized perception of this time (cf. American Graffiti, Happy Days, etc.). The film is a little grittier, but still falls operates with the same perception of that time.
California Split (1974)
Dir. Robert Altman
Starring: George Segal, Elliot Gould, etc.
47/100
Two compulsive gamblers meet and form a kind of friendship, and we follow them engaging in various gambling activities. The film also features two prostitutes. There’s one fairly novel element to the film, and I’ll reveal that in the next section.
**
Altman seemed to like doing variations on either film genres, and that’s one appealing aspect of his filmmaking. In this film, he does something similar by placing largely recontextualizing urban low-lifes–in this case gamblers and prostitutes–in a sururban setting–possibly suggesting that these type of people actually exist. I say this because the film has almost feels like an exploration into this specific milieu, although I have no idea if this was a real phenomenon in 1973 or now.
Overall, though, the film didn’t really work for me. For one thing, I understand that this was supposed to be a comedy (according to Ebert’s review). Had I not known this, I would not have labeled the film that way.
The dramatic elements also didn’t have much of an impact, although I’m not exactly sure of the reason.
***
I’m not quite sure about Bill’s feelings at the end of the film. Off the top of my head, he seems deflated, in spite of winning, because he never felt that “special feeling”–i.e., a kind of lucky zone–he just said he was. My best guess is that for Bill–representing many middle class Americans–largely lived an empty existence and he sought that “special feeling” in gambling to fill that emptiness. That is, Bill wasn’t primarily interested in money or even the thrilling way one could make money via gambling. Instead Bill wanted to feel that sense of invincibility when one feels one can’t lose. Bill admits he only pretended to feel that way, and so the wining was ultimately hollow for him.
Rumble Fish (1983)
Dir. Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Matt Dillon, Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Nicholas Cage, Chris Penn, etc.
77/100
A sympathetic depiction of a teenaged hoodlum, Rusty James (Dillon), trying to live up to the image of his older brother. The film is shot in black and white and features a score by Stewart Copeland.
**
The film lacked the dramatic impact that it needed, which I’ll say more about later. However, in spite of that, I really liked the direction–particularly the visual aspects of the movie. I’m tempted to say this is as good as anything Coppola has done in the past, and, because of that, it feels like a film that should receive more attention. Again, I loved the visuals.
As for the lack of dramatic impact, the film may not be entirely to blame for this. Since this film, there have been many films about teenage gangs–e.g., Boyz in the Hood, City of God–that are far grittier and hard-hitting. Something like Rumble Fish feels quaint and innocent in comparison–and to some degree Coppola’s filmmaking lends itself to this feeling. The filmmaking, including the black and white photography, create a more stylized and even theatrical feeling. In contrast, the black and white photography gives Raging Bull a colder realism (although there are definitely stylized moments in that film).
Even though the film takes place in the early 80s, it feels like a 50’s teenaged gang movie, and by the 80’s there seemed to be a more romanticized perception of this time (cf. American Graffiti, Happy Days, etc.). The film is a little grittier, but still falls operates with the same perception of that time.
Random comments:
I wouldn’t be surprised if Raging Bull inspired or gave ideas to Coppola.
The fight sequence near the train tracks reminded me of the “Beat It” video. It feels like an inspiration to that video.
The way Coppola shoots the pool scenes reminded of the scenes in The Color of Money, which made me think Scorsese used the latter as inspiration.
Bullet Train (2022)
Dir. David Leitch
Starring: Brad Pitt, etc.
61/100
I can understand why film executives greenlit this film, and I can understand if some of them thought this could be a hit. The cast and the general premise is solid. Indeed, the film, with a playful Tarantino vibe, started off fairly well, and the characters quickly appealed to me, specifically Pitt’s character and the “twins.” (The other characters were kinda flat to me.) Indeed, i quickly thought the bad press I heard about the film would prove to be wrong. Alas, it wasn’t. That’s not to say the film was terrible, although I couldn’t call it good. Ultimately, it’s one of these films that does a decent job of holding your attention to the end, but by the end of the film you conclude it’s not a good film.
***
I’m not motivated to explain detailed reasons the film didn’t work, but I think it just comes down to a failed story, and some of the characters being dull, partly because they’re underdeveloped. For example, the subplot with the White Death and yakuza guy and his family really felt really flat to me.
Pearls from the Deep (1966)
54/100
This is a Czech New Wave omnibus film. I’ll write about each section of the film below.
“The Death of Mr. Baltazar”
Dir. Jiri Menzel
A car breaks down with three people in it–a husband and wife, who are really into cars, and another older man, who they seem to ignore. After fixing their car, they head off to a auto race. The film spends time showing the amount of people watching the race. Throughout the film, the husband and wife make references about cars and race car drivers, while the man talks about other things, mostly to himself.
The story may be depicting a difference between generations or classes–it’s hard to tell. There’s a joke at the end where there’s a connection between the married couple and the man, that I’m not sure exactly how to read. Also, one of the drivers dies, and I’m also not clear on the significance of that.
“The Imposters”
Dir. Jen Nemec
Two older male patients are talking in their hospital room, each reminiscing about their earlier careers–one, a journalist; the other, a singer.
***
One or both die, and a man preparing the body to be taken away mentions that both were lying about their careers. He expresses some sympathy for them doing this, but another man, who seems like a doctor, rejects this idea. Later we see him reassuring a patient, but the film suggests he’s actually a barber.
“The House of Joy”
Dir. Evald Schorm
Two insurance agents visit an eccentric painter out in the country. The painter says he will sign an insurance policy and while one of the agents gets the paperwork ready, the painter shows and explains the pictures he has painted on the walls of his house.
***
As he’s about to sign the insurance, the painter’s mother pops out from under her bed covers and prevents the son from doing this. One of the agents is highly annoyed by this.
In this process, we see a painting of Jesus, on a metal sheet cutout. Apparently the government (or some patron) paid the painter to paint this Jesus. The painter did this and then placed him on a wooden cross alongside a road. A few cars crash into each other because of this painting, and the main and his mother remove it.
***
I don’t have a clear idea about this, but I did like the paintings featured in this segment
“The Restaurant, the World”
Dir. Vera Chytilova
I’m not sure what to make of this, but there were some interesting images–specifically the man and bride (not his wife) moving in slow, blurry motion in the rain, while he ties up some trees to secure them.
“Romance”
Dir. Jaromil Jeres
A tryst between a young man and a Roma girl.
The Graduate (1967)
Dir. Mike Nichols
Starring: Dusting Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katherine Ross, etc.
72/100
I’ve seen this once or twice a long time ago, and all this time, I think I’ve badly misunderstood this film. Before I explain, the AFI lists this as #7 all-time greatest American film. I would put the following films ahead of it: Singin’ in the Rain (#10), It’s a Wonderful Life (#11), Star Wars (#15), Psycho (#18) Chinatown (#19), Annie Hall (#31) Godfather II (#32), and a lot more.
***
(spoilers)
Let me start by explaining my initial understanding of the film–namely, I thought it was basically a romance, with some comedy. What changed that is the way the two facial expressions of the two characters at the end of the film. Actually, I recall not really being unsure about this when I watched on the initial viewing. But I basically didn’t think it was that significant.
But my view changed when I saw this explanation:
I’m not sure rebelling, particularly against their parents, is the driving motivation for Ben and Elaine–that’s the part that seems slightly off. Same with characterizes Mrs. Robinson marriage as an act of rebellion. It could have been, but I initially thought her pregnancy forced her to get married–and in the process she abandons her interest (career?) in art, which was her college major.
Whether they are rebelling against their parents or not, Ben does seem lost and anxious about his future. I tend to think he and Elaine have a genuine connection, albeit may be not so deep. Perhaps, Elaine’s parents sending her away is the impetus behind Ben’s impulsive desire to propose to Elaine.
In any event, I do think there is uncertainty and maybe unease at the end, and I think of two things this could mean. One, the same existential dread Ben experiences at the beginning reappears at the end–that is, his marriage has not allowed an escape. Two, like video, they realize they’ve acted too rashly, and they realized they may be trapped. This second reading would be a kind of indictment on the younger generation of day–maybe especially those in the free-love crowd. (There are other parts that are consistent with this. The fish tank and swimming pool symbolize a sense of being trapped and controlled by his parents. Also, the montage sequence–where Ben moves from his parents home to his trysts with Mrs. Robinson suggests that both are situations were Ben is controlled and trapped.)
Real Genuis (1985)
Dir. Martha Coolige
Starring: Val Kilmer (Chris Knight), Gabriel Jarret (Mitch Taylor), William Atherton (Prof. Jerry Hathaway), etc.
62/100
I’m not sure why, but I’ve been in the mood to re-watch this, and it just so happened to be streaming for free on youtube. I remember mildly enjoying this when it first came out. It don’t think it’s a great movie, but it’s mildly engaging. I think the 80’s vibe made the film appealing, including the 80’s soundtrack. There are Groucho-esque gags for Kilmer that don’t work completely, but I liked what they were going for. Overall, the irreverent, zany genius appealed to me and Kilmer did a decent job. He’s the primary reason this film was interesting to me.
The Hustler (1961)
Dir. Robert Rossen
Starring: Paul Newman, Piper Laurie, George C. Scott,
71/100
The Color of Money (1986)
Dir. Martin Scorsese
Starring: Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Mary Elizabeth Mastriontonio, etc.
68/100
There are some relatively straightforward films that I have trouble understanding what they’re about, on a deeper level. The Hustler is one of those films. In the previous viewings, Paul Newman’s performance satisfied me, and I never had a strong desire to get to the bottom of the film. Here’s an example of the Newman’s cool that appealed to me:
But on this viewing, I did spend some time trying to understand the film. I don’t think I’m quite there yet–and this post will be a continuation of the messy process to get to the bottom of the film.
(Note: I’m also going to also throw in an interpretation of The Color of Money.)
***
(spoilers)
I’m not sure if the following interpretation is actually the interpretation. I also know that my own personal circumstances color my perception of the film, which contributes to my interpretation of it. Having said that, I think this interpretation does fit the film.
Here it is in a nutshell: The film examines ambition, mostly from a male point of view–ambition for either money (represented by the Bert) or greatness through excellence (represented by Fast Eddie)–and the cost of this ambition (e.g., losing or destroying important relationships). To take this a bit further, the film could be about the tensions between patrons, artists and the people the artist loves.
Given the title, we could argue that the film is a critique on both the ambition for wealth and greatness. That the pursuit of both is a kind of sham–i.e., a form of hustle.
In the sequel, Eddie seems to forget this. At the end of The Hustler his pursuit of greatness is prematurely ended. And in the intervening years, he transforms into Bert. But meeting Vincent seems to remind him of who he once was and this rekindles his desire for greatness (via pool). Perhaps the film is about finding his way back (while also corrupting and possibly ruining Vincent).
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
Dir. Milos Forman
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Will Sampson, etc.
71/100
I saw this film, which is #20 on the AFI all-time great movie list, because I’ll be moderating a discussion on it. I read the book in college, and it’s been a long time since I’ve watched this movie. I thought it was a good book and a solid film. I’m not sure it deserves the ranking it does.
***
I want to mention one problem I had, and a more controversial take on the film. First, the problem. McMurphy attempts to sneak in hookers and alcohol, after he learns that the administrators can hold him indefinitely in the hospital. (Prior to knowing this, he thought he would automatically be released after 68 days, the time he had remaining on his prison sentence.) And he seemed genuinely upset and worried when learning this.
Yet, he pulls this stunt. It’s the sort of move that gives me pause about his sanity, which provides a segue to my next point. The film doesn’t explicitly address whether McMurphy is sane or not, but I previously assumed that he is sane–defiant, impetuous, and wild, yes, but not crazy. While I still suspect this is the film’s stance, I’m less certain, based on my observations of the character.
Similarily, I’m less sure about the Nurse Ratched character, although I’m quite sure the film wants audiences to perceive her as a villain. In terms of the overall film, I thought Ratched and the institution was a stand in for authoritarian forces in society–either the government overall or those on the political right.
However, except for Ratched’s handling of Billy’s sexual tryst, I have some doubts about whether we can perceive her and the institution, overall, as villains. What would a more humane and commendable approach look like, with regard to the treatment of patients? In the dispute over watching the World Series, is Ratched’s rationale–structure and routine are important for many of the patients–invalid? I’m not so sure.
That she is passive-aggressive seems like a fair description, but is her intentions and decisions really harmful to the patients?
Is McMurphy’s requests always reasonable?
I know that I’m prone to see her and the institution as a whole in a negative light, while perceiving McMurphy’s rebelliousness in a positive, romantic light. But if I were to put aside that expectation, and just analyze what I actually see, I’m not sure I’d arrive at this conclusion.
One last thing. I’ve been reading The Analects of Confucius, and I do think this is greatly influencing my response above. One takeaway I’m getting from this reading is the degree to which the individual is secondary in Asian societies. This is not a new idea to me, but by studying Confucius’s ideas, I’m getting a more granular and maybe deeper understanding of this idea. As a result, I’m gaining a keener understanding of the degree to which Western societies are individualistic–and I’m also gaining a greater appreciation on the downsides of this. To describe all of this in detail would take too long, and would be outside the scope of this review, but maybe in another post.
About five years ago, I watched this again for the first time since my 11th grade English teacher showed it in class, and my response this second time is similar to yours.
I did see Ratched very differently, not evil or wicked but someone committed to doing the job as she was trained to do it. Also, when I was 16 I never noticed how hot she is. And she’s not very old. My memory of her was so different from what I saw in my latter viewing.
McMurphy being possibly insane made it better for me too, although these days there’s just no sanity/insanity line anymore, as we have learned so much more about mental health. I can see Ratched with more sympathy now than in the 80s, but I also see McMurphy with more sympathy — more as a man and less as a symbol.
Before my rewatch, I’d never have put this in my top 100 films, but it’s possibly in my top 50 now. The acting: so, so good; this film made me rethink Jack Nicholson, inspiring me to watch several of his other movies from around the time. The pacing: excellent. And this feeling I get that everyone in it kind of gets a bad deal makes it so much a better movie for me.
I’m surprised–pleasantly–to hear this. I just had the feeling like I would be the only one (or one of the few) who reacted this way.
But from the dvd excerpts, Forman thought of her as evil–he just wanted a more subtle performance. I don’t see it that way, or I don’t think it works so well. It’s not clear that she’s evil or that McMurphy is largely normal and sane.
I saw this in college or in my twenties, but I had read the book first. Milos Forman originally cast Angela Lansbury and Collen Dewhurst for the role (and someone else whose name I can’t remember). Those are the type of people I had in mind when I read the book. I think I viewed Louise Fletcher with that expectation. But like you, she was looked younger and more sexy than I remember. (No doubt my age now has a lot to do with it.)
I think I think less of the film–especially if the allegory of authoritarian state no longer works.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I’d like to hear you expand on this.
The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)
Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson, Kerry Condon, Barry Keoghan. Written and directed by Martin McDonagh. Streaming on HBO Max.
NOTE: I don’t spoil the plot of this film but I do give away the overall mood, which some people would consider a spoiler.
The Banshees of Inisherin is up for nine Oscars, and it’s worthy of eight of them.
Pádraic and his best friend Colm hit the pub at 2:00 every afternoon on their lonely island off Ireland’s coast. When Colm ends the friendship, their neighbors and acquaintances are stunned, certain this must be a temporary disagreement.
Yet Colm feels his time on earth is too short to spend with the likes of Pádraic. He wants his life to mean something, and drinking with Pádraic won’t do it.
There is potential for a great movie here. The dialogue is outstanding, at turns clever, poetic, odd, hilarious, and mysterious, and the actors who deliver it are amazing, especially Colin Farrell as Pádraic and Kerry Condon as his loving, graceful sister Siobhán. All four principal actors have deservedly been nominated for Academy Awards.
However, this is not the sweetly pastoral reflection on life during wartime it starts off as. It’s a reflection on war — specifically the Irish civil war of 1923, but generally any war — and its many participatory and collateral victims. The characters do gruesome things to themselves and to each other, and while some have their eyes on better, less lonesome lives, others can see only the red in their own eyes.
I don’t mind that it’s a depressing movie draped over very funny components. Heck, I love a good, depressing movie. I do mind that for all its creativity in character development and storytelling, it makes its points about war with cartoonish violence and simplified symbolism.
It scores 80s and 90s for its acting and dialogue. It scores 30s for story and theme. A so-so movie with excellent parts is still not much more than a so-so movie.
I’m splitting the difference and giving it 51 out of 100. Don’t see it if you can’t handle a real downer of a film.
Ash is the Purest White (2018)
Dir. Jia Zhangke
Starring: Zhao Tao, Liao Fan, etc.
72/100
I’m not sure why this film held my attention to the extent that it did. The plot isn’t all that interesting. The girlfriend of a small time, underworld leader, saves his life, but gets sent to prison in the process. When she gets out, she goes looking for him.
While the plot may not be interesting, Zhao Tao is. I think she’s the main reason the film hooked me. She not only displayed an admirable loyalty and love, but there’s a inner strength that reminded me of actors like Barbara Stanwyck and Anna Magnani. If this were a Hollywood film, she might have gotten an Oscar nomination.
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Dir. Howard Hawks
Starring: Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, etc.
77/100
I haven’t seen a lot of screwball comedies, but this, along with His Girl Friday, is one of the best I’ve seen. Interestingly, the Grant-Hepburn pairing didn’t appeal to me when I first saw this, as I had seen The Philadelphia Story prior to this film, and I never liked the former.
But I really liked Hepburn and Grant in this. One of the things that makes me laugh the most is seeing someone exasperated. And Cary Grant’s character is constantly exasperated in this movie. But this wouldn’t be sufficient if Hepburn wasn’t convincing as this chaotic force of zaniness. She, and, really, the film overall, have a Marx Brothers vibe, which is a good thing. (I’d love to see a contemporary film like this. By the way, I believe Peter Bogdanovich attempted to do this in What’s Up Doc?, with Ryan O’Neal and Barbara Streisand attempting to recreate the roles of Grant and Hepburn. Unfortunately, I didn’t care for that film.) What’s interesting to me is that Hepburn’s character could have been more annoying than funny, but, for me, she mostly was the latter. (If I recall correctly, that wasn’t the case with Streisand’s performance.)
Here’s an earlier scene that describes what I’m talking about, and it’s the scene that really hooked me. In the scene, Grant is playing golf with someone considering to donate a million dollars to the museum Grant works at. Hepburn is not with Grant, but she mistakes his golf ball for hers.
(Note: I just activated the free two-week viewing for the Criterion Channel.)
August 32nd on Earth (1998)
Dir. Denis Villaneuve
Starring: Pascale Bussières (Simone Prévost), Alexis Martin (Philippe), etc.
58/100
Villaneuve is director I like, the type of director whose films I’m interested in seeing without knowing anything about them. This is Villaneueve’s debut film. Had I not known Villaneuve was the director, I would have been impressed, and thought the director was one to watch. The filmmaking is interesting, with a really strong opening.
However, the overall film is a bit uneven. The film involves a woman who wants to have a baby. She asks her friend, Phillipe, to sleep with her. Phillipe reluctantly agrees, on one condition: they must have sex in a desert.
One last thing: I liked Alexis Martin in this. I could see him being in Jean-Pierre Jeunet film.
Roadgames (1981)
Dir. John Franklin
Starring: Stacey Keach, Jamie Lee Curtis, etc.
60/100
(Note: Part of Criterion Channel’s 80’s horror series.)
An Australian film involving a truck driver (Keach), a hitchhiker (Curtis), and a serial killer. That was enough to interest–that and the fact that I never heard of this film before. (I’m guessing it was never released in the U.S.)
This is one of those films where the executives, actors, and everyone involved could have believed this would be a box office success. I could definitely see what they were going for, but, for me, there were things that just didn’t work out–most notably Keach. He’s trying to be this well-read truck driver who has read enough detective fiction that might enable him to actually catch a killer, and in the process he’s supposed to be charming and likable. Keach is not terrible in this, but falls short in my view. There moments of comedy, suspense and action. They’re all OK, but not much more than that. The ending isn’t entirely satisfying as well, although, again, it’s OK.
It’s the type of movie that would have been just been OK on a boring Saturday night.
Dead and Buried (1981)
Dir. Gary Sherman
Starring: James Farentino, Jack Albertson, etc.
65/100
If this wasn’t a made-for-TV movie, it sure looks like it. Sheriff Dan Gillis (Farentino), after receiving a masters in criminology, returns to his small town of Potter’s Bluff, to be the town sheriff. While there, visitors of the town begin dying, and strange things begin to happen. I’m not into horror, but I saw more as a mystery or detective story.
***
One thing prevented me from giving rating this in the 30s-40s. It really made the concept of the film, or at least I liked it. However, while I liked the overall concept, there is one huge problem–namely, the reason Gillis is unaware of what’s happening. There are also related incidents–e.g., the mortician going telling Gillis he lost the body; the hotel manager, Ben, telling Gillis that the photographer has come back to life. Why the elaborate ruse for Gillis? Why does he need this at all? For the most part, it didn’t completely ruin the film (although I had low expectations), but some satisfying reason for all of this might have made the film a lot better. (For example, maybe Gillis was one of the only person that believed he was alive–maybe because he had such a strong will to be alive. The mortician, Dobbs, liked this about him, so he created this elaborate ruse in order to allow Gillis to have a satisfying “life.”)
Sunset Boulevard (1958)
Dir. Billy Wilder
Starring: Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich von Stroheim, etc.
The film disappointed me on the first viewing, probably because my expectations were really high. With lower expectations, I enjoyed this a lot more. Several short comments: I liked the way this film looked; the film reminded me that I like William Holden; it also reminded me that Wilders’s films have well-written dialogue.
***
There are several notable, well-respected films that seem to be about the way Hollywood destroys women (e.g., Vertigo and Mullholland Drive). Add this to list. One would think that these films would be more disturbing for moviegoers and maybe even hurt the film industry. Or at least it would dampen the interest in being a Hollywood star. (And maybe the interest isn’t very strong for most people–although maybe that’s because most people don’t believe this is even a possibility.) But that doesn’t really seem to be the case. The support for Hollywood movies (and TV series) still seems quite strong.
On a somewhat related note, films like this make me think about the way in which sexism and even misogyny seems to be so pervasive and deep-seated in our society. Sadly, like poverty, both seem like something that we’ll never get ride of.
The Blob (1958)
Dir. Irvin Yeaworth
Starring: Steve McQueen, etc.
68/100
I had low expectations going into this, and that contributed to my enjoyment and the final rating. The effectiveness, on what was low-budget fx (or what would be low-budget nowadays), surprised me.
The story was pretty simple as well. A meteor crashes to Earth, releasing a goo-like substance, which can absorb (eat?) anything and is impervious to almost everything.
The one thing that could have been improved, in my view, is the way the denouement.
Manhunt (1941)
Dir. Fritz Lang
Starring: Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett, George Sanders, etc.
66/100
(I love the image below and it’s a big reason I watched the movie.)
The movie is a bit dated, but I rather enjoyed it, particularly the way the story evolved and the visuals. The premise is interesting: During WWII, a British, big-game hunter, Captain Alan Thorndike (Pidgeon), seeks to assassinate Hitler, while the Nazis try to apprehend him.
I suspect of the action/suspense set-pieces will n
***
Some of things I liked:
One problem I had involved the handling of Thorndike’s moral and psychological aversion to killing and then his eventual realization that killing Hitler was justifiable exception seemed clumsy and awkward. I believe this was an American film, but this aspect of the film seemed aimed at British upper crust (i.e., the highly civilized subset of the UK), attempting to convince them that the war against Hitler and Nazi Germany was totally justified.
Amateur (1994)
Dir. Hal Hartley
Starring: Isabelle Huppert, Martin Donovan, Elina Lowesohn, Damian Young, etc.
Hartley’s made a handful of films that I really like (e.g., Trust, The Unbelievable Truth, Meanwhile, etc.), and I am interested in any film he makes. For some reason, I never heard of this film, so I was excited to see it.
The film involves two stories: an ex-nun turned adult film writer, Isabelle (Huppert), who helps an amnesiac (Donovan) find his identity, and a former adult film star (Lowensohn) trying to start a new life.
One of my favorite things about Hartley is his dialogue. Unfortunately, what makes his dialogue is largely absent here. Also, the acting in Hartley’s films can feel something from college students, at least under the surface, but the writing and maybe one or two actors can elevate and carry the film. Huppert is good, particularly her comedic moments, but most of the other actors (including Hartley regular, Donovan) often don’t make it and come off flat.
Still, the film’s story and structure is interesting on a dramatic level. I’ll say more in the next section.
***
The amnesiac, Thomas, has a violent, dark past. But his amnesia frees him from that, and he is a new, better person. On one side of him is an ex-nun, who writes x-rated stories and also claims to be a nymphomaniac, even though she’s a virgin. She wants Thomas to be the first to make love to her. Moving in the opposite direction is Thomas’s wife, Sofia, who is running away from Thomas and the world of porn.
But Thomas has a chance to find redemption by helping Sofia escape for Thomas’s dangerous associates from his past. Ironically (again), Isabelle can now serve God by helping Sofia find safety and maybe even help Thomas find redemption.
The ending reminds me a little of Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant. That character has a dark past, but also makes an attempt at redemption by letting criminals go (or something to that effect). But in the end, God, Fate, or the cosmos won’t let him off. Same with Thomas.
Having said that, the film does, perhaps, suggest Thomas has found some deeper redemption. Someone asks Isabelle if she knows Thomas, and she answers in the affirmative. Thomas was a stranger and an amnesiac. Isabelle’s answer suggests that she knows him, the bad, but also the good. (Also, prior to Thomas’s death, Isabelle give Thomas his loaded gun–which suggests she believes he’s redeemed. Prior to that Thomas expresses contrition as well.)
The one lingering question I have: Why “Amateur?” Who does that refer to? Isabelle? Amateur at being a spiritual person? (That doesn’t sound right.) Does amateur refer to people in general? Amateur at what?
(Here’s an answer, from Hartley in Filmmakermagazine:
So, is Isabelle one who loves? That would make sense, but the “amateur” is still a real odd word choice, if so. Maybe the word also signifies that lack of expertise and experience–but not lacking in love.
There’s also this:
This comment reinforces the idea that amateur refers to Isabelle. Isabelle says that the Virgin Mary appeared to her three times, telling her not to be a nun. But she didn’t listen. Eventually she leaves the convent, but is still open to God’s leading. The nuns may be equivalent to professionals, and maybe colder, institutionalize religion. She must break away and be an “amateur” to do God’s work. I think this is a stretch, but maybe not much.
More from the article:
Party Girl (1995)
Dir. Daisy von Schlerer Mayer
Starring: Parker Posey, etc.
67/100
If I met someone like Parker Posey, I’d guess I wouldn’t get along with her. She seems annoying and maybe even snobby. But that’s not the vibe I get at all; indeed, I find her strangely appealing. It’s one of the main reasons I watched this film, and she didn’t disappoint me.
I wouldn’t say this was a great film, but it was entertaining; and I enjoyed the film’s 90’s vibe. Additionally, when this movie came out, I would not have been interested in this movie, as it looks like a silly Hollywood film, and I would expect to dislike it. That was not my reaction.
The film’s title is a little misleading. A more accurate title might be, Party Girl, Library Girl. Twenty-something Mary (Posey) is great at hosting raves, but she’s looking for something more. In steps her godmother, a librarian, who gives Mary a job as a library clerk. I don’t want to say more, but there is also a subplot involving a good-looking Lebanese guy who runs a falafel cart. (The film takes place in New York.)
There’s nothing really outstanding about the film, but there’s nothing awful, either. And if you like Posey and you’re in the mood for a 90’s flick, this is a good pick.
The Daytrippers (1996)
Dir. Greg Mottola
Starring: Hope Davis (Eliza Malone D’Amico), Anne Meara (Rita Malone), Parker Posey (Jo Malone), Liev Schreiber (Carl Petrovic), Pat MacNamara (Jim Malone), Stanley Tucci (Louis D’Amico), etc.
86/100
(Illustration by R. Kikuo Johnson, who is a Maui boy. Stylistically, the art is similiar to Adrian Tomine’s, which is a really good fit for the movie.)
If someone told me this was one of the all-time best American independent movies, my initial reaction would be nodding my head. At the same time, I can say with certainty that this is not an all-time great movie, but this should in no way be taken as a slight. Some films can be smaller, in terms of ambition, and in terms of achievement, but still be utterly wonderful. In an way, the smallness makes it more charming and endearing. I can’t think of many films like this, but this is one of them. (I sort of feel similar about Be Kind, Rewind, but The Daytrippers may be the better film. While this is an independent movie, but in terms of well done entertainment, it beats out 99% of Hollywood films (although that’s a low bar). There’s a good anecdote from Mottola that conveys what I mean, but let me first describe the film.
Eliza and Louis are a happily married couple, but one day Eliza finds a love letter sent to Louis. She reveals this letter to her family–that is, her mother (Meara), father (McNamara), sister (Posey), and her sister’s boyfriend (Schreiber). They convince Eliza to go into the city and talk to Louis about this–and they decide drive together, giving her moral support. And this begins the day trip–i.e., a compressed road trip. That’s what this movie is, hence the title.
If that’s not enough to entice you maybe the following anecdote will do the trick. Mottola said that on the night before shooting (I think), James L. Brooks calls him saying he’s interested in directing the movie, but he’d likely have to recast the film. You see Mottola, on a lark, sent the script to Brooks. Coincidentally (?), Brooks just called right before shooting. I really like Brooks, I think he could have made a good movie with this script, but I’m glad Mottola decided to direct the film himself and stick with the actors he cast. (I believe this was Mottola first feature film; he made it on $55,000–at least to start and shot the film in 17 days.)
I tell this story because the film is in the ballpark of a James Brooks movie–maybe James Brooks “lite” is an apt description, although that shoulds slightly derogatory–but I don’t mean it that way, just the opposite really. The drama is lower-pitched, less intense, and the comedy may have the witty dialogue from A+ writers, but this make the film more appealing to me.
Suspect (1944)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Charles Laughton (John Marshall), Rosalind Ivans (Cora Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), etc.
67/100
A film that held my attention (although it was unpleasantly stressful at times, due to the nature of the film)
John Marshall, a kind decent man, who lives with his hateful wife (Rosalind Ivans’s strong performance really justifies the use of that adjective), starts a friendship with a young, beautiful woman. I’ll stop there.
There’s one or two things that made this film interesting and maybe even novel to me, but they’re spoilers so I’ll go over that in the next section.
***
This has a common film noir situation: the protagonist commits murder, tries to get away from it, but usually doesn’t. Usually, greed, stupidity, or some other human foible or moral defect contributes to the protagonist’s doom. But this film is a little different. Here, the protagonist’s decency and conscience leads to his demise–and the inspector chasing after him uses both to finally catch his prey. On some level, this lead to a satisfying conclusion.
What I didn’t like was the inspector–not just the actor, but also some of the scenes involving him. Specifically, I didn’t care for inspector’s first apperance, when he visits Marshall after the latter’s wife’s funeral. With no real basis for doing so, he turns the screws on Marshall, by describing how his wife could have been murdered. It was a flaw that I could overlook, but I still think it weakened the film. To be fair, the filmmakers may not have had the time or funding to establish this character and the way he suspects Marshall, but putting in these scenes could have made the film a bit stronger.
One other curious tidbit. The film takes places in the UK, using a mix of American and British actors. What’s interesting is that the American actors don’t attempt to speak with a British accent. The film just plays this as if nothing is unusual about it. For the most part, I thought it was fine.
Criterion channel currently features three film adaptations of Ernest Hemingway’s short story, “The Killers,” one I really liked. In this post, I’m going to comment on the three films, as well as the short story. There will be spoilers ahead.
I don’t really want to say anything about the story or films, but the short story is only 7 or 8 pages.
But if you must know something about them, here’s a short synopsis. Two men enter a small diner, looking for a man. They know enough to know that the man often comes in to eat in an hour or so. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.
Two of the Hollywood versions are variations and expansions on the short story–using the short story as a springboard and resulting in something very different from it–while the one from the Soviet Union is a faithful adaptation.
The Killers (1944)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Edmund O’Brien, Eva Gardner, etc.
75/100
After reading Hemingway’s “The KIllers,” I’m sure some readers will ask and want to know about Ole Anderson’s background–specifically, what lead to his eventual fate. This is a film for those readers, and in that way goes back in time to answer this, not unlike Citizen Kane. (Indeed, on the Criterion collection site, there’s an article describing the film as “the Citizen Kane of film noir.”).
In this way the film is very different from the short story. Leaving out the backstory creates an entirely different effect–one I actually prefer. Still, this film adaptation is engaging and entertaining, although when I first saw this, several years ago, I don’t remember liking it as much as I did now. At that initial viewing, I don’t think I had read the short story. On this second view, I read the short story right before watching the film. I think that helped me enjoy the film a bit more (even though I prefer the short story.)
I love the opening sequence–the visuals and the music (everything prior to entering the diner)
The Killers (1956)
Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky, Marika Beiku, and Aleksandr Gordon
Soviet Union
20:32 minutes
Tarkovsky and two other students made this short adaptation in film school. It’s a more faithful translation, but It’s just OK, even considering it was a student film.
One deficiency: The killers just don’t have the appropriate menace, and the actors that play George don’t express the right degree of fear and unease. (The Siodmak version gets this right for the most part.)
The actor who plays Ole does do a solid job of conveying a sense of doom and resignation, though.
The Killers (1964)
Dir. Don Siegel
Starring: Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes, Angie Dickinson, etc.
73/100
Where Siodmak’s adaption seeks to provide reasons for the assassination, characters, this time the hitmen, not an insurance claims adjuster, try to discover why the victim doesn’t resist the assassination. Additionally, the film builds its story on some problems that those wanting to kill the Swede/Johnny North would have likely discovered–namely, Swede/North live in a way that suggests they don’t have the money, and if they don’t have it, who does?
The film that results is pretty satisfying, and Siegel could made this into movie made for the big screen instead of for TV, this film might have been a lot better. It’s not a great film, but it’s more interesting in relation to the other adaptation.
Just a few other comments. The love scenes between Cassavetes and Dickinson are very effective, particularly the dialogue. This aspect of the film really surprised me.
A final word about the short story and the film adaptations
The two Hollywood versions satisfy the reasons the assassination and the Swede’s/North’s acceptance of it. But to me, that diminishes the short story. Without these explanations, the story feels a lot more universal, involving perhaps an inherent sense of guilt that we all feel, and the way some may accept the doom that awaits them because of this. Or maybe it touches on the truth that death awaits us all, featuring a person who has finally accepted this truth. (Nick’s reaction, wanting to leave the town, suggests the dread and unease one feels when seeing someone reach this point, seeing them wait to eventualy die, is dreadful.)
I really liked the opening music (composed by John Williams, listed as Johnny Williams):
Criss Cross (1949)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Yvonne Di Carlo, Dan Duryea, etc.
73/100
For me, this was a gripping and satisfying film, particularly in terms of the story. Also, the print, like all the other prints of Siodmak’s films now streaming on the Criterion Channel, is gorgeous. I will say that one aspect made the film a little less satisfying.
The only other thing I want to say is that Yvonne Di Carlo was surprisingly beautiful in this. I had only known her from her roll in The Ten Commandments and The Munsters TV show. There are scenes where her beauty surprised me (but there are other scenes where her personality soured these impressions).
4/21/23
Phantom Lady (1944)
Dir. Robert Siodmak
Starring: Ella Raines,Allan Curtis, Franchot Tone, etc.
66/100
I was really excited about this film a third of the way through. Why did I never hear of this before? Unfortunately, by the end of the film, I no longer had that question. It’s not the film was terrible, but there were a few significant problems that diminished the film for me.
First a brief description.This is one of those films where a man is framed of a crime, and the movie involves proving his innocence. As I alluded to, I found the set up really engaging and entertaining.
I’ll go into my problems in the next section.
***
(spoilers)
The short explanation: Too many unbelievable things occurred, including the way the villain frames the protagonist. Let’s dig in.
1. The murderer, after killing Henderson’s wife, he has to hurry to bribe the bartender, the drummer, and the singer. Even if we don’t think this is rather convoluted, there are many other people who could likely testify that Henderson was with another woman.
2. How does Carol (Raines) know to seduce the drummer? It’s almost as if the film left out a scene that the drummer denied seeing a woman with Henderson. But there must have been other people there who said they didn’t remember Henderson with a woman, too, so it’s not clear why she would focus on him.
3. The inspector coming in at the last minute was a bit too deus ex machina.
In spite of these flaws, I enjoyed watching the film for the most part.
Variety (1983)
Dir. Bette Gordon
Starring: Sandy McLeod, Will Patton, etc.
62/100
(Note: I didn’t fully process this film, and if I did so, my score could really increase. However, if I wait to fully analyze the film, I’ll probably never write this review.)
The premise interested me: Christine (McLeod), a struggling, young woman in New York City, gets a job as a ticket salesperson at a porno movie house. The film shows the way this experience affects her, and the people she meets. (I also wanted to see New York at this time.)
In a way, I think this description makes the film sound better than it was. I suspect Sandy McLeod’s performance, which seems lacking, was one of the main reasons the film didn’t work for me (although maybe I just never gave the film enough thought.)
***
Christine’s reaction to pornography is interesting in that it seems to appeal to her, or at least not something that repulses her or leaves her cold. On some level, I wondered if the audience was supposed to assume that people like Christine and Mark, her boyfriend, are supposed to be repulsed by porn. In this film, Christine seems to at least find it alluring, although she seems to keep it at arm’s length.
Related to this fascination, is her fascination with Louie, who seems to might be part of the mob. Here again, the film may deal with the allure of that which is dangerous and/or forbidden. It’s an interesting idea, but the film fell a little flat for me.
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take One (1968)
Dir. William Greaves
76/100
74 minutes
I really like Criterion Collection’s cover art for this:
An ambitious film that perhaps didn’t fully realize it’s ambitious. Still, I felt excited watching this film, right from the opening scene. (By the way, I believe I did try to watch this before and based on that impression, I thought this film would be a good one to help me fall asleep. I was totally wrong about that!)
I think it’s good to go in blind, but I’ll give a brief description in the next section.
**
The idea of the film is to film one scene of a man and woman having an argument (and the film uses different actors in the roles), as well as the filmmakers filming the scene. Not only that but the filmmakers also discuss the film, and I emphasize filmmakers, as people besides the director weigh in.
I’ll say one more thing. I recently re-watched Fellini’s 8 1/2, and I came away disappointed. At certain points of watching Symbio, I felt like this was a better film. I’m not sure that is the case, but I had way more enthusiasm for Symbio than I did for 8 1/2.
***
I haven’t fully processed this film, but I want to jot down some preliminary thoughts.
Besides moviemaking, the film also seemed to try to explore the differences between the way movie characters talk about sex and the way real people do. One of the crew members brings this up, and the odd fellow featured at the end seemed to dovetail nicely with these points, as the latter talks about sex in a frank and even crude way….Actually, maybe the film is partly a critique about the artificial way films depicts conversations about sex.
One last point. One interesting element is the effect the lack of structure has on the film. This creates confusion and uncertainty for the film crew, but that leads to interesting comments from them.
(Edit: Ugh, I forgot to comment on some of the visuals–specifically, the use of split screens, which I really liked. Also, I enjoyed watching the various actors play the same scene….Hopefully, I’ll come back and do a more thorough review on this. By the way, I just learned there is a part 2 to the film, made in 2005. Cool!)
Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take 2 1/2 (2005)
Dir. William Greaves
60/100
99 minutes
I would divide this in three parts. The first third started where the first film ended–focusing on the two new actors we see at the end (Audrey Henningham and Shannon Baker). It also includes some conversations with the crew, which I wish Greaves would have included in the first film. The second third of the film takes place in 2005, starting with a screening of the first film and a Q&A with Greaves, Steve Buscemi (who produced the second film) and some of the original cast and crew. In this section, we see the beginnings of a new film being made, with Henningham and Baker, now in their 60s or 70s.
I had two big problems: First, Henningham and Baker were probably the two worst actors in the first film. Honestly, Greaves not using their scenes is totally understandable to me. At times, it was painful to watch, especially Baker. And this also applied to the 2005 scenes. (Henningham was very attractive, and at the end of the first film, I was curious to see more of her, so I was initially enthused to watch the footage of her.)
Second, the film features conversations with the crew, which feels like an attempt to capture lightning in the bottle twice. (It includes one of the most outspoken crew members from the original film.) It just feels contrived, artificial, and there really isn’t many great comments.
I had difficult watching the first third of the film.
In the last third of the film, the movie focuses primarily on the Henningham and Baker, working on their scenes. They bring in a third actor/coach who does these improv exercises with the actors. These scenes really drew me back into the film. The actors began exploring their characters a lot more, digging deeper into the way they felt. I imagine it’s what might happen in rehearsals. What was cool was that the acting did get a lot better in my view, and that was interesting to watch. This whole section really saved the film for me.
One last comment. They were film during the New York City Marathon, and someone makes a comment about how no one knows about their filming, and most of the people don’t care, as they’re more interested in the marathon–or something to that effect. We hear the crowd cheering and Greaves includes some footage of the marathon. I’m not sure how or if it really fits in with the film.
Shanghai Express (1932)
Dir. Josef von Sternberg
Starring: Marlene Dietrich (Madeline “Shanghai Lily”), Clive Brook (Capt. Donald “Doc” Harvey, Anna May Wong (Hui Fei), Walter Oland (Henry Chang), Lawrence Grant (Reverend Carmichael), Eugene Pallete (Sam Salt), Louise Clausser Hale (Mrs. Haggerty)
68/100
The headshots of Marlene Dietrich in this film really stand out.
There is a love story in this film, but it also feels line an ensemble, adventure-comedy movie (or at least adventurous and comedic for its time). A group of Europeans are on the train the Shanghai Express, during a revolutionary war China. Two of these Europeans–Madeline and Doc were in love in the past. The Chinese government is also on the hunt for revolutionary spies.
The movie is good to look overall, with interesting editing and fade-outs–not only the way it films Dietrich, and the atmosphere captured by von Sternberg is also very good.
Unfortunately, I think the film is very dated–specifically, the acting of Brooks and to a lesser degree, Dietrich. Brooks is a handsome actor, but he has this stilted and sometimes self-pitying way that not only seemed like bad acting, but it was also annoying. Dietrich wasn’t much better (which was a little surprising because I think she’s a solid actor). Both really diminished the romance of the film, although it didn’t complete ruin it.
(Remaking this film might not be a bad idea, Casting the right romantic leads could really make this film, as a kind of romance adventure, with some comedy thrown in. I’m envisioning something like Titanic with more interesting supporting characters and humor. Or maybe has Baz Luhrman direct and bring his flair to the film. Another idea: Make the romantic leads an interracial couple.)
Othello (1952)
Dir. Orson Welles
80/100
My daughter recently told me she hates black-and-white movies. I told her that some of them can be really beautiful and cool to look at. Orson Welles’s version of Othello would provide good examples of this, and it’s one of the main reasons I think highly of this film. I haven’t read or watched a Othello in a long time, so I may give the film a lower rating if I had a more vivid recollection of the complete version. Somehow I don’t think this would be the case, as the cinematography, locations (e.g., castles, courtyards, and catacombs in Venice, Morocco, Tuscany, Rome), and Orson Welles, as an actor, particularly his voice, are all terrific.
A great visual expression of a man captured by the green-eyed monster:
Touch of Evil (1952)
Dir. Orson Welles
Starring: Welles, Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh, etc.
64/100
I never thought much of this film the first time I saw it, nor did I really enjoy it. On this viewing, I appreciated it a little more, but the biggest difference was the print quality. The pristine black-and-white version I watched was really pleasure to see. I would compare to listening to music on a great sound system after listening to it on a smartphone speakers. (I had similar recent experiences with films like Night of the Hunter and The Killers.)
Nam June Paik: Moon is the Oldest TV (2023)
Dir. Amanda Kim
62/100
This is an American Masters film about avant-garde video artist, Nam June Paik. I knew very little about Paik before watching this, but I still felt that sense of dissatisfaction I feel when watching a documentary about an artist. Almost invariably I feel like these films don’t spend enough time digging into the person’s art–their ideas, philosophy, techniques–and instead spend more time on anecdotes and biographical information. The latter is important, but I wish these films spend more time on the former.
There were aspects of Paik’s approach that I found interesting. First, he fiddled with the technology behind the TV, ostensibly because he wanted artists and people in general to be able to manipulate the images and sounds of the TV–instead of giving total control to broadcasters. Second, and relatedly, he did this because he wanted individuals to be able to “talk back” to the TV, making it more interactive, instead one way.
These two ideas may not have blossomed into something interesting, but the very concepts themselves are really interesting.
Overall, I didn’t really come away too impressed with his work. It seems a bit dated.
Margot at the Wedding (2007)
Dir. Noah Baumbach
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black, etc.
67/100
Character-driven, situational family dramas (with a smidge of comedy)–sometimes feeling like autobiographical episodes. That’s how I’d describe Baumbach’s films. Whether the film is ultimately successful–and often the films seem lacking–the characters and the acting always draw me in and hold my attention. Some films can be difficult to watch. Not Baumbach’s films. Indeed,if I want to be engaged, I would look for one of his films to watch. What’s interesting is that the word “entertaining” doesn’t seem like the right adjective (at least not in this case), but I’ve enjoyed watching every film of his I’ve seen.
In this film the situation involves a weekend at the childhood home of two estranged sisters, Pauline (J. Jason Leigh) and Margot (Kidman). Pauline is going to marry Macolm (Black). There we learn about both character, their upbringing and their relationship with men, and their parenting.
Not a great film in my view, but it was entertaining and interesting.
Basket Case (1982)
Dir. Frank Henenlotter
42/100
I became intrigued in this film for two reasons: 1) Criterion Channel streamed the film, and I had never heard of it. That I never heard of an 80’s film, particularly one the Criterion folks would stream piqued my curiosity; 2) the Museum of Modern Art secured the film for its collection. My understanding is that MoMa also bought a print of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I wondered: could Basket Case be as good? (Yes, it’s a horror film.)
These thoughts followed me as a I watched the film. Actually, after about 15 minutes, I started wondering why MoMa secured the film for the collection. And I periodically asked myself this question throughout the film.
Before saying anything else, I would be curious to know if Mitchell has seen this. To me, there’s a chance he’d like this as this is the type of movie that USA Up All Night would screen, and I know Mitchell liked those films.
If you look up the film on the internet, a lot images show too much in my view, so I would recommend avoiding images of the film. Now, here’s a brief and general description of the film: A young man from upstate New York heads to the city, looking for a few individuals from his past. While on the journey, he carries a wicker basket.
***
I can definitely understand this film achieving cult status–particularly the nature of what’s in the basket and the way the film features this. Personally, I’m ambivalent about it. There is a charm and effectiveness, while also being cheesy at the same time. (I never really found the film humorous, though.)
While watching this, I kept trying to think of a deeper reading of the film. For example, I toyed with the idea that the film was about the way families often have one member that has difficulties, making them a challenge for the family. Because they’re part of the family, one or more individuals remain loyal and loving, but that can lead to the person and/or family’s demise.
Criterion Channel is featuring 80’s Asian-American cinema, and I saw two in their collection.
Living on Tokyo Time (1987)
Dir. Steven Okazaki
Starring: Ken Nakagawa, Minako Ohashi, etc.
71/100
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie I could use “shaggy dog” as a descriptor, but this one is it. (I need to find the origins of that term.) I almost gave up on this film, mainly because I didn’t care for the acting, but something just clicked. I’ll go into that, but before, I do here’s a quick synopsis. (I should note here that I saw a re-edited version on Criterion Channel.)
A young Japanese woman, Kyoko (Ohashi) comes to America and wants to stay, but her visa will be ending. In comes, Ken (Ken Nakagawa), a low-key guy trying to hit it big in a rock band. Someone at Kyoko’s work place suggests that she marry Ken, as a way to stay in the states.
Now, here’s where I think the film started to click. When Kyoko moves in with Ken, they don’t really seem to have many conversations, because Kyoko barely speaks English and Ken doesn’t speak any Japanese. Ken is also not a very communicative person. He not only seems introverted, but an ennui so substantial seems to possess him that it seems to have infected his facial muscles as well. And yet….Ken is starting to become interested in Kyoko. I found this amusing, and it also made me care more about the character and what would happen. (I also liked that Kyoko would also refer to him as “Mr. Ken.”)
***
One of my favorite dialogue from the film: Ken’s walking with a co-worker, talking to him about his feelings for Kyoko.
Co-worker: I don’t know, I used to think there was something called magic. And then after about five years, I thought maybe there’s something called magic; and after about ten years, I figured there wasn’t.
Ken: Well, I think I got it.
Co-worker: Magic?
Ken: Yeah….I think I’m in love.
Co-worker: Well, that’s different. That’s different than magic.
Ken: I thought they’re the same thing.
Co-worker: Well, they start out the same, probably. I mean, magic and love are the same thing, but I figure if it lasts for a while, it’s love. If it doesn’t last for a while, then it’s magic.
Dim Sum: a Little Bit of Heart (1985)
Dir. Wayne Wang
Starring: Laureen Chew, Kim Chew, Victor Wong, etc.
74/100
If I had to choose an Asian-American film best depicting mother-daugther dynamics, I would choose this film over Joy Luck Club or Crazy Rich Asians.(I know I liked this film more than the other two.) Wang channeling Ozu, gives us characters that seem like real people, which enhanced the dramatic moments. Kim Chew, who is Laureen Chew’s actual mother, really stands out. She really brings a gravitas to this film, delivering a quiet, but powerful and poignant performance that I think could be worthy of an Academy nomination. (I don’t think Kim Chew is a professional actor, either.)
The film is about Geraldine (Laureen Chew), a single woman, taking care of her elderly mother (Kim Chew). The mother believes she will die soon, and wants Geraldine to marry, so that the mother can die knowing she will be cared for. Geraldine has ambivalent feelings about getting married (or at least ambivalence towards the man her mom wants her to marry). And yet, she’ll consider this, out of love for her mom.
The film is a low-budget, quiet independent film, but not inaccessible to mainstream audiences (although I doubt this would make a big splash at the box office, although given the acclaim of Minari, maybe it would.)
I was unfamiliar with filmmaker Janicza Bravo, but I watched several of her short films streaming on Bravo, and I enjoyed most of them, especially two of the films. The shorts feature awkward, and sometimes quirky misfits–in the same universe as Wes Anderson mumblecore movies. But these films aren’t just notable for the characters, but the direction as well. Bravo doesn’t have the same meticulous dollhouse aesthetic as Anderson, but these movies look good, much better than a low-budget movies. (I have no idea what the budgets are, but they look good if not better than Hollywood film.) The films are about 15 minutes long.
Here a few comments about each of films.
Gregory Go Boom (2013)
Starring: Michael Sera, etc.
82/100
Sera plays a wheel-chair bound young man who longs to move out of his sister’s house. In the film, he goes on three dates. Sera is an typical role perhaps, but he’s still effective in this. Funny and disturbing at the same time.
Pauline Alone (2014)
Starring: Gabby Hoffman, etc.
83/100
An odd young woman in several different encounters. This was probably my favorite of the four films, with “Gregory” being a close second.
Woman in Deep (2016)
Starring: Alison Pill, etc.
34/100
I didn’t care for this, but a part of me feels like I missed something.
Man Rots from the Head (2017)
Starring: Michael Sera, etc.
60/100
Black-and-white film that reminded me Barton Fink and Eraserhead. Like those other films, I don’t think I fully got this one.
California Split (1974)
Dir. Robert Altman
Starring: George Segal, Elliot Gould, etc.
47/100
Two compulsive gamblers meet and form a kind of friendship, and we follow them engaging in various gambling activities. The film also features two prostitutes. There’s one fairly novel element to the film, and I’ll reveal that in the next section.
**
Altman seemed to like doing variations on either film genres, and that’s one appealing aspect of his filmmaking. In this film, he does something similar by placing largely recontextualizing urban low-lifes–in this case gamblers and prostitutes–in a sururban setting–possibly suggesting that these type of people actually exist. I say this because the film has almost feels like an exploration into this specific milieu, although I have no idea if this was a real phenomenon in 1973 or now.
Overall, though, the film didn’t really work for me. For one thing, I understand that this was supposed to be a comedy (according to Ebert’s review). Had I not known this, I would not have labeled the film that way.
The dramatic elements also didn’t have much of an impact, although I’m not exactly sure of the reason.
***
I’m not quite sure about Bill’s (Segal) feelings at the end of the film. Off the top of my head, he seems deflated, in spite of winning, because he never felt that “special feeling”–i.e., a kind of lucky zone–he just said he was. My best guess is that for Bill–representing many middle class Americans–largely lived an empty existence and he sought that “special feeling” in gambling to fill that emptiness. That is, Bill wasn’t primarily interested in money or even the thrilling way one could make money via gambling. Instead Bill wanted to feel that sense of invincibility when one feels one can’t lose. Bill admits he only pretended to feel that way, and so the wining was ultimately hollow for him. Charlie’s (Gould) reaction, in contrast, is what we would expect–he cares about winning money and likely the excitement of winning it via gambling. But Charlie seems like someone who makes his life as a gambler–the type of guy you’d associate with low-level con men, pimps, thieves, and mobsters–so his reaction makes sense. Bill, on the other hand, is a journalist for a local publication, and seems to be gambling out of a deeper need.
Rumble Fish (1983)
Dir. Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Matt Dillon, Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Nicholas Cage, Chris Penn, etc.
77/100
A sympathetic depiction of a teenaged hoodlum, Rusty James (Dillon), trying to live up to the image of his older brother. The film is shot in black and white and features a score by Stewart Copeland.
**
The film lacked the dramatic impact that it needed, which I’ll say more about later. However, in spite of that, I really liked the direction–particularly the visual aspects of the movie. I’m tempted to say this is as good as anything Coppola has done in the past, and, because of that, it feels like a film that should receive more attention. Again, I loved the visuals.
As for the lack of dramatic impact, the film may not be entirely to blame for this. Since this film, there have been many films about teenage gangs–e.g., Boyz in the Hood, City of God–that are far grittier and hard-hitting. Something like Rumble Fish feels quaint and innocent in comparison–and to some degree Coppola’s filmmaking lends itself to this feeling. The filmmaking, including the black and white photography, create a more stylized and even theatrical feeling. In contrast, the black and white photography gives Raging Bull a colder realism (although there are definitely stylized moments in that film).
Even though the film takes place in the early 80s, it feels like a 50’s teenaged gang movie, and by the 80’s there seemed to be a more romanticized perception of this time (cf. American Graffiti, Happy Days, etc.). The film is a little grittier, but still falls operates with the same perception of that time.
California Split (1974)
Dir. Robert Altman
Starring: George Segal, Elliot Gould, etc.
47/100
Two compulsive gamblers meet and form a kind of friendship, and we follow them engaging in various gambling activities. The film also features two prostitutes. There’s one fairly novel element to the film, and I’ll reveal that in the next section.
**
Altman seemed to like doing variations on either film genres, and that’s one appealing aspect of his filmmaking. In this film, he does something similar by placing largely recontextualizing urban low-lifes–in this case gamblers and prostitutes–in a sururban setting–possibly suggesting that these type of people actually exist. I say this because the film has almost feels like an exploration into this specific milieu, although I have no idea if this was a real phenomenon in 1973 or now.
Overall, though, the film didn’t really work for me. For one thing, I understand that this was supposed to be a comedy (according to Ebert’s review). Had I not known this, I would not have labeled the film that way.
The dramatic elements also didn’t have much of an impact, although I’m not exactly sure of the reason.
***
I’m not quite sure about Bill’s feelings at the end of the film. Off the top of my head, he seems deflated, in spite of winning, because he never felt that “special feeling”–i.e., a kind of lucky zone–he just said he was. My best guess is that for Bill–representing many middle class Americans–largely lived an empty existence and he sought that “special feeling” in gambling to fill that emptiness. That is, Bill wasn’t primarily interested in money or even the thrilling way one could make money via gambling. Instead Bill wanted to feel that sense of invincibility when one feels one can’t lose. Bill admits he only pretended to feel that way, and so the wining was ultimately hollow for him.
Rumble Fish (1983)
Dir. Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Matt Dillon, Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Nicholas Cage, Chris Penn, etc.
77/100
A sympathetic depiction of a teenaged hoodlum, Rusty James (Dillon), trying to live up to the image of his older brother. The film is shot in black and white and features a score by Stewart Copeland.
**
The film lacked the dramatic impact that it needed, which I’ll say more about later. However, in spite of that, I really liked the direction–particularly the visual aspects of the movie. I’m tempted to say this is as good as anything Coppola has done in the past, and, because of that, it feels like a film that should receive more attention. Again, I loved the visuals.
As for the lack of dramatic impact, the film may not be entirely to blame for this. Since this film, there have been many films about teenage gangs–e.g., Boyz in the Hood, City of God–that are far grittier and hard-hitting. Something like Rumble Fish feels quaint and innocent in comparison–and to some degree Coppola’s filmmaking lends itself to this feeling. The filmmaking, including the black and white photography, create a more stylized and even theatrical feeling. In contrast, the black and white photography gives Raging Bull a colder realism (although there are definitely stylized moments in that film).
Even though the film takes place in the early 80s, it feels like a 50’s teenaged gang movie, and by the 80’s there seemed to be a more romanticized perception of this time (cf. American Graffiti, Happy Days, etc.). The film is a little grittier, but still falls operates with the same perception of that time.
Random comments:
I wouldn’t be surprised if Raging Bull inspired or gave ideas to Coppola.
The fight sequence near the train tracks reminded me of the “Beat It” video. It feels like an inspiration to that video.
The way Coppola shoots the pool scenes reminded of the scenes in The Color of Money, which made me think Scorsese used the latter as inspiration.