I liked hidden figures I would give it a 7 but I agree with most of what you said just like it personally, I love that feel good shit also I honestly have no idea what song you're talking about lol I guess I don't pay attention enough?

Need a sig :-/

Originally posted by Jakub@Jan 16 2017, 01:23 AM
I liked hidden figures I would give it a 7 but I agree with most of what you said just like it personally, I love that feel good shit also I honestly have no idea what song you're talking about lol I guess I don't pay attention enough?

<object width="460" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jXQBMNe01c"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jXQBMNe01c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="460" height="315"></embed></object>

It is an okay song, but it just gets so overplayed.

Originally posted by Spangle@Jan 16 2017, 01:24 AM



<object width="460" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jXQBMNe01c"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jXQBMNe01c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="460" height="315"></embed></object>

It is an okay song, but it just gets so overplayed.

I feel like I've never heard this song and I just went to see it earlier today lol I guess I'm just not observant enough, not cut out for this movie critic stuff lol

Need a sig :-/

Originally posted by Jakub@Jan 16 2017, 01:27 AM

I feel like I've never heard this song and I just went to see it earlier today lol I guess I'm just not observant enough, not cut out for this movie critic stuff lol

I usually miss the music too. I just started picking up on it when Taraji P. Henson runs every time between the space task group and the colored bathroom. Every time she runs over, they play this song. It is also played in the beginning of the movie.

Oh okay I vaguely remember a song then. We had a particularly obnoxious lady in the theater with us who was laughing hysterically at everything. It got to the point where I found myself laughing at her laughing

Need a sig :-/

9/10 - When legends of comedy are discussed, Rob Reiner's name does not often make an appearance. Yet, the man has so many hits, it is disgusting. This Is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, and The American President are comical riots. I often watch comedies and, in the spirit of hating fun, do not find them very funny. There are very few comedies that actually hit the right notes for me and leave me gasping for air. When Harry Met Sally joins those other Reiner films (aside from The Princess Bride, which was pretty good, but not nearly as funny) in making me laugh consistently from beginning to end. With charismatic turns from Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan, the film is oozing with chemistry, joy, and commentary on relationships. Even better, it casts aside Hollywood romance cliches in favor of a realistic approach to love and inter-sex non-sexual relationships.

Pairing together Harry (Billy Crystal) and Sally (Meg Ryan), the film actually takes a while to put them together. Yet, while the romance begins to take root, the pair's comedic chemistry is natural and easy to watch. With a manic, depressive, and neurotic style of comedy, Billy Crystal drops top-notch lines like they were nothing. Comedy just rolls off his tongue like butter on a pan. Alongside him is the far more stoic and proper Ryan who plays Crystal's comedic foil. Yet, make no mistake, she can be funny as well and really goes toe-to-toe with Crystal from the very beginning. Yet, what really helps to make the film funnier is the writing from Nora Ephron. With quotable lines coming from every direction, the comedic writing here is stellar with a tremendous understanding of the skills of the leads and playing to those strengths. The material Crystal and Ryan are given is within the realm of their comedic talent and charisma, allowing for free flowing joy and comedy.

The film's other major strength in the writing is its relationship. Resisting the temptation to throw its originally mismatched leads together, it builds up authentically. Putting them together as friends who avoid sex to ruin the friendship and then finally give in to temptation, but resist is brilliant and real. Though a classic Hollywood romantic comedy film, it does not deliver a cliche and over dramatic pay-off. Instead, it feels real. Harry and Sally could be real people who have finally pulled their heads out of their asses and saw the sky for the first time. They resist the love they feel to not lose a friend and, when they finally give in, it is clear they are a match for one another. Yet, through fear and trepidation towards losing this great friend, they still remain skeptical. For many, this is a fact of life and to see it so brilliantly portrayed on screen shows the real triumph of this film.

One of the main reasons why I loved When Harry Met Sally though is simply the pure, unbridled joy of watching this film. It is an easy watch, but yet a great exploration of romance and friendship. It pairs two incredibly likable leads together, puts together realistically, and does not rush anything between them. Sprinkling in real life stories of love and marriage only adds to the magic of the film. Rob Reiner knows comedy and it is really shown in this film, even though he rarely gets the credit he deserves as being a top-notch director when working with great material (mainly because his output since the late 1990s has been garbage). Here, he crafts an eminently likable film that blends romantic comedy cliches (two lovers who hate each other first being a common trope) and then adds layers of realism to the equation that largely subvert the cliches to the point that Billy Crystal running through New York to find Meg Ryan feels authentic and real. Rather than absurd, it is a bombastic, romantic, and magical gesture that encapsulates the power of love and the crazy things it can make people do. Classics always have a lot to live up to, but When Harry Met Sally exceeds all expectations with impeccable comedy, comedic frequency, writing, and romance.



7/10 - A classic action crime film, Dirty Harry is yet another classic that I have not seen until now. It also gives me a different take on guys named Harry as it was first viewing after When Harry Met Sally. Starring Clint Eastwood in one of his most iconic roles, the film stars him as a San Francisco homicide detective with a .44 magnum and a desire to kill wrongdoers. As a man terrorizes the city sniping people from roofs and leaves notes akin to the Zodiac killer, Harry makes it his personal mission to capture the guy and kick his ass. Feeling like a classic 1970s action film all the way, Dirty Harry's influence can still be seen today and with good reason. Iconic dialogue, killer cinematography, and fun action set pieces abound here, even if the loses steam after an hour.

The film feels like it is part neo-noir and part action flick as it puts our hero cop as being against the system. Yet, it adds in the edge of a complete disrespect for the laws. Anything that needs to be done to bring in a bad guy, Dirty Harry is your man. He will torture, kick asses, or shoot guys if it means bringing them to justice. This sounds a lot like Clint Eastwood in real life, especially since Harry hates everybody and anybody. The film puts him against the nasty side of life and he comes armed with a .44 and is not afraid to use it in order to execute unwieldy characters. Now, this is one of its most classic features, but it is a trope that I hate all the same. It is possible Dirty Harry introduced the hard nosed guy who does anything to stop the crook, but even then, it was clearly never good. Watching a killer walk out of jail because the cop could not bother to follow some simple rules is annoying and serves to just drag the movie out. This is why the final half hour drags a bit and slacks compares to the tense and action-packed first hour. By the end, it is Harry against the world because he alienated everybody else and forgot he was not a gangster.

That said, the first hour is tremendous. With great and gratuitous extreme long shots adorning the film, director Don Siegel creates multiple incredibly fun action set pieces that give star Eastwood space to exert his skills with a gun. Yet, the most shocking part for me here was Eastwood. After rising to fame in the 1960s in his mute work with Sergio Leone, Eastwood comes back in Dirty Harry with a more talkative character. He is still incredibly rough around the edges and abrasive, but does talk more and delivers all of his line terrifically. No more is he a nameless man in a cowboy hat and poncho, he is a racist cop with a badge willing to cross the line.

Director Don Siegel really does an excellent job throughout at creating tension though. While the final half hour is tiresome, the final sequence is extraordinary. He knows how to block and stage an action scene in order to maximize the tension and thrills to be gotten from that set piece. His film is laced with tension throughout and he manages to exact a lot of thrills from this, which is what makes Dirty Harry such a fun film. As we watch the sniper hone in on a new victim, Siegel really adds onto this and makes the killing far more intimate. We see the heinous nature of the crime up close, which really opens the audience's eyes to how horrific this crime is. Of course, we all know murder is bad, but to actually use point of view shots as he stalks and picks his victims is brutal and really intimate. This may be a bit much for some, but it really does add to the tension of the film and shows how just how evil of a man the antagonist is and can be.

Though I am not a huge action junkie, Dirty Harry is a lot of fun. With good cinematography, dialogue, and influence since its release, it really fits the bill as being an iconic 1970s action flick. Of course, the addition of Clint Eastwood to that equation does not hurt at all. Overall, the film largely lived up to my expectations, even if it is flawed.



5/10 - Secret Window is a run-of-the-mill psychological thriller with solid performances from a capable cast, namely a neurotic and paranoid Johnny Depp and creepy Southern John Turturro. While its tricks that it has up its sleeves are hardly noteworthy, the performances are rock solid and the film is capably directed by David Koepp. While it is hardly a must-watch, it is one that can be watched and you can rest assured it will be solidly entertaining. That said, do not expect too much, as it is pretty familiar when it comes to psychological thrillers and its adherence to the cliches. Having not read the source material, it also feels oddly similar to King's novel The Dark Half, which I have read. Since The Dark Half has been adapted into a different film and this one is based on a short story published a year after that novel, I have no idea why this film was made. Hell, I do not really know why King wrote a short story on practically the same idea he put in an entire book.

After being confronted with a plagiarism accusation from John Shooter (John Turturro) regarding his short story "Secret Window", Morton Rainey (Johnny Depp) slowly discovers he is insane. Initially in denial about his own insanity, it quickly becomes apparent that this man should not be left alone as he is a danger to himself and society. While the twist is predictable for anybody familiar with King or movies in general, it is quite well handled and thoroughly compelling all the same. The film has a really engrossing sense of paranoia that really keeps you on edge as Morton begins to put things together and it really has no problems hooking you in from the very beginning.

Now, of course, a lot of that is due to Depp. He is never anything less than engrossing, even in bad films. He is sort of like Nicolas Cage in that way. He somehow breathes life into films where the material is below standard. Secret Window fits the bill there and is hardly Oscar-material. Yet, Depp makes it worthwhile playing the anger stricken husband with a cheating wife. His paranoia, neurosis, and obsession are all well-executed and Depp really brings it to life. By the end, you feel oddly sorry for the man as his story comes to life through his own tale. As a psycho, John Turturro is nothing less than stellar. He always brings his A-game and that is very much the case here as he plays the unhinged sociopath with ease and really has great chemistry with Depp in the scenes they share, which is a must.

Secret Window is a hard film to recommend. For those that like psychological thrillers, it is a bit too typical to really appeal. For those that do not, it may be appealing, but it does stick too closely to cliches to really change their opinions on the genre. While it does execute the cliches well and the ending is superb in the way it really grosses you out mentally and ties together with the short story he wrote, it is hard an excellent film. It is fun while it lasts with some unique elements, but is mostly just worth it for fans of Depp or the few people who like to check out Turturro appearances.



8/10 - Opening in a 1950s Detroit car factory with "Bad to the Bone" playing as Christine the 1958 Plymouth Fury is made and claims its first victims, this film was always destined to be classic. From the sumptuous camera shots that feel the male gaze with its scopophilia but towards a car to the classic rock soundtrack, this film is a trim, schlock, and hypnotic 1970s/1980s horror flick. Built for the drive thru era and infused with that old school style with a kooky B-movie premise, Christine is a stylish, sensual, and thrilling experience all the way through. With the capable hands of John Carpenter guiding the ship towards land, Christine is a film about a car that is a little bit protective with its owners. Not only does it kill those that threaten to separate the owner from the car, but it can also rejuvenate and put itself back together again. The car also has a finger on the pulse of all the classic rock hits you crave.

Starring Keith Gordon as the bullied Arnie Cunningham, buying this 1958 Plymouth Fury - which had killed people in the factory, killed its past owner, his wife, and his daughter - represents freedom. Sitting in the driver's seat of his own car and getting to call the shots shows rebellion to his parents and the bullies that keep him down. Instilling this rock and roll attitude to everything he does, Arnie quickly turns bad to the bone and ditches girlfriend Leigh (Alexandra Paul) and best friend Dennis (John Stockwell) at the behest of Christine, whose jealously had run rampant. This, of course, all leads to a showdown between Dennis/Leigh and Christine, who are fighting for the very soul of Arnie and to return him to the dorky friend they remember.

A thrilling experience, Christine is a film straight out of the 1950s. No surprise coming from John Carpenter who had just finished up a remake of the 1950s science fiction classic The Thing. Instilling that same, care free B-movie spirit with the rock and roll freedom of the 1970s and 1980s, Carpenter turns a stupid movie about a car into a statement about teenage rebellion against those that, in their mind, oppress them and hold them back from letting them flap their wings. This makes the radio on the car the perfect match for the material with the car flipping through classic songs that both capture the spirit of the film, which is trapped in the 1950s, with the rebellion, anxiety, and spirit of Arnie's struggles in late 1970s America.

As a horror film, Christine is only mildly scary. Carpenter does not really succeed in creating a terrifying atmosphere as it becomes clear that the car is possessed from the very beginning and, at the end of the day, it is a blood thirsty car. Pretty hard to make that seem truly scary. Yet, what he does make terrifying instead is Arnie. Possessed by the car and unable to escape its clutches, his transformation and "coming of age" is brought to life by Gordon's performance. From bumbling loser to cutthroat killer, Arnie's change feels authentic even if it has an absurd source. In essence, it is merely a boy going crazy as a result of the bullying and seeking revenge on those who wronged him. Unfortunately, in the process, he loses those who loved him for who he was.

Easy breezy entertainment, Christine is not a serious film by any means. Yet, it is a terrifically entertaining and thrilling film that delivers a great score, great atmosphere, and makes you want to hop in a crappy car and drive along an open stretch of road. For somebody who hates driving, that is quite the accomplishment. In examining our love of cars, Carpenter has created a film that shows the dangerous side of it, but also captures the beauty of the automobile via the camera. As mentioned, he shoots Christine like she was a living girl. Floating from the bottom to the top as if the camera is checking her out from her legs to her body to her face, Christine represents to-be-looked-at-ness in the film from beginning to end. Her every roll and steer is oddly sexual and this is what makes the film so fun to watch. It feels like an embrace and a criticism of car culture by Carpenter and an embracing of the B-movie/drive-thru kind of movie that is long since dead. A throwback in every sense of the word, Christine is an encapsulation of about thirty years of American history in just under two hours.



8/10 - A section with spoilers is noted below. As many have not seen this film, I did not want to tag the whole thing as having spoilers in order to encourage potential viewers to read one of the few positive reviews of this film.

Having read the novel by Dennis Lehane, it became apparent that any adaptation of the novel would have to be long in order to capture the sprawling grandness of the novel. From Boston to jail to Ybor City to Cuba, the book has a lot of players, a lot of angles, lots of action and moving parts, and a lot of subplots. The film adaptation sticks largely to these transitions and mentions many of the subplots without diving into them. This is both to the film's detriment and betterment as it often feels as it lacks the depth necessary to make all of its pieces work, but also feels like it is adding in too much. As many have said, making it shorter or longer would have been for the best. However, the final product - which sits at just over two hours in length - is very, very good. Ultimately a barometer on how much people like Ben Affleck, the critical and audience reaction has said that Affleck sucks at either acting, directing, or writing, or a selection of the trio. Fortunately, for me, I do really enjoy Affleck's work in all three arenas. As such, Live by Night falls right into my wheelhouse and, for the most part, works very well.

That said, it is hardly perfect. The beginning section, set in Boston and in jail, is rocky to say the least. For critics who do not enjoy Affleck, this early section makes it easy to write it off as nothing more than a derivative homage to old school gangster and noir flicks. With a femme fatale, underdeveloped morality elements, heists, a cop father, and brushing shoulders with death and gangsters, and doing all of these while smoking a well shot cigarette in a suit with a fedora, the beginning is derivative. It is also messily put together, typically shot, and poorly edited. Scenes smash into one another as Affleck skims through the first 100+ pages of the book to try and get to the good part. He sprinkles little pieces here and there to set the scene and tries to rush through it all. Likely, editing this portion was a real pain as it is the slowest part of the film and is entirely necessary. As such, it flies by and feels wholly inadequate.

For this who decide to stick around, however, Affleck delivers a tremendous gangster flick once we hit Ybor City. Charged with running the rum operation in Tampa of gangster Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone), Joe Coughlin (Affleck) is a nice guy. He can kill, but cannot live with the guilt. While the beginning is derivative and typical of gangster flicks, this section is hardly typical. Cruel gangster with a conscience has been done before, but not quite like this. Instead, he is an uncruel gangster who operates more as a remorseful businessman. His line of business demands violence, but unless the person makes an overt case for deserving a bullet to the head, he is hardly a gunman. Instead, he runs a tremendous operation and lives out the American dream with his best friend Dino Bartolo (Chris Messina) at his side. Taking on the KKK and the gang of Albert White (Robert Gleinster) at every turn, Joe is able to defeat all comers. He corners the market in Ybor City and, as the book explains more and the movie hints at, the entirety of the South stretching to New Orleans. Raking in cash, he also meets a Cuban freedom fighter who becomes his wife, Graciela Suarez (Zoe Saldana). Life is good as he plans on opening a casino to preempt the legalization of alcohol. Until he meets Loretta Figgis (Elle Fanning).

The daughter of Chief Sheriff Irving Figgis (Chris Cooper), Loretta is gorgeous. She is off to Hollywood, but trips along the way and falls into heroin and the sex trade. Joe brings her back to Ybor City as his end of a bargain with Irving in exchange for a KKK member's head. Loretta returns and becomes a preacher who commands a large congregation and builds up serious political sway. She also happens to be anti-gambling, as she views it as a vice and a sin against God. Though directed to kill her, Joe cannot. She kills the casino deal and ends Joe's run as the Mayor of Ybor. Why could he not kill her? Well, to explain that, it really dives into what makes Live by Night so good.

BEGIN SPOILERS
Early in the film, Joe's father Thomas Coughlin (Brendan Gleeson) warns his bandit of a son that we reap what we sow in life. Joe, a good man, knows this. He knows that his gangster lifestyle will come back to haunt him because of the violence he must commit to remain relevant. He kills people via booze, pimps out girls, and sells drugs. He is not a good man and this bothers him. The title certainly hints at this shame, as he lives and operates in the night to hide from the eye and scorn of the day. As Albert White explains to Joe early in the film, Joe is looking for somebody to make him pay for his sins. Joe is remorseful and regrets his sins, which is why he cannot kill Loretta. He envies and admires her. She went to hell and back. She preaches and lives up to the word of God. She sinned and escaped retribution for her sins. She outran the rebuking (her father spanking her does not count). This is really underscored in the final shot of the film. He has two conversations with her, one after she preaches and one in a restaurant. In the first, he admires her unwillingness to bend to his whim even when he offers her cash. She refuses to sell her soul, while Joe is mostly certainly for sale at a cheap price. In the second, she expresses her own reservations about God and says that we are living in Heaven, but have "fucked it all up". For Joe, this truly hits home to the point that he tells it to his son at the very end of the film. That this is Heaven, where we are right now. The reason for strife, pain, and anger, is because of the human inclination to commit sin. Joe cannot resist temptation and seeks retribution for his sinful ways, but it has not come. In Loretta, he see somebody that shows people can become reformed and change their ways, even if people are built to stay on the same path.

Of course, Joe also compensates heavily. Not only does he only kill evildoers (KKK inbreds and gangsters), but he and Graciela are active in the community. The book goes more in depth in this arena, but the film certainly introduces many of these good deeds. From homes for abandoned women to donations to the community, Joe and his wife try to repent for these sins via good deeds. Joe tries to change his course and avoid reaping what his violence has sowed all of these years. Yet, Joe's world is rocked by the "death of a madonna" as Loretta slits her own throat. How could this be? How could this beacon of light die? She most certainly was a light amidst the darkness as her church tent hints at by reading, "I Am the Way, I Am the Truth, I Am the Light". A Biblical quote, it also symbolizes Loretta's status in Joe's life and why she is so crucial to the story. She seems tacked on to many, but she serves her purpose in the story incredibly well. Her death brings darkness upon Joe. Though he shoots his way out of Ybor, he runs away from the city to Cuba with Graciela in an effort to escape his just desserts. He tries to live life in the light with Graciela and his new son, but darkness births darkness and the clouds follow him wherever he travels. Death is always around the corner and will threaten him and his family until the check his sins wrote is cashed.

It also really explains why he hated Albert White to degree that he did. Yes, Albert White was the other man in Emma Gould's (Sienna Miller) life - the aforementioned femme fatale of the opening and Joe's first love - but there was more to his importance. Joe fears him and wishes him dead because he feels that Albert is a man that will cash that check. Joe will meet his fate at the sound of a gun held by Albert. He is so obsessed with this that he realizes that his sins against Albert were already paid. He got his ass kicked and lost Emma. Rather, the sins against Irving Figgis are still there and one that he must pay for, as becomes readily apparent when he shows Irving photos of Loretta naked and having sex as part of a power move. Joe knows it is wrong, regrets doing it before he does it, but does it anyways because his business demands it. He ruins Irving's life. He showed him photos of his daughter that no father should have to see. Yes, his daughter can be sexually active, but he does not have to see her being abused by drugs and seedy men in this fashion. Irving spends the rest of his days whispering "repent", spanking his daughter, and having to deal with the death of his daughter. He is burdened with what Joe's life of sin brought him. He must get his revenge and, as it turns out, that is who cashes Joe's check in the very end of it all.
END SPOILERS

Live by Night also has many other strengths beyond its characterization of Joe and the development of its themes regarding repenting and living lives of sin. Acting-wise, the film is on point. Affleck has been criticized as lifeless and going through the motions, both of which are incredibly true, but these are a credit. He leads this lavish lifestyle, but it is against his nature. Money cannot buy happiness and his life and performance articulate this. In many ways, it could be seen as mirroring his own life. Loving wife and money, why is he not happy? Well, his life of sin has derailed him and he feels the weighing on his soul. Affleck knows this man well and brings him to life in this role. Aside from Affleck, Elle Fanning is brilliant. As Loretta Figgis, she is raw, innocent, and powerful. Honestly, she steals the show in the little screentime she is given here.

Visually, the film is incredible. From the lavish cinematography by Robert Richardson once we hit Tampa to the costume design, the film is terrifically gorgeous. With multiple gratuitous shots of the open water at sunset, the film was simply always going to be gorgeous. Richardson being behind the camera only makes it better. He does great in capturing the bustling Hispanic town of Ybor City. With golden hues adorning party sequences in both Boston and Tampa, Richardson imbues the film with a true throwback style that is ever present in the rest of the film. It is clear that nostalgic cinema is hit-and-miss with critics this year, but films such as La La Land and The Light Between Oceans both rank among my favorites of the year all the same. Live by Night is no exception as its cinematography really highlights this throwback style in many moments, while instilling an unmistakable modernity with the audacity of some of its shots, namely the open water boat sequence from the trailer. Gorgeous there and equally brilliant in the film, this moment shows how graciously Richardson's camera glides throughout this film and lovingly captures this gangster/noir homage. The costume design certainly adds to this aesthetic with Affleck sporting flashy golden suits and fedoras that pay respects to the gangster films of old, but ditches the black suit choices in favor of a flashier, Southern approach to dressing. In both the cinematography and costume design, Affleck really introduces some postmodernism in the same vein as La La Land. Embracing cliches early on in the film and diverting into a character study of this man, the camera work and costumes also show a rejection of nostalgia and the idea that everything has been done before. Not many gangster flicks have guys where flashy golden suits and taking a black/hispanic girl as their lover. Similarly, the claustrophobic, scaled down shots of the beginning with an emphasis on smoking billowing in a darkly lit room are ditched in Florida for bright, sunlit sequences. While Tampa is brighter, these more spacious and free flowing shots ditch the 1940s/1950s style of limited budget noirs in favor of transporting those styles and characters to modern day filmmaking. Instead, this a film unmistakably rejecting the tropes of old, all while honoring and referencing them along the way. The aforementioned postmodernism can also be found via Emma Gould and Loretta Figgis, who both hint that God is either dead or looks forlornly at the world he has created. Though Loretta hopes there is a God and that he is kind, she is wholly unconvinced. A tenant of postmodernism is that God is dead and the world is doomed. As Loretta believes that this world is Heaven, but we have (and these are not her words) turned it into our own personal hell, it is clear that this film is often steeped in postmodernist ideology.

The production design is also incredibly intricate, as highlighted in the various action set pieces. Set in a in-process building, speakeasies, and hotels, the action always feel fresh, in large part due to the sleek and detailed production design. Each set feels fun and compelling as Joe and his crew sneak through hidden doors and tunnels in order to surprise their enemies. This freshness is also found in the action itself with surprises around every corner with short and snappy dialogue as a complement in these moments.

A powerful tale about a man that is good at heart coping with the sins he has committed and fearing the retribution coming for him from God, Live by Night is a terrific gangster film. Part homage and part diversion to and from the gangster flicks of old, Live by Night is a morality tale about a man living a gangsters life of sin and illegally gotten money in shame. While a deeply flawed film that could have been either longer or shorter to get the same result, Live by Night is not nearly as bad as made out to be by audiences or the critics. Personally, I suspect that time will be incredibly kind to this film and, though a lesser effort from Affleck in the director's chair, it shows incredible ambition and audacity to create a film of this scale that is so abrasive, almost daring audiences to hate the film. Yet, for those willing to embrace the film and its flaws, it is a thrillingly impeccable character study that demands evaluation.



7/10 - Bad Boys is the perfect example of a good Michael Bay film. Though off-the-charts stupid and featuring a few too many explosions, Bad Boys has a great time and is unafraid to show the audience how much it is having. Pairing together Martin Lawrence and Will Smith as the iconic Miami PD cop duo, Bad Boys' two charismatic leads carry the weight of this two hour film right on their shoulders and never waver. Together, they turn this otherwise disposable action flick into a quintessential buddy comedy that should be retitled, "Male Banter: The Movie". As a male who enjoys banter, Bad Boys was right up my alley.

Advertising Ford and Coke along the way, Bad Boys is so stupid, it features Will Smith running through Miami with his shirt flying open after a Ford. He damn near catches the thing too. Hardly an endorsement of the brand, I would say. The film also tacks on Tea Leoni running around in a miniskirt for just shy of two hours. Not very becoming of the Secretary of State, but I guess we all have our wild and crazy phase. Bay shamelessly sexualizes her in every shot of this film and, while that can be a bit icky at times, it is merely par for the course in Michael Bay films and male-targeted action films. There will be bombs, bullets, and babes. Bottom line. Unfortunate to see a talented actress wasted as eye candy though, as she deserves far better. However, Bay does heavily sexualize Will Smith here as well, so it does sort of counter the scopophilia aimed at Leoni with some eye candy for the lady (singular intended) in the audience as well.

Action-wise, Bad Boys is pretty bombastic. It is always fun and derivative with European bad guys and a convoluted-for-such-a-simplistic-movie plot, but it really does embrace this craziness via its leads. With Marcus Bennett (Lawrence) and Mike Lowrey (Smith) switching identities for convenience sake, Bad Boys is always poorly plotted. There is no reason for them to switch identities. Just tell Julie (Leoni) that you are Mike's partner and wait for him to get home, then problem solved. But, oh no, we have to pretend that this is a complicated situation that demands lying and manipulation at every step. This is why Bay's movies are always so dumb because they have fun, know they are supposed to be fun, but add on layers of plot and convolutedness that really do nothing.

Fortunately, Bad Boys is incredibly fun. Lawrence and Smith are well matched as partners and their two-hour long banter session is the reason why I came away really enjoying this diversion. They both have tremendous comedic timing and the writing is incredibly funny in this section. Yet, all of the banter really emphasizes the friendship and bond between the two partners. They love one another and are unafraid to risk their lives to save the life of their best friend. More so than any buddy cop film, Bad Boys establishes two guys who are indebted to one another and both of them know it. For all of its inadequacies, Bad Boys really creates a great portrait of male friendship, which is impressive in a testosterone driven action film.

Action-packed with charismatic turns from its comedically adept leads, Bad Boys is simply a ton of fun. Much of this review sounds like a half-hearted endorsement, but I rarely like stupid action comedies like Bad Boys. The fact that I came away enjoying this has to mean something. At the very least, the pairing together of Smith and Lawrence is eminently watchable and covers up the inadequacies of the script and Bay's direction with a huge band-aid.



8/10 - Welcome to the Dollhouse has to be one of the most painful films to watch. For the entirety of the film, it is social awkward outcast Dawn Wiener (Heather Matarazzo) navigating the minefields of middle school, bullying, and first love. She does all of these while being the middle child upstaged by her bratty and selfish younger sister and bullied by her older brother. Her life is not easy and she is ill-equipped to handle it, being as she is incredibly awkward and timid. The ensuing film is cringy and relies upon this black comedy awkward humor that really only accentuates the awkward nature of our lead character. Yet, in doing so, director Todd Solondz creates an incredibly relatable and sympathetic character that exists in a film so real, so authentic, and so intimate, it is hard to look away.

The crowning achievement of this film is the writing. I have only seen one Solondz before this - Storytelling - but it is clear that he has an impetus to write awkward characters who say awkward things. Yet, these awkward things are real. As Dawn fumbles around after high school boy Steve Rodgers (Eric Mabius), it feels authentic. These are real people experiencing real issues with growing up. Dawn really emphasizes this when betraying her younger sister, rebuking her mother, or running off. She is unhappy in this world and in her suburban lifestyle where she is overlooked by her parents and rejected by her siblings. At school, she is mocked with her locker being vandalized on the front and her being constantly called "lesbo" or "wiener dog" (also the title of Solondz's 2016 feature...). As a middle child, she is lost and forgotten by all around her, left to toil in a life she lives reluctantly.

The saddest portion of this film comes, however, when Dawn's youngster sister Missy is kidnapped. The result of Dawn not giving her a note regarding who is to pick her up, Missy is kidnapped by a neighbor. Dawn's mother is distraught. Dawn's father suffers a nervous breakdown. The family is falling apart at the seems. Dawn hates this family, yet she is going to fight for it all the same. Trudging out on her own to find Missy, the 12-year old Dawn goes throughout the city hanging posters and sleeps outside for a night. Yet, by the time she calls home, Missy is found and her mother is too distracted granting interviews to talk to Dawn on the phone. One of her daughters is missing, but Dawn's mother could care less and is more focused on Missy and satisfying her own ego. By night time, they all watch the news to see Missy's interview. This sequence is incredibly tragic and really defines Dawn's character as being one that is forgotten.

Of course, she is hardly alone. In her time in middle school, she befriends Brandon (Brendan Sexton III), a troubled boy with a horrible home life. Living in a dilapidated home with a down syndrome brother and neglectful brother, Brandon has a tough life. Yes, he threatens to rape Dawn, but it is likely a misunderstanding of the word or the concept, as by the end of the film, he has shown himself to be just as tragic as Dawn. Overlooked and just written off as a failure by adults and fellow students, Brandon has a good heart somewhere, just buried under a thick emotional shield. When he opens up - offering a girl named Cookie a cookie as a birthday gift - he is rebuffed and his "cheap" gift is tossed aside. Brandon is very much like Dawn, just leading a less privileged lifestyle. Rejected and an outcast, the two find solace in one another, but it is never meant to last.

A melancholy black comedy film about adolescence, Welcome to the Dollhouse is an incredibly authentic and moving film that never mocks its characters. Instead, it merely presents their lives and allows the audience to come to their own assessment. Often tragic and always intimate, Welcome to the Dollhouse is a cry for help from the socially awkward, social outcasts, and overlooked/forgotten children of the world. Tenderly written, terrifically acted, and thoroughly enjoyable throughout, Welcome to the Dollhouse is a worthy calling card for its quirky and awkward director.

Do you plan on watching more of the Dirty Harry series <a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a>? They're all great. I actually liked The Dead Pool a lot in spite of it not being very well reviewed.

Originally posted by GCool@Jan 25 2017, 06:07 AM
Do you plan on watching more of the Dirty Harry series <a href='index.php?showuser=3' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>Spangle</a>? They're all great. I actually liked The Dead Pool a lot in spite of it not being very well reviewed.

Possibly at some point.

9/10 - Unfortunately, I did not see this in theaters. Probably one of the few reviews coming in these past few days that saw it the good old fashioned way: on my tv via my dvd player. Yet, while I am sure that it is glorious on the big screen, Singin' in the Rain is such a magical and joyful experience, it is brilliant via any medium. The quintessential MGM musical of the 1950s, it was about time I really began to dive into musicals, especially after La La Land. So far so good. With tremendous choreography and musical numbers, Singin' in the Rain is a joy-filled experience that often feels like a work of art courtesy of Jackson Pollock with splashes of color dotting and engulfing the film. A showbiz musical that largely follows the cliches of the genre, Singin' in the Rain is not quite the musical that a film like La La Land is, in that it will not convert musical haters. But, for musical lovers or people who simply love good cinema, Singin' in the Rain is a classic in every sense of the word.

It is hard to write about a film so heavily discussed in the 65 years since its release, but I will do it anyways. One of the greatest elements of this film is, obviously, the music. Yet, while the music is incredibly well sung and well composed, the greatest achievement is how it is worked into the film. Telling the story of two famous silent film actors, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), who are thrust into their first talkie and struggle to make it work with Don's bad acting and Lina's awful voice, the film seamlessly works in music. As Don pairs up with friend Cosmo (Donald O'Connor) and potential lover Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds) to change the film into a musical, the musical numbers are not only well executed, but they work. There is never a musical number that feels like it distracts from the film because, well, they are the point of the film. The plot is what happens in between songs to try and lead up to the next song and Singin' in the Rain gets an A+ in accomplishing this. Its plot is engaging and a fun look at Hollywood in the late 1920s after The Jazz Singer changed the game forever. Yet, while it certainly needs this plot, the introduction of boisterous and energy packed musical numbers never cheapen the plot or make the film lose any steam. Instead, the music numbers serve a purpose in regards to the plot or are simply too much fun to ignore.

A lot of this fun is derived from the choreography. Gene Kelly, Donald O'Connor, and Debbie Reynolds, are all real triple threats here with great dancing, singing, and acting. The choreography capitalizes on this with exuberant musical numbers that demand talented performers to execute them. Each dance sequence is incredibly intricate, long, and often synchronized with other dancers on the screen. The time and effort put into perfecting these moments must have been incredible and it really pays off as swinging, tap dancing, and moments of pure joy created in the dance sequences exceed any I have seen put on film.

The film also finds great success in the natural charisma and chemistry of its leads. Blending their more artistic talents with hardcore acting and comedy, the film is a greatly entertaining film that rises on the shoulders of its leads. In particular, Donald O'Connor may not receive as much screentime as his more celebrated co-stars, but his comedic ability adds great versatility to Singin' in the Rain's repertoire. Jean Hagen also makes for a killer villain and self-absorbed silent movie star who does not realize that the train has already pulled out of the station on her career. As people who initially hate one another and slowly fall in love, Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds are brilliant together and have great romantic and musical chemistry with one another. Together, they really complement one another quite well.

Incredibly influential on the musical genre, the impact of Singin' in the Rain on La La Land is clear and often. From the splashes of color, the scene on the set between Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds feeling similar to the planetarium sequence, and of course, swinging on light posts, the film has a long lasting legacy that hopefully will never die. it even influenced films such as Hail, Caesar, both via its musical scenes and the jokes regarding pronunciation. One of the premier musicals of its era, Singin' in the Rain is a blast from beginning to end.



8/10 - Lost Highway is as divisive as any other David Lynch film amongst critics and audience members alike. A confusing and convoluted film, Lost Highway's true interpretation is as hard to pin down as any other Lynch film, though it is perhaps a bit more accessible than, say, Mulholland Dr. In essence, Lost Highway is a film about the underbelly of society. Porn, sex, murder, and temptations abound in David Lynch's mesmerizing tale of a man who has opened his home to Satan and cannot get him out of his place. Told in the only way Lynch knows how - confusingly - Lost Highway can be off-putting, but for those willing to get swept up in its whirlwind, it is more than satisfying.

Satan has entered the home of the Madisons. This much is clear. If the suggestions in the beginning of the film that Renee Madison (Patricia Arquette) was different and not like herself, the conversation between Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) and the mystery man (Robert Blake) cement it. Telling Fred that this mystery man is in his home and also showing that he is the source of the videotapes they have received hinting at Fred murdering Renee, it becomes clear that Satan has a hold on this family. How did he get into the home of Madisons? Via Renee. Just as Eve is the reason sin entered the world after she bit the apple from the tree of knowledge, Renee is a sex worker and porn star. By engaging in these sins and keeping the company of Mr. Eddy/Dick Laurent (Robert Loggia), who has clearly sold his soul for money and fame, Renee allowed Satan into the home of her and her husband. Once this happens, Satan lets himself into the home and toys with the Madison's and messes with the mind of Fred. Sending him to jail and then dumping him briefly into the body of Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty), Satan has his way with the Madison's, but ultimately gets his reward: their souls. Helping Fred kill Dick Laurent and welcoming Renee's nude body into his previously burning cabin, the Madison's souls are no longer their own. The transaction is, of course, orchestrated by Renee who says that the man who lives in the cabin will help her and her lover disappear.

Sin engulfs the entirety of this film with the porn tape between Renee and various people playing throughout much of the final half hour of the film. People are murdered or driven off the road by men like Mr. Eddy or they engage in a variety of other sins throughout the film. This indulgence and embrace of the underbelly of society wreaks havoc on the family unit and destroys it thoroughly. In many ways, Lost Highway crafts an ode to films such as Rosemary's Baby or a companion piece to fellow 1997 release The Devil's Advocate. All show the temptation of sin and the potential rewards of selling your soul, but they always come in this world. Once it is over, the fire rages all around (as it does in the Madison's fireplace and in the cabin) and nothing but the gnashing of teeth remains. This film and the others show the aftermath of this and the pain, strife, and threat posed to our lives if we allow Satan in via our own sinful tendencies.

A thoroughly hypnotic and freak experience, Lost Highway features a lot of similar traits to Lynch's works, namely wooden acting and weird people. Pullman and Arquette are terrific, however, and portray these sort of alien and confused people unaware of what hell their actions have awakened. The film is often stolen by Robert Blake, however, as the mystery man whose always looming presence is terrifying and thoroughly unsettling from beginning to end. Robert Loggia is also great in a truly intense and angry performance, instilling great fear and presence whenever he appears on the screen.

Lost Highway is a divisive film, but is an equally horrifying one that really feels Lynchian from beginning to end. A parable on the dangers of giving into temptation and making deals with the devil for success on Earth, the film is hypnotic, mesmerizing, and perverse. Yet, it is also brilliant and a truly surreal experience as with all of his works. Nobody makes unique films like David Lynch and every single one of his films continues to defy expectations and pre-conceived notions about the film.



4/10 - Lights Out was the horror film this year that was expanded from a short film, not Don't Breathe. Yet, Don't Breathe constantly feels like a short film with a paper thin concept stretched out over the course of a feature-length film. As the film kept going and the same cliched things kept happening, I sat and stared at my screen with similar pain as the kids in the house. I wanted out, but the movie just kept on going and going, never introducing any idea that was not filler or cliched in some fashion. Don't Breathe has some solid acting and a scary villain, but the concept is pretty lame especially when there are no tricks up its sleeves to add onto it. What you see is what you get for the most part and the portions it tacks on just feel like reaches that director Fede Alvarez added onto make the film longer and reach the hour and a half runtime. Simply put, this film is the very definition of tedious.

The tediousness predictability is constant and never lets go. The best sequence in the film - the basement sequence with all the lights off - is terrifically lit and really cool to watch unfold visually. Story-wise though, two of the would be robber teenagers who broke into a blind man's home just fondle the wall for a few minutes. As he fondles the wall right behind them, he is on his home turf and shows it, while the two teenagers are lost. Though well captured, the scene lacks in any sort of tension and serves as a microcosm of the whole film. When you anticipate a hand grabbing a character, guess what appears on the screen. These types of cliches are constantly adhered to throughout as Alvarez fails to find ways to obscure them. Instead, it just follows the beats on how to make a teenage, final girl, and home invasion horror thriller, while never innovating on them. Instead, it toes the line and cheapens its own scares by simply emulating the script put forth by better and more innovative horror films.

Even worse, Don't Breathe lacks guts. It fears killing its characters unlike any other horror film I have seen. It keeps them alive at all costs, in order to use them later on as a rescue for other characters. At the end of the day though, it is all done to lead up to a final girl who takes a stance against the big bad guy. The film even lacks innovation in its characterization as, at the end of the day, these are kids who perform robberies. They are robbing a blind veteran because they know he is sitting on a pile of cash. Unable to make the audience sympathetic to the leads otherwise, Alvarez adds in a subplot regarding the blind man with rape and impregnation that really feels cheesy and incredibly cheap. Thrown in just to demonize the blind man, he is clearly a bad guy, but it really adds no depth to the film. No tension, it merely just elongates it as finding the girl in the basement already made us root against him, no need to add on some perverse subplot.

The film continues to struggle, especially outside the house in and around the car. It just drags like all hell and it is supposed to be the thrilling finale. You know every beat of this scene if you seen any horror film ever released and it is really tiring to watch unfold. Ultimately, what I am driving at is that Don't Breathe entirely lacks atmosphere. At no point does director Fede Alvarez create an air of mystery or fear. Instead, it is just a largely dull film that mostly lacks sound to make up for any lack of atmosphere. It relies instead upon the silence of the room and of this blind man feeling his way around the room as the characters conveniently step on creaky floor boards.

Falling well below my expectations, Don't Breathe is an unscary, unthrilling, and thoroughly tedious teen horror film that only has its tight and well structured visuals in its pro column, as well as good acting. Every beat of the story is either done out of cliche or convenience to help move the story along in the predictable and tired fashion desired by Alvarez. For a film so highly praised by critics and audiences alike, it is fair to say that I expected far better than this film.



7/10 - Frantic often draws comparisons to the works of Alfred Hitchcock and Brian De Palma. This is certainly fair, but Frantic more-or-less feels typical regardless of influence. While comparisons to Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much stand out, as it is a fish out of water type story where Harrison Ford must navigate French customs (the plots are very dissimilar, but this element is reminiscent), Frantic really could be compared to many other thrillers. Though Roman Polanski is a great director who can take a genre, innovate on it, and improve it, Frantic really does not show this too much. Instead, it just feels like a slow burn European thriller with a far too happy and neat ending. Otherwise, it is just a pretty good and incredibly put together thriller.

Frantic is about a man, Dr. Richard Walker (Harrison Ford), who travels to France with his wife. While in the shower, she disappears. The only clue being that she was seen left leaving with another man and was possibly shoved into a car, which broke off her bracelet. However, Richard believes that the luggage she grabbed from the plane, which was not her's and was grabbed in error, may have some clue as to who took her and why. In tracking down his wife, he finds the luggage's owner, Michelle (Emmanuelle Seigner). Together, they find Richard's wife and deliver the nefarious goods inside the case to the criminals that took Richard's wife. While it may not quite be what you expect inside the luggage, the actual item is predictable when you see who the bad guys are. The film is also dragged down in regards to never deviating from classic thriller cliches along the way and its conclusion feels far too safe. It does not try to subvert expectations, rather it simply lives up to them and delivers a happy and neat ending to a film that should have been far messier. Involved with gangs, the French police, and the embassy, it is clear this is an international incident, yet Richard just tosses the nefarious goods into the water and the criminals give up. Is there some kind of statement I missed? Is this a political statement by Polanski or?

Regardless, it is quite thrilling all the same. Slowly paced and unraveling at a European pace, Frantic is thoroughly compelling and well plotted. Though largely predictable, it executes its cliches incredibly well and Polanski pairs up with Ennio Morricone to instill the film with an edgy atmosphere. While a fish out of water is hardly a new premise, Polanski does execute it well with Ford's confusion in a foreign land feeling consistently authentic and edgy. As the film progresses and his confusion - and ours - only builds, Polanski's assured direction really takes hold and keeps grasping the edge of your seat.

Acting-wise, Ford is solid. He was never a great actor and he hardly turns in a terrific performance in Frantic, but it works. He plays the concerned and angsty husband quite well, though he lacks the nervous edge to really make him soar in the work. Though he tells Michelle he is nervous, Ford's naturally calm and cool demeanor is ill-fitted for nervy. He is in control of every situation, which may not be a great match for this material. Nonetheless, he turns in a solid performance and really is admirably restrained for somebody so used to starring in action films. Alongside him, Seigner is seductive and would have convinced me to mule anything across borders. Yes, she was the mule, but if she asked me to do it for her, I would have a hard time saying no. In terms of acting, Seigner is solid and embarks on a lifelong partnership with Polanski in this film and it is not hard to see why. She is a talented actress and showcases that here in this film.

While largely quite formulaic, Frantic is a great testament to Polanski. Yes, it is partially influenced by Hitchcock, but that sells Hitchcock short, since that would be calling all of his films cliche. Frantic is cliched, but it emulates the cliches well and Polanski's directorial talents are on full display throughout. While not always engaging, it is always thrilling and a thoroughly entertaining film that focuses on thrills, not bullets.



5/10 - Is there a talented actor with worse luck than Armie Hammer? Since first establishing himself in teen hearthrob roles on shows such as Gossip Girl, he went on to show he was here to stay with a great turn in The Social Network. Since then, no matter what he picks, things just never work out for him. Sign onto J. Edgar, directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio? Critical failure. The Lone Ranger, directed by Pirates helmer Gore Verbinski and starring Johnny Depp in a big budget revival of a popular old television show? Critical and commercial failure. The Man From UNCLE, co-starring Henry Cavill and directed by Guy Ritchie, and another revival of an old television show? Mixed reviews and a commercial failure. Nocturnal Animals, starring Amy Adams, Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Shannon, and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, while being directed by Tom Ford? This one has to be the one, right? Nope. Mixed reception and not likely to garner much Oscar attention. And now, we can add The Birth of a Nation to that pile. After seeing Michael Fassbender play a slave owner in 12 Years a Slave and in the aftermath of #OscarsSoWhite, this one seemed to be a safe bet to finally get Armie Hammer some popular recognition, but no, the film suffers critically and is maligned because of Nate Parker's past. Will this man ever find a film that is successful both critically and commerically?

The Birth of a Nation is a largely well put together historical biopic, a genre that I love. Though many hated the earlier The Free State of Jones, I am an apologist for the film and the genre as a whole. Give me some historical story and I would probably enjoy it a bit more than most. The Birth of a Nation, however, is hard to enjoy and its reasons only become clear in the second half. Initially a rousing tale of a slave, Nat Turner (Nate Parker), who learns the Bible and is sent to preach in horrible conditions to horribly treated slaves, the film is moving. It is always moving, in fact, with its images of brutality and horrifyingly poetic take on slavery. Yet, Parker overdoes it with symbols and a ham fisted approach to his protagonist's tale. Using butterfly symbols, a bleeding piece of corn, and repeated religious symbols (angels, crosses, and connections between Turner and various prophets), the film feels entirely misguided. This symbol-filled second half largely derides an otherwise solid film.

In the lead role, Parker is incredibly solid. Delivering powerful monologues, he captures the charisma and power of Nat Turner. Any man willing to take on his oppressor with nothing more than the Bible and an axe is a man that has incredible internal strength and confidence. Parker really captures this and turns in a consistently powerful performance of Turner. Alongside him, Aja Naomi King is brilliant as Nat Turner's wife, Cherry. Backing her husband on his mission from God all the way, she turns in a subtly powerful performance that will hopefully springboard her into larger roles.

Yet, as mentioned, it is the writing and direction that often let this one down. While the acting is rousing and the writing hits some high notes in the monologues, the film just feels too hamfisted. I am not one to argue that Nat Turner is bad. The men he killed undoubtedly deserved what they got coming to them for their treatment of slaves. Yet, the symbolism connecting him to Jesus or other prophets was just far too much. Turner lived with the sword and died by the sword, yet Parker is unwilling to criticize his hero at all, instead painting him as a religious prophet. While I concede that his situation demanded a violent uprising and that Turner himself was very religious, Parker comparisons between the violent Turner and the non-violent Jesus feel a bit too much. Of course, this only one instance of such ham fistedness with other instances of bleeding corn, some dream sequence in the trees with a half-naked Nate Parker or something, and the butterflies. All-in-all, Parker loses sight of his hero in these moments and instead turns into a symbolic look at a real story, when the real story was good on its own.

All of that said though, the first hour of The Birth of a Nation is quite good. Largely lacking the symbolism, it is a raw and powerful look at slavery. Combined with the sequence set to "Blood on the Leaves" at the end, Parker finds some truly stirring images in this film. Combined with good smoky cinematography covering the film is flat browns and grays, accented solely by blood or by the bright red/pink flowers given by Nat to his wife Cherry, the film is often quite pretty to look at. Through this film, Parker finds a captivating visual style and it is unfortunate that the final product does not live up to this style.

However, despite my reservations with this film, Nate Parker's past would not hinder my watching of any of his films. If I can watch the works of Woody Allen and Roman Polanski without hesitation, I can do the same here. Though his past is disgusting and he should feel ashamed for what happened in college, he does have a unique voice in cinema that will hopefully be heard in the years to come. The Birth of a Nation suffers from being a directorial debut and being overly ambitious. Should he get the chance to direct another film, I would definitely watch it and hope to enjoy the film, just as I did here. That said, it does seem like this is it for Nate Parker.



4/10 - Vapid, soulless, and inconsequential, Luca Guadagnino's A Bigger Splash is simply a dull film that has very literally purpose. It is a film that allegedly has some themes regarding immigration into Europe, but is mostly a drama about four rich people who all are attracted to one another. European to its very core, this slow paced drama film is erotic, dialogue heavy, and impeccably acted. While hardly engaging and largely just throwaway entertainment masquerading as something more (my biggest problem with this film), A Bigger Splash does feature tremendous performances from Ralph Fiennes and Tilda Swinton that exceed expectations. If nothing else, it cements that the world has been deprived of the David Bowie biopic starring Tilda Swinton for far too long.

A Bigger Splash is the kind of film that is not exactly pretentious, but it certainly feels that it is deep and important. It exudes a certain air of superiority towards its audience as Guadagnino shows off the lush country side of Italy and Ralph Fiennes' member. Nothing that happens - when stuff happens - is overly complicated. It is just jealousy, lust, and murder, aka the big three of film. Nothing makes this unique, just the two hours runtime it takes for A Bigger Splash to actually say nothing on any of the topics. At many points in the film, it is as if the cast decided to get together and vacation, while Guadagnino tagged along. I have no problem with films with limited plots, but it also has no characters. They are written paper thin and are hardly worth diving into further. These four characters - mostly Schoenaerts' and Johnson's - are not really even given the time of day to really communicate who they are in this film. Fiennes' Harry is loud, boisterous, and obnoxious. Swinton's Marianne is a rock star who has a problem with her voice, so she cannot speak. The other two are kind of there, but mostly silent. Harry does most of the talking and Fiennes knocks the role out of the park. He is phenomenal, but it is a shame that his character is so useless and uninteresting without him.

A Bigger Splash just simply never excited me. It just floated by and hinted at some commentary on the immigrants and the distrust they receive, but it is exclusively done through the dialogue and spelled out for you. There is one moment where Dakota Johnson covers herself up in front of some immigrants, but it could just be attributed to the men being strangers. This really drives at how underdeveloped much of the film is. The themes, the drama, and the characters, are all incredibly raw and undercooked from beginning to end. As such, they fail to engage and just leave the audience wondering if there is more to all of this. It is the kind of film that leaves the audience sitting and wondering, "So what?"

Typically, I love these plotless character-driven films, but there must be characters worthwhile enough to make up for the lack of a driving plot. A Bigger Splash lacks this and, as such, ranks as a dull disappointment for myself. Though Fiennes is brilliant and Swinton is oddly great in a largely mute turn, the film simply does not do enough to justify its own existence, even if the swimming was fun and locales entirely gorgeous.



6/10 - Little Men is a solid film from director Ira Sachs. A film about the friendship between two boys and how it becomes fractured due to a business dispute between their parents, the film feels real. At every turn, it feels like real life. These are real people and get authentic performances from good, down to earth actors. That said, Little Men is hardly perfect. Though it really captures the look and feel of Brooklyn and the surrounding community, in addition to its characters, it just feels so slight. It covers the topics of young male friendship, immaturity, and lack of understanding between parents and children, but it never does it in an acceptable depth. The film sort of appears, touches on these topics, and then disappears because it is far too short. That said, it does have moments of real resonance that stand out and make this a more than worthwhile experience.

Little Men introduces us to Tony Calvelli (Michael Barbieri) and Jake Jardine (Theo Taplitz). Following the death of Jake's grandfather, he and his parents move into his Brooklyn apartment and now own the store space below the apartment. Currently, the store is owned by Tony's mother, Leonor (Paulina Garcia). Unfortunately, she has been paying very little due to a favorable relationship with Brian Jardine's (Greg Kinnear) now deceased father. As Brian is a failing actor and his wife is the sole breadwinner for the family, he desperately needs to raise the lease amount. His sister also is pressuring him to do so, leading to friction with Leonor. This friction gets to the kids who, in an act of unity, refuse to talk to their parents. Yet, despite everyone's best intentions, the families are tragically driven apart.

It is in this relationship between the families that the film really soars. A lack of communication permeates this film and is what really drives them apart. People avoid confrontation or simply use muteness as a sign of disagreement. This really only exacerbates their problems, as little Jake soon realizes. In an emotional moment of the film, he has an outburst in front of everybody and apologizes to his dad for not talking to him and begs to understand why they are doing this to the Calvelli's. This outburst highlights the importance of communication (sometimes too much of it) and how it has led to the crumbling of relations between these two, once close, families. On this note, however, the observations feel relatively mundane and overly slight. It never dives into them enough and what really makes these people tick. It adds elements - such as Jake likely being gay - to add depth to the characters and add to the realism, but much of it never really impacts the film or the characters in any meaningful way. While that is fine, it would have been nice if it had added to the themes explored in the film or even the overall disintegration of the relationships in the film.

That said, the friendship in the film between Jake and Tony is terrific. Willing to defend each other no matter what, the fast friends are solidly acted by the young actors. They can be loose around one another and express their hopes and dreams, without fear of judgment. They encourage one another from the start and can simply pal around and do whatever. Really a tenderly written friendship, this element of the film is one of the best parts of Little Men and why it deserves the acclaim it has received for the most part. Not too many films create such a delicate and tender look at teenage male friendships, yet this one does and its authenticity is astounding.

The film also introduces an important theme of masculinity. Brian Jardine is not really a man in the eyes of people like Leonor. Her husband is off in Africa being a nurse and she also views this as not manly enough, as he clearly does not provide. Yet, she really looks down on Brian, even telling him that his father thought the same and told her as much. Since Brian is a struggling actor, his psychotherapist wife is the breadwinner and pays for everything they own. Though Brian and his wife Kathy (Jennifer Ehle) are fine with the arrangement, the reversal of gender roles is a tough issue for many to accept and even Brian struggles. You can see that there is something within him that is bothered by this arrangement and a conversation with Leonor really brings it to light. Unfortunately, like many other things in the film, it is introduced and then taken away far too soon.

Little Men is an incredibly slight film. It is too short for the amount of themes it wants to and it approaches those themes tepidly. While it is well acted, the film simply never really does nearly enough with its characters or its themes to be anything more than an above average film with the potential to be better. That said, as a business major, I do appreciate that Sachs took care to not demonize the Jardine family for kicking out Leonor and her business. It is a business decision, pure and simple. I would evict her too. It is simply good business sense. That said, Brian desperately needs to get a job. You are pushing age 50 and still acting full-time in not-for-profit plays? Dude. At least get a part-time job.

8/10 - The first entry in director Terry Gilliam's "Trilogy of Imagination", Time Bandits is most certainly imaginative. Told from the perspective of a young boy, Kevin (Craig Warnock), living in an unhappy home, Time Bandits occurs in his dreams. Taking Kevin and the bandits he meets through various historical events - an Italian battle with Napoleon, the times of Robin Hood, King Agamemnon's reign in Greece, and the sinking of the Titantic - Time Bandits is mostly a struggle between good and evil. Traveling via uncompleted time holes in the world, Kevin and his dwarf companions use a map of the time holes stolen from the Supreme Being/God. Of course, the Evil One desperately wants to get his hands on this and destroy creation. Above all though, it is a world born out of imagination that explores what Kevin has to offer to the world.

Neglected by his parents, the most prominent recurring theme in his dream is affirmation. The time bandits trust him above all others, Agamemnon immediately adopts him as a son, and the Evil One cannot convince the time bandits to fall into trap because Kevin disagrees and resists. As he is neglected at home, it is clear that his dreams arise out of a need to receive some attention. In all of his dreams, Kevin in the star and regarded with reverence. In his own mind, this is desperately needed and it is why imagination exists. We imagine worlds where we are the star and everybody loves us, even if it this is not the case in our realities. Though we get a limited look at Kevin's world, it would not be shocking if this were some odd prequel to Home Alone. This poor child would certainly be left alone by his parents as they go on a vacation. Thus, it is no surprise that those he encounters would treat him with a level of respect he does not usually receive, as it is a way of his brain and his own dreams reaffirming that there is something for him to offer the world, even if nobody else shares this belief.

Gilliam also explores themes of materialism. The bandits obviously steal jewels from everywhere they go, which greatly bothers those they steal from. That is, until they meet Robin Hood. Introducing them to the poor, the bandits lose their haul and must steal again, which they do without hesitation. For the bandits, nothing is more important the loot they score. Yet, it is not until the end that Gilliam really criticizes materialism. With his family home burning, Kevin is rescued, but his parents could care less. Having spent the entire runtime up to this point watching a bad game show, they bicker about losing the toaster or the blender, with his mom wanting to run in and get one or the other. They value material goods over their own son, which should show why this world of imagination Kevin created in his dream was so desperately needed. Our dreams are there to comfort us when needed, as we are able to escape inside our own mind and lose ourselves in a world of our own creation.

Themes aside, Time Bandits is always hysterical. The film has the fresh, loose, and absurd comedy of the Monty Python films and it is glorious. Every line is quotable and really hits terrific comedic notes. Encounters with the Evil One and is criticism of God's creations because of the presence of slugs are great. Additionally, the running gag between Vincent (Michael Palin) and Pansy (Shelley Duvall), who appear multiple times, is great. Obviously, the acting is traditionally lackluster throughout, but it is all because the film is very much tongue-in-cheek and occurs in a child's brain. Obviously, things are going to be far more farcical and absurd when it occurs in the mind. The acting reflects this. Yet, the acting is particularly strong when it comes to comedic timing and delivery with every comedic line rolling out with ease and consistently hitting the mark.

Above all though, Time Bandits is inventive. Exploring religion, getting God to weigh in on the whole fate vs free-will argument, materialism, and the need for dreams to help us escape from our realities, Time Bandits is a celebration of childhood. Kevin's innocence and imagination is revered by all and this is truly where Gilliam finds the most power in his story. Time Bandits feels like a childhood classic and it is because Gilliam entrusts a child with leading the way in this film and putting his mind centerstage in the story. This is a story about the worlds a child can create to play in and it is terrifically inventive, crazy, and exactly the kind of place I would love to run off to in order have fun dreams. A funny, imaginative, and likely cocaine filled (on Gilliam's part) ride, Time Bandits is a classic.



9/10 - An ambitious, cynical, and character driven film, Short Cuts is loosely plotted, but always engaging. Critiquing modern society, marriages, infidelity, and more, Short Cuts is a film with a ton of moving pieces, courtesy of a variety of storylines. Each storyline and set of characters interacts with others in very natural ways that link their stories. Above all, it really shows how flawed we all are and the fragility, mistrust, and lies, that permeate modern day marriage. Through these vignettes, it quickly becomes clear that Altman has a very cynical opinion towards modern day marriage and people's ability to remain faithful to their spouse and not act in their own self-interest.

One of the best portions of this film is the acting. With such a large cast, obviously there are a lot of terrific actors and boy do they every display it in this film. Leading the way is Julianne Moore. As an eccentric artist who largely paints nude women, she portrays Marian Wyman. Married to Dr. Ralph Wyman (Matthew Modine), she and Modine share one of the best scenes in the film. Confronting his wife about an event three years ago when he believes she cheated on him, the moment is intense and incredibly powerful. Moore's performance in this moment really hits a fever pitch of intensity and emotional rawness that define her character. She is very open throughout and even does this scene without her pants, which really shows what makes her character tick. She is raw and a passionate person and Moore really captures this brilliantly, especially in this moment. Alongside her, Jennifer Jason Leigh is often scene stealing here. Appearing as Lois Kaiser, a married mother of two who is a sex line worker, one of the funniest encounters of the film is her talking dirty to a customer, which upsets her husband. Wondering why she does not talk to him like that, her reaction to this apparent absurdity and comical reaction to her work is hysterically put together, bolstered by Leigh's performance.

Yet, what is really impressive is the writing. Thinly plotted, the film is never anything less than engrossing. It keeps you fully engaged and entertained throughout because of the writing. The characters are nuanced, with most of them being neither fully good or bad. They all act, talk, and walk like real people. Robert Altman introduces a variety of characters and uses them brilliantly to explore the state of marriage and the turmoil that ensues. Issues regarding infidelity, different desires, lack of passion, death of children, and depression, all ensue and are beautifully depicted. The acting helps here, as it is all very grounded and authentic, but the writing is really what creates this impact. Instead of introducing storylines and dropping them, Altman delves into them and shows them from varying perspectives. In one relationship, a man cheats. In another, the woman cheats. How is the dynamic different? This is explored in Short Cuts, as well as other marital issues that can arise. All are given the heft and weight they demand, which is a real treat to watch unfold.

For a three hour long film, Short Cuts honestly feel quite short. Its acting and writing is so engrossing, it never slacks. Compared to Altman's past film of this type, Nashville, it is hypnotic. While Nashville is a great film, it does sometimes feel its length. Short Cuts, however, is streamlined and consistently powerful. That said, the comparisons to Nashville are apt as they are not just Altman films, but both use music in interesting fashions. Through Tess Trainer (Annie Ross) and her singing in a club, which brings a few characters into the bar, we hear songs such as "To Hell with Love" or "Prisoner of Life". Thematically, these are great fits as the film largely explores the pain that can come from marriage and the problems that arise. Yet, having a spouse and kids, as most of the characters do, can leave one feeling trapped and stuck with their current way of life, even if its unhappy. This is a constant in Altman's films and Short Cuts is hardly an exception as, though he explores dark themes here, it is done through music and the musical choices accentuate the thematic excursions.

A poetic and moving look at life, marriage, and death, the film explores issues that can arise once we are married. The animosity, loss of passion, or infidelity, that plagues modern marriages are on full display in Short Cuts with brilliant writing and acting to boot, which does its sensitive subject tremendous justice. Honestly, this is as near to a masterpiece as I have seen in my mild binge on Robert Altman in the past few weeks.



8/10 - As with all of the best Woody Allen films, Radio Days strikes a balance between its comedy and its drama. Featuring quirky and neurotic humor, Allen balances it with a love letter to radio via an early 1940s Jewish home in New York. At times, it honestly feels autobiographical, especially with Allen serving as a narrator to this look back at a Jewish child's experiences with his crazy family and the radio. Yet, above all, it is a whirlwhind of people and experiences that show why radio was so beloved. For somebody like myself who is quite young, the power of the radio is unfamiliar. Nowadays, it is just the same pop song and NPR talk radio. The real power of entertainment comes via television or the movies. Radio, for all intents and purposes, has lost its power. This is why Radio Days is such a compelling and important film. It brings back to life the old personalities - the musical acts, the jingles, the husband/wife talk shows, the sports shows, the children's programs, and more - and celebrates them for the enjoyment of the entire world.

Dropping us into a hectic world of parents, aunts, and grandparents, Radio Days features their various tastes on the radio and the crazy world they create for themselves and their family alike. For its portrayal of family in this way, Radio Days has garnered comparisons to Federico Fellini's Amarcord. Given Allen's clear admiration for Fellini, it is very likely that Amarcord did inspire this film. In creating this family atmosphere though, Allen really shows off how diverse and chaotic his family neighborhood was. Claustrophobic and a minefield of personality, the family encounters are excellently brought to the screen, both via the acting and the writing.

Yet, Radio Days finds incredible power in exploring the radio. Showing its impact on Young Joe's (Seth Green) crazy family and then showing the lives of the radio personalities in equal measure, Radio Days is an exploration of radio's impact on society. One of the first true types of in-home escapism for people in unhappy lives, it also provided escapism and a sense of pride for those involved in the radio business. In his film, Woody Allen really captures this and shows the magic that was created from a little box in the family home. One of the most powerful is The Masked Avenger. For Young Joe, the Masked Avenger is life. He loves the Masked Avenger and his ability to stamp out evil. The same is true for the Masked Avenger (Wallace Shawn) himself, however. A part of him certainly knows that this is just about it for his career and so we see him say his trademark phrase as the character repeatedly. For him, the role and the show mean as much to him as it does to Young Joe and his friends. While this takes different forms - Joe's obsession with buying the ring compared to the Masked Avenger just quoting the line - the impact and reward of the show is the same for them. It provides them with a way to escape from their traditional lives and this is where Allen really finds a lot of power.

The film is also quite compelling in its portrayal of innocence. Allen shows just how confusing these times were for young people everywhere. He listens to the Masked Avenger, a show aimed at children, highlighting his youth and innocence. His parents do not wake him for important events such as the search light coming to look for Nazis. Yet, Young Joe is confronted by adulthood repeatedly. Ever since he saw a naked woman in a window, he is confronted with seeing a real life U-Boat and contemplating life and women, as well as his role with both. His transformation throughout this film is highlighted at the end as the family rings in the year 1944. Instead of letting him sleep - as is done with young children - his aunt wakes him up and lets him revel in the importance 1944 is supposedly going to have.

Comedic and dramatic, Radio Days does lose a bit of steam in its second half, particularly with the comedy. Yet, Allen is successful in balancing both with his typical neurotic Jewish humor and glimpses in the life of an average Jewish family in the early 1940s. While not his best film, it is a very good film that highlights the easy to watch nostalgia presented by a good Woody Allen film.



8/10 - Cited by some as one of the worst films of all-time, Showgirls' reputation has improved markedly in the past few years. From being accepted to "so bad it's good" to a "guilty pleasure", the film has now received a critical re-evaluation. Many critics and directors have come out and defended the film as a brilliant work of satire, which it most certainly is. Famed critic Jonathan Rosenbaum has praised it as an allegory for selling out in Hollywood. While it most certainly could be an allegory and is a satire, I believe that Showgirls is most closely aligned with a critique of the sex industry. Showing girls selling their bodies as hookers, strippers, and showgirls in seedy Vegas hotels, Showgirls is a full bodied critique of the sex industry. Derided as misogynistic and exploitative trash, Showgirls is certainly both of those, but it has to be in order to show the dark repercussions of the industry.

As an erotic drama, the film was criticized for not being erotic enough. Yet, that is entirely the point. The film starts off somewhat erotic, but by the end, we see the dark rewards reaped by eroticism and the warped perception of women that men have. As these women snap off their tops without prodding, men walk away with the belief that they own and possess the female body. It is their personal playground to do whatever they like. Men such as Andrew Carver (William Shockley) emphasize this with him raping a girl towards the end of the film. He could have had sex with her anyways. She was definitely going to, but he likes the power that comes with ownership. He feels as though he owns women and is unwilling to cede this control. By letting her make a consensual decision to sleep with him, he concedes that she is his equal and well, in the world of the sex industry, that is simply not allowed. Women exist solely for our entertainment and to reveal their breasts while dancing is their only contribution to society. Dark, exploitative, and unflinching in this depiction, Verhoeven shows the horrors that the sex industry breathes. It feeds into the rape culture that plagues our nation and asserts that, yes, women are nothing but male playthings.

However, it can become even more horrifying. The protagonist, Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley), meets a man named James Smith (Glenn Plummer) early in the film. James is hardly a good guy and definitely exploits women sexually throughout the film. Yet, he does hit the nail on the head in one conversation with Nomi. He argues that places like strip clubs are alright, because they do not lie to you. The women are selling their bodies and the men are buying. It is erotic dances in a Vegas hotel, such as the show "Goddess" that Nomi wants to be in, that are bad. They pretend they are art and the patrons pretend they want art, but instead they give you the women's bodies anyways. It is lying and still just as exploitative. This is certainly true of the shows at the Stardust Hotel, in which the show solely consists of women ripping off their tops and dancing half-naked. This parallel is revealed by Zack (Kyle MacLachlan) when he reveals Nomi's past. A former hooker who only cost $50-$100 a pop, Zack tells her that she has low self-esteem and sells herself short. Yet, hooking is still very much her job, she just does not have sex with patrons anymore. From stripping at the Cheetah to dancing at the Stardust, the save product is for sale: her body. The only difference is that the line of work she does now is legal. The show also shows itself to be exploitative with the girls being propositioned for sex by workers at the hotel to satisfy important customers and famed Vegas showgirl Crystal Connors (Gina Gershon) being dumped to the curve after an injury. Once they are done with you, they will throw you without hesitation. But, it is almost preferable to when they do want you, as they treat you as a sub-human sex toy.

The film cements itself as a critique and satire of the sex industry with a sign outside of James' apartment. Reading "Jesus is Coming Soon", this simple sign is a call for help from the sex industry. Having seen Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for the same antics as those found in Las Vegas, it is a warning to heed the word of the Bible before it is too late. Exploiting women's bodies for over-stimulation and titillation is putting the city and the people in a hand basket destined for Hell. This also drives at why the film is not supposed to be erotic, but rather exploitative. Verhoeven rips open blouses repeatedly to show you the horror of the situation these girls find themselves in. Though they may be smart or talented, their only value is their breasts and there seems to be solemn knowledge of this fact possessed by the women. Yet, this knowledge is juxtaposed by an urgent warning to shape up and repent as Jesus will soon arrive and Vegas will most certainly be left behind.

That said, while Vegas has descended into sexual madness and exploitation, it leaves these girls with little opportunity to reclaim their bodies. At the end of the film, Nomi takes steps to rectify this situation. After initially accepting a ride from a guy who just tricks her into letting him steal her luggage, she hops back in the car with him at the end of the film. She promptly beats him up. But, he is the second guy to face her wrath after she violently beats up Andrew Carver for raping her friend. The greatest weapon against the patriarchy is a girl like Nomi who is going to fight tooth and nail to show men that they cannot own women. Instead, it is women who own their own bodies. By leaving Vegas at the peak of her popularity and vitality, Nomi reclaims her body and shows that she will not be owned by and exploited by men any longer. She has seen the rewards that her "art" brought a girl who was not even a dancer. She was violently beaten and raped. This industry she is a part of feeds the beast and continues to perpetuate the belief that men own women's bodies and have full rights to do whatever they please. While entirely wrong, it is the basis for rape culture and it is one that Verhoeven hopes to stamp out via this film.

Unerotic and exploitative trash, Showgirls' biggest error may be embracing the latter too much. By the end, it is too easy for viewers to write it off as being just as exploitative as the industry it criticizes. But, that is Verhoeven's way. He goes all-in or not at all. Showgirls is no exception to this rule as he dives head first into the pool of the sex industry. Whether he emerges successful or not is up to you, but for myself, Showgirls is a film that is thoroughly abrasive, repugnant, and indulgent, yet worthy of praise as an oddly terrific work by director Paul Verhoeven.



8/10 - I am a simple man. Give me a few guys smoking cigarettes, wearing suits, and killing guys in old time Los Angeles, and I will love that movie. A cheesy and joyfully indulgent neo-noir, Mulholland Falls is no exception. A spellbinding film with director Lee Tamahori embracing all of the genre's cliches and indulgences, Mulholland Falls is a thoroughly entertaining and visually stylish neo-noir crime thriller with strong performances and an equally capable plot. However, it does become a little unwound towards the end where Tamahori may have placed his tongue a bit too firmly alongside his cheek.

Investigating the murder of Allison Pond (Jennifer Connelly), LAPD detective Max Hoover (Nick Nolte) is troubled. You see, he had just finished his affair with Allison and, unbeknownst to him, her troubled neighbor recorded all of her sexual trysts without her knowledge. Who else did he film, you ask? Well, General Timms (John Malkovich) had also loved Allison and also enjoyed her company from time to time. Though Max called it off with her, he is clearly not over her and is desperate to find her killer and beat the shit out of him. Along with his buddies (Michael Madsen, Chazz Palminteri, and Chris Penn), Max is known for distributing justice around Los Angeles and making people fall off of Mulholland Drive in mysterious ways. It is this hard nosed attitude that aligns him so closely with the detectives in old noir films.

In a strong performance in the lead role, Nick Nolte holds his cards close. He always has an ice cold delivery. He only shows his emotions slightly when Allison is dead and when his wife Katherine (Melanie Griffith) sees the tape of him and Allison. Oh and when he finds out who killed Allison. He was a little ticked off at that one. Aside from those though, Nolte gives a commanding and stolid performance that sees him pull his fedora close to his face and smoke in his tailored suit. Somehow, this glorious hard nosed cop performance is the central part of the film and it is terrific. Alongside him, Palminteri gives a top-notch performance as his partner Ellery Coolidge. Seeing a therapist for his anger issues, Coolidge is always eating and always in the backseat.

The central crime in the film - the murder of Allison Pond - is captivating. With Max Hoover caught up in a web of government cover-ups and military bomb tests, the web weaved by director Lee Tamahori is very sticky and equally as riveting. The plot is never convoluted or hard to follow, rather it is nuanced and complex, which is just what a noir should be. While the film often acts as a subtle satire of the genre that Tamahori so clearly loves, he never skimps on the plot of his film and gives it one that rivals the best noirs around. As the femme fatale of sorts, Jennifer Connelly is terrific. Sensual and alluring, Connelly makes for a compelling figure in the film and one that it is not hard to believe guys would trip over themselves to make her acquaintance. Yet, despite this, she retains this sort of innocence that makes you just as livid as Max is when he discovers her unfortunate demise.

That said, the ending is a bit much. The whole sequence with the plane is far too over-the-top. Though somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it discards the hard nosed noir atmosphere of the build-up for a crazy action type sequence. That said, it does rescue it at the end where everybody just stands around smoking and in complete silence. Unfortunately though, this plane sequence is hard to defend and seemingly out of place in a detective story of this kind.

Stylish with killer costume design, production design, and cinematography, Mulholland Falls offers strong performances across the board (even Melanie Griffith, who was oddly nominated for a Razzie for this role) and a strong plot to go along with it. While admittedly indulgent and sometimes a parody of the genre itself, Mulholland Falls is a strong, spellbinding, and harshly criticized neo-noir. Though it has its defenders - namely, Roger Ebert - they are hardly numerous, which is a shame.



7/10 - Repulsion is a classic psychological thriller, but it did not work quite as well as I had hoped. The first entry in director Roman Polanski's Apartment Trilogy, Repulsion pales in comparison to his tremendous follow up in the trilogy, Rosemary's Baby. Polanski's instincts guide him reliably into creating a hypnotic and claustrophobic environment, but the film itself lacks polish. It is clear that this is his second feature-length film because it feels as though it lacks that bit of umph to make it a truly impactful and mesmerizing psychological thriller. However, a killer score and claustrophobic direction certainly make up for this and create an often terrifying experience.

Compared to Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion is less scary. That said, this is a very different film, even if it is a part of the same trilogy. Taking place in an apartment that often doubles as the mind of Carole (Catherine Deneuve), this film is haunting in its portrayal of mental disease. Blending reality with dreams and leaving the audience guessing as to which is which. This is honestly horrifying to watch unfold and is where Polanski finds the most success. This suspension of reality is really thrilling to watch unfold and is accentuated by Deneuve's performance. Though he is mostly quiet in the film, she really does capture this descent into madness suffered by her character incredibly well. Polanski himself finds considerable power in these moments as well, with walls cracking and her insanity given a sort of demonic appearance to the audience. This really drops us into a world of the unknown as both us and Carole are shocked and disturbed by what is occurring on the screen.

However, Repulsion takes a bit long to get to the good bits. The first hour or so is a little too subtle and off-the-point to truly be effective. It starts hinting at Carole's repulsion and issues with men and their possible sexual intentions with her. It hints and sets the table, but it feels like a meal that takes too long to cook. You set the table and keep waiting for the food to actually cook. You check every five seconds to see if it is ready, but the damn thing just does not look cooked. This is Repulsion at the beginning. The meal is delicious once it hits the table, but the long prep time takes some of the buzz and satisfaction out of the meal. This is really Repulsion's major issue.

Yet, even when it really buzzes, the film lacks the punch of his later works. It is clearly his second film and it suffers from his inexperience. No shame there, but the film lacks the polish and it is not because it is fuzzy. It is hard to describe why, because there are so many good elements here. Carole's descent into madness, the fuzzy and cheap looking camera actually really benefits this film, as it makes it feel even creepier and unsettled. Yet, I feel as though I was let down by this one a bit, but it what interesting nonetheless to see its clear influence on other films, such as Brian De Palma's Sisters (plot, look, and feel) or David Lynch's Eraserhead (look, feel, and style). The latter was a bit of surprise, but during Carole's descent, having hands fly out of the wall and the jarring and grainy black-and-white camera feel a lot like watching a Lynch film, specifically Eraserhead.

Overall, Repulsion is a pretty good film with a huge legacy. It is possible it was just not for me, but even then, its power is often hard to deny. Featuring a terrifying score, a strong lead performance, and a harrowing portrayal of madness, Repulsion is a compelling psychological thriller that really laid the ground work for many films by other directors and the work of Polanski himself.



8/10 - Based on a play, Rope is largely a one room thriller that is edited to appear as one long take occurring in real time. This is largely the biggest draw to watching Rope, as it really draws out the key mystery in the film: is this the perfect murder or not? Obsessed with the perfect murder himself, Rope is yet another Hitchcock film in which characters actively discuss how they would kill someone and why it would be "perfect". Others such as Shadow of a Doubt and Dial M for Murder have introduced the topic. Though I have a lot to see from the "master of suspense", this is certainly a constant theme he toys with. It is also what makes this decidedly Hitchcock. Though murder and suspense is up his alley, he is typically obsessed with voyeurism and similar invasions, but this one is largely devoid of that. Instead, it is contained in one room and is exclusively about a dinner party occurring in a room with a dead body.

Hosts of the part, Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger), have killed a classmate, who they believe to be "inferior". To test out their perfect murder, they hide his body in their home and host a party. Inviting the victim's parents, his girlfriend, his best friend (and ex of his girlfriend), and the old head master of their school (who they drew inspiration from), the duo are exact opposites. Brandon is a little nervy, but largely cool, calm, and collected. He is somewhat discovered by some patrons due to his weirdness and pale complexion, but is otherwise holding up and reveling in his "conquest". On the other end of the murder, we have Phillip. He is cracking at the seams and Granger does great to show his teetering collectedness. He manages to somewhat keep it together, but he is dying to be relieved of the burden of what he has done.

The boys face their stiffest competition from the knowledgeable, but morally ambiguous Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). Slowly piecing together what has taken place in the home and outwitting the boys, he is their former head master. He is a great role model for Brandon and is likely the greatest reason as to why Brandon did the murder. Back in school and during the dinner, Rupert expressed the belief that "superior" people should be able to kill "inferior" people and that murder should be essentially legalized, based on seasons seen in hunting. He is an intellectual who owns a publishing company that only publishes philosophy books. Yet, he is misguided. He is an elitist caught up in his own intellect. Putting together the crime and the realization he is the cause of the murder shocks him and puts his world back together. After all these years, he is confronted with his own vulgar line of talk and does not like what he hears. Stewart, as always, is tremendous. Honestly, this may be a bit against type, since his character is such a prick to begin with. But, we are naturally rooting for him to put it together and bring the boys to justice. He was always a very naturalistic actor and this is very much the case in Rope as you can see he is a smart man corrupted by some unseen force. At the end, his shock and horror becomes our own as we feel the same disgust. He was misguided and dumb, but allowed his words to be used for evil, which he may have advocated for, but never actually wanted.

While the camera work is terrific and very fun to watch unfold, the plot is a little dry. A lot of suspense and tension is derived from whether or not Rupert will put it together, of course, but even at just 80 minutes the film takes a bit. The long take elongates the suffering of the murderers, but also results in the film itself dragging a good bit. Fortunately, the acting is so capable that this occasional dullness is not fatal, but it certainly does stand as a detraction to the film. It is also quite predictable, as it is quite obvious how everything will turn out, even if Hitchcock tries to bluff you into believing otherwise.

That said, Rope is a thoroughly engaging thriller from Alfred Hitchcock that is just as expertly put together as his best works and equally as well acted. Though its plot is a little weak by his standards, it is still an overall excellent film with gutsy experimental camera work.

8/10 - The Doors is hardly a biopic of Jim Morrison or The Doors. Instead, it is a gateway drug in the form a feature film. Through the life of Morrison, director Oliver Stone finds cinematic peyote and injects it into the veins of the audience and leaves us with an oddly spiritual experience. Hypnotic, indulgent, and excessive, Stone discards the story of Jim Morrison and The Doors in order to tell a more compelling tale through the atmosphere of the film. In essence, he turns an otherwise cliche biopic into an experience that transcends its cliched trappings within the musician biopic subgenre. Adorning his film with the sexual escapades of Morrison, the making of songs, and a soundtrack complete with the greatest hits by the band, Stone's film is a transcendent biopic that feels eminently rich and entertaining.

This power and atmosphere of the film is defined very early on. Eschewing most of his childhood and just dropping him in college, the film briefly runs through the forming of the band in order to dump them in the desert. Having the band take peyote and trip together in order to get ideas for the film, it is here that Stone conjures the psychedelic feeling of the film of simulates an acid trip through his film. Shot throughout with an orange filtered haze, the film is hypnotic and continuously unexpected. It is also in this desert that Stone really finds his hero: Jim Morrison (Val Kilmer). Tossing aside most life details in favor of this aesthetic and atmosphere, Stone needed a man to carry it on their shoulders and Kilmer does exactly that. He disappears into the role and I had to constantly remind myself that this was Ice-Man from Top Gun. He is phenomenal to an unexpected degree and really embodies Morrison, but more importantly, embodies the feeling that Stone is trying to conjure. It is a match made in heaven between director and lead and the film benefits tremendously from their on-screen chemistry.

Yet, the clearest Stone comes to showing the audience that he could care less about the story is the San Francisco concert sequence. Opening with The Doors performing at an outdoor concert in the Bay Area, Stone keeps the music playing, but cuts through a very unique montage. Containing images of Jim participating in a witchcraft ritual to be united with some weird girl, people dancing nude around a fire at the festival, Jim catching Pam (Meg Ryan) cheating on him and taking heroin, Jim lighting his house on fire, and Native American spirits dancing with him on stage, the film is odd at this point. Yet, it is equally as gorgeous. Stone does not strike a balance between the aesthetic drug trips and Jim's reality. Instead, he goes full bore into the former. Those expecting a traditionally told biopic will come away disappointed because that was never Stone's intent. Instead, he wanted to drop his audience into the mind of Morrison and to see the world from his point of view. It is honestly the only way to sympathize with him and once we feel the drugs and negative influences in his life, it becomes obvious how this man died at 27.

It is this style that saves the film. While Stone makes the concert scenes powerful and epic, as they should be, the stylish storytelling and orange filtering cover up a largely run-of-the-mill tale. Stone takes no risks in the story itself, which becomes more noticeable after the hypnotic opening half hour. The indulgence in the sexual temptations experienced by Morrison is an unfortunate detour, but continues to show that his life was certainly done by the seat of his pants. Unfortunately, the rise and fall of his life is written in a pretty cliche manner, it is only once Stone gets his hands on the material that it truly soars and becomes an oddly beautiful biopic and a behemoth of one at that.

The Doors is an experience. Their music most certainly is, as the lyrics are hardly special. Rather, it is the feeling that it creates within you where the music finds its power. Oliver Stone knows this and seeks to create the same feeling from his film. He is certainly successful with the film transporting the viewer to an alternate dimension where Jim Morrison was possessed by Natives and that is hardly the weirdest thing the film convinces its audience of. It is indulgent, excessive, and off-the-wall. But, above all else, it is thoroughly engrossing, atmospheric, and completely epic. It story is cliche, but its storytelling transcends the stale and repetitive musician biopic subgenre.



7/10 - A largely forgotten film directed by Robert Altman, Buffalo Bill and the Indians or Sitting Bull's History Lesson challenges Americans' perception of their heroes. Buffalo Bill and other cowboys like him and revered as the very personification of Americana. They killed some Indians, secured the frontier, and they did it all while toting a gun and living on the land. They are quintessential Americana just as Budweiser, guns, and pick-up trucks, are the very fabric of our society. Yet, just as with those elements of Americana, the cult of heroism surrounding cowboys and the army, especially when dealing with Natives or other races we deem inferior, are incredibly toxic forms of patriotism. Linking patriotism with the cult of heroism surrounding these misguided figures of history, Robert Altman makes a revisionist western and comedy about Buffalo Bill being confronted with the facts about his life.

Releasing the film a year before America's bicentennial, Altman has to have the biggest balls in Hollywood. Calling Buffalo Bill a fraud and manufactured by others with fables about his nobleness, except he is just a crazy old man who cheats on his wife and could never track and kill Indians, Altman skewers our perception of the man. He mocks him openly with an over-the-top turn from Paul Newman in the lead role. He is abrasive and certainly racist towards the Indians and the blacks working for him. Above all, he is a fraud. When tasked with actually tracking Sitting Bull (Frank Kaquitts), he fails. He can only catch and "kill" an Indian when it is part of his cowboy and indian show at Fort Ruth. He is a show pony now, no better than the horses he rides. The cult of heroism surrounds him all the same, however, as he is made into being a legendary Indian killer (some feat) worthy of acclaim. His foe, Sitting Bull, is accused of being the most brutal and savage killer of whites the world had ever seen. Given the treatment he faces, it would hard to not understand why he would kill whites. That said, the characterization put forth by Altman of both truly argues his point perfectly. Celebrated as a hero, Buffalo Bill is a loser. Chastised as a villain, Sitting Bull is a brilliant and honorable man who wishes for nothing more than the safety of his people. In this film, Robert Altman makes a film that with themes that really stand the test of time and may be just as pertinent today as in 1976.

Anchored by a solid cast, Buffalo Bill and the Indians or Sitting Bull's History Lesson is truly a revisionist western. The second such film by Altman (McCabe & Mrs. Miller) and another example of him critiquing heroes (MASH), I am seeing these a bit out of order, but all the same, it shows that Altman feels these are both major issues. He combines these two issues here into the film and continues with his trend of social critique, regards of genre or the piece of society he takes aim at. Unfortunately, this one is imperfect. It is admittedly a bit slow and, more concerning, it is never as funny as it should be. Though strictly a western, it is also a satire/comedy. Altman largely misses the mark on this point with a film that is only sporadically funny and the comedy is found solely in the portrayals. The dialogue offers very little in the way of comedy. While it is not hard to appreciate it otherwise, it is fair to expect the film to be a bit funnier.

Fortunately, there is so much to love here. Terrifically shot and typically well directed by Altman, the film has strong performances, even if nobody really stands out from the rest. The costume design and production design are also exemplary, truly capturing the absurdity of the old west and this stupid Buffalo Bill show. These all make the film an engaging and thoroughly raucous ride that deserves more views that it has received to this point. While not ranking amongst Altman's best works, its everlasting themes make it a shame that it has largely been forgotten by time.



6/10 - Norwegian director Andre Ovredal of Trollhunter fame is back and ready with another chilling horror flick. Unfortunately, The Autopsy of Jane Doe gets half way to the end and then decides to just put it on autopilot with an asinine twist that ruins the film. Up to that point though, I was terrified. Ovredal set the perfect atmosphere, shot everything gorgeously with creepy lighting, and turned an autopsy into one of the most riveting cinematic horror experiences I have had. But then, like something out of late-2000s M. Night Shyamalan, he decides to add in a twist that makes you want to lay on the floor and cry out, "WHY?" (sort of like this). Honestly, Shyamalan may have turned down the twist and said, "No thanks, that sounds stupid." This is a shame because the first half is tremendous.

Adorned with gorgeous production design and creepy lighting, what better place for a horror chiller than a morgue? Andre Ovredal knows this and makes his old morgue setting feel fresh and new. It is a setting that is begging to be explored. How do you make it even better? Mystery. Not only is this place creepy, but Tommy Tilden (Brian Cox) and his son Austin (Emile Hirsch) are tasked with performing an autopsy on a Jane Doe. Found buried under a family's basement, the entire family was found dead and this woman was not related to any of them. Since she was buried under the basement, the sheriff feels the clock ticking to figure out who she is and how she died to satisfy the press. So, he dumps her body off with the most trusted coroners in the county to get an answer before morning. But, what they find baffles them and leaves them running for the exits.

Touching on elements possibly regarding the occult, these two coroners put their minds together to try and figure out how this girl died, but it keeps leading them to one to one conclusion: she very well may be alive? But how? She has been gutted and cut open. Her wrists and ankles are broken. Well, you will have to watch to figure out, but do not get your hopes up. It is a film that has all of the atmosphere in the world when it starts up, strong writing, good acting, and a killer location. The odd part with the ending is that is not even derivative. The final act is like something I have not seen before in a horror film. Despite its faults, it is most certainly original. Unfortunately, everything original is not necessarily good. The Autopsy of Jane Doe is very much an example of this. Its final act does contain derivative elements, but its reasoning is incredibly original and dumb. The cliches and derivative portions of the final act are bad, but not nearly as bad as the reason they are all happening. This reason truly breaks the atmosphere and leaves the audience wondering how it could have all gone wrong so quickly. It is an original idea left on the cutting room floor of dozens of prior movies.

That said, the aesthetic of this morgue is unparalled. The opening is tense, creepy, and truly sets the tone for a great horror film. I was all set to highly recommend this one, but not it is just a mild recommend to see something go off the rails. Had the ending not been so tremendous, this one would have a majorly disappointing follow up to Trollhunter from a talented and very promising director. As it stands, it was a good effort that shows why he is so highly thought of, but he needs better material.



7/10 - A step back from Mike Mills' terrific 2011 film Beginners, 20th Century Women is another somewhat autobiographical film from the writer/director. Yet, this one feels decidedly less assured. Embracing formalistic indulgences along the way that clash with the realistic and natural tone of the film, the film lacks cohesion at times and feels overly ambitious for its story. Fortunately, there is so much to enjoy about this film. From the style and general aesthetic feeling given by the film, as well as great characters and acting, 20th Century Women is an often moving and funny film about Mills' childhood surrounded by women in Santa Barbara. In many ways, it is a film about how people do not understand one another, in spite of all of our efforts to figure out what makes those around us, and ourselves, tick. In this endeavor, 20th Century Women is incredibly successful and finds a lot of resonance. Unfortunately, unnecessary style distracts from the film and feels more indulgent than anything.

These stylistic indulgences include montages of old pictures of historical events, the rainbow streaks following the cars as they drive on the highway, time lapse shots, and giving the future of the characters after 1979. Of these, the rainbow streaks seems to be the one that I have the most trouble with. It helps to create the drug induced, dream-like atmosphere of Santa Barbara, yes. Santa Barbara and 1979 are very much characters in this film themselves with the city coming to represent the loose, free thinking nature of the characters, and being just as influenced by drugs as they are. 1979 comes into play with the time, Jimmy Carter's speeches, and how it is a point of change and a turning point in their respective lives for a variety of reasons as shown in the film. Yet, the rainbow streaks feel indulgent. The film's character are supposed to reflect real people and its situations are somewhat real occurrences. Yet, the style hints at Mills indulging too much in artist tendencies. The out of place montages of old pictures that do not have much to do with the plot suffer from the same indulgence. It feels wholly misplaced in a film of this type and is not something I remember Beginners suffering from. If memory serves, that was a very grounded film, set in the real world and rarely diverting from that world. Instead, Mills attempts to create the same psychedelic and 1970s trip created in films such as Inherent Vice or The Nice Guys. The film is stepped with nostalgia and these glory days of 1979, but the film suffers from this style. The trippy atmosphere is interesting, but is ill-fitting for a story of this ilk. In the aforementioned films, it works because the films are clearly going for a certain aesthetic and very formalistic in its story. But, Mills' story here is very real, authentic, and raw. These nostalgic indulgences for a film as real as Manchester by the Sea feel more like something out of La La Land, which leaves it feeling incredibly jumbled in regards to its style and intent.

The film also suffers from its dialogue. Once more, it attempts to create great characters and it succeeds. The writing is glorious when it comes to these characters, but the dialogue lacks the punch of realism. It feels written and, again, feels ill-fitted for a story of this nature. Honestly, I may need a rewatch of this, but conversations often fall awkwardly flat. Such as:

"I like the way your hair smells."
"I make my own shampoo."
"Of course you do."

This dialogue feels more like Wes Anderson dialogue in a very formalistic setting. Instead, Mills tries to strike a balance between the two styles, but these lines just feel too quirky and purposefully odd to really resonate. Much of this film is like this and some of the dialogue does work quite well comedically, but feels as though it contributes to the tonal awkwardness of the film. Is it a realistic with real worlds, as the premise, characters, and situations would have you believe? It would also be in line with being semi-autobiographical. Or, is it an aesthetic filled joy ride through Santa Barbara's free thinking community with quirky dialogue? It is here where I struggle to rationalize why I still like 20th Century Women, even in spite of this tonal awkwardness.

The brilliance of 20th Century Women may reveal itself to me upon rewatches, but for now, it largely lies within its themes. Early in the film, Dorothea (Annette Bening) asks her son Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann) to be there for Abbie (Greta Gerwig). Abbie rents a room from Dorothea and lives upstairs, but had been diagnosed with cervical cancer in the year prior and was going to see if the surgery had removed the cancer or not. Dorothea, knowing she would not be able to be there, wants Jamie to offer Abbie emotional support, regardless of whether the news is good or bad. In asking, she comments on how "men always want to fix problems for women", in order to steer him away from his male tendency to "fix things". As a man, I admit this is true. Women just want to vent and have understanding, while my mind whirs about trying to figure out how to fix the problems. My male neanderthal brain cannot comprehend not fixing the problems. It largely applies to women's problems, simply because men do not vent. Yet, in the film, Jamie does accompany Abbie to the doctor and offers great support to her emotionally. He listens and lets her vent after getting good, yet somewhat upsetting news. However, the encounter between Dorothea and Jamie, as well as the results of the encounter show how we really do not understand one another. Dorothea says men want to fix women's problems, yet later in the film, she asks Abbie and Jamie's friend Julie (Elle Fanning) to help guide him. She feels he is lost after a brush with death and needs guidance. Though hesitant at asking to parent him initially, the two eventually embrace the role and play the role of mentor and therapist, respectively. Perceiving that Jamie has issues, the women in the film try to fix him. In this portrayal, Mills shows how even Dorothea does not know women and their need to fix problems as well, or men's ability to not just offer solutions to women's problems.

This continues in the film as Abbie gets Jamie to read books about feminism. He has never had sex, yet he reads about female orgasms and sexuality. In a conversation with Julie, he learns something that the books never taught him: yes, teenage boys do not know how to satisfy a woman. But, there are other reasons for a girl to have sex beyond having an orgasm. He is flabbergasted. This confusion continues when he reads a book about aging women and reads aloud a portion to his mom. She rebukes the portion he reads and accuses him of believing that this women described was her and what he thought of her. He denies it, but it is clearly true. Through his books, Jamie believes he understands feminism and women, but as Dorothea tells Abbie, he is not old enough to comprehend either. But, Dorothea struggles from the same thing. She tries to understand her son by attending clubs and listening to music he likes, but she remains ignorant. She has no idea who her son is and feels as though she is constantly playing catch-up with his ever changing approach to life. William (Billy Crudup), another renter in Dorothea's home, sleeps around and never has understood women. In a brief encounter with a girl he sleeps with, he has sex with her, asks for a date, and gets rebuked. Abbie, meanwhile, is lost within herself. She does not even understand herself or her own actions, in spite of her knowledge of art and feminism. Julie sleeps in Jamie's bed, knows he likes her, knows she does not like him, and strips to her underwear in front of him. She may rebuke his advances, but the conflicting signals this young horny teenager receives causes his brain to short circuit. Julie does not understand men or what her own actions may hint at to those around her. Finally, a man at work asks Dorothea for a date and is shocked to see her say yes, as the men in the office thought she was a lesbian.

It is in these moments that Mills finds his true success in 20th Century Women. We, as people, try to understand everybody. We read, we listen, we live as them. But, we are not them. Though we try to see things from their perspective, we are doomed for failure. All those who try to understand anybody or anything in the film quickly realize that they do not understand anything. What we read in a book or see in a film does not always reflect reality, as real life has a lot of nuance and idiosyncrasies that cause each person to deviate from the beaten path. This is a lesson one must lesson and it is one taught in 20th Century Women. While the film is explicitly about the women it portrays and is ultimately a character study in how they treat this young boy and the issues he encounters, it is naturally a coming of age story for Jamie as well. It is through this engaging with women of various ages, learning the ropes in how pick-up girls, and learning about the world, that he grows up. But, he must learn to do, not read. To understand, one must go out and live it and experience what they read. Via his encounters with those around him, Jamie quickly learns that he needs to go out and experience these situations, rather than just read about them in a book about feminism. By living with women and seeing how they act, he learns an innumerable amount about how these women live, but they hardly represent all women.

One of the greatest achievements of 20th Century Women is its characters. Starring Dorothea, portrayed by Annette Bening, Mills creates a deeply lonely woman. Divorced from her husband and dating various male suitors, she compensates by talking to random people and inviting them for dinner. She rents out rooms in her home to keep it constantly filled with life. But, above all, she is a mother to Jamie. In trying to understand him, she embraces a free thinking and adventurous attitude. This comes very unnaturally to her. She is old school. As Jamie says, she believes in a village raising a kid. She chain smokes, because she was led into believing it was not unhealthy when she started and now she cannot stop and does not care to stop. She is not free thinking, even if she pretends to be. Instead, she is compensating for her lack of understanding. She has no idea how to parent Jamie, how to live, or how to relate to him. She throws things up at the wall and sees what sticks. Her experiment with the girls helping raise him seems to have mixed results, but she can never change who she truly is on the inside. When Abbie says she is menstruating at the table and Dorothea rebukes her for it, she reveals herself as not being quite as open to the world as she may seem. While I happen to agree that it is a bit personal for a dinner party, I am also not nearly as free thinking as the characters in the film. Dorothea sticks out like a sore thumb in this family and is the older woman trying to figure out what is cool with the kids these days. In portraying this character, Bening is outstanding. While I do not feel as though she was snubbed from an Oscar nomination, this has to be her best role in years and she certainly makes the most of the opportunity.

Alongside her is Abbie, portrayed by Greta Gerwig. A Greta Gerwig-type, Abbie is a former art school student, photographer, victim of 1950s medicine, and certified loose spirit. Abbie flies by the seat of her pants and is a bit of a wild child. She embodies the free thinking psychedelic aesthetic of Santa Barbara and the one that Mills pain-stakingly tries to cultivate. In portraying this character, Gerwig is in her natural habitat. She is a weird, quirky, and insists on role playing to have sex. She is an odd ball and stands as the true embodiment of Santa Barbara. In line with the theme of lack of understanding, Abbie has outbursts and does not know why she does. She cannot relate to her own mother and struggles to relate to Willie in any meaningful fashion, in spite of their sexual encounter. Though she may be free and in touch with the essence of the world around her, she barely understands herself, let alone the world. I cannot imagine somebody better for this role than Gerwig. Though she is very good here, I would love to see her play a less quirky and neurotic character. Either that or drop her in a Woody Allen film as the Allen character before he dies, please.

Finally, we have Julie. Honestly, aside from Jamie's perusing of feminist literature and his primitive understanding of women, Julie may be the character that most embodies the theme of not understanding. She is incredibly naive. Unaware of her sexual presence and impact upon men, she believes that men only want sex. She does not want Jamie because she does not want to have sex with him. Okay, that is fine, but there are other reasons to date. Sex can come later naturally. But, her encounters with men has led her to conclude that all men only want sex. In reality, Jamie just wants her, or what he thinks is her. As she points out, he only wants his image of her. Yet, she wants the same. She rejects that he has feelings and compartmentalizes them all into sexual desire for her. Her therapist mother is right on that compartmentalizing issue, as she believes that Jamie is like all men and just wants her body, rejecting that he is unique or could just want her. However, she freely believes that she understands and knows him better than anybody else. Her lack of self-awareness and naiveness when it comes to herself, what to expect from sex (she accepts not climaxing as a fact of life and finds pleasure in other elements of the act), and not understanding her friendship with Jamie show how she is incredibly naive. Taught to believe sex is the only element between men and women in relationships, she rejects Jamie not because she would not be interested in him, but because she enjoys talking to him and being close to him. So close that she should would not want sex to ruin the friendship. It is a naive position of love and relationships to believe that sex is the only part that adds onto a friendship. In portraying this character, however, Elle Fanning is glorious. Having seen all of her 2016 turns (The Neon Demon, Live by Night, and now this film), it is clear she is destined to become a star. She should solidify it with some killer roles in 2017 and I can only dream of what the future holds. As of now, it is incredibly bright as her star is set to explode.

Yet, while I do not necessarily like the addition of the character's futures, it is compelling to view it in conjunction with the lack of understanding possessed by the characters. In watching a the crisis of confidence speech by Jimmy Carter, only Dorothea finds power in the words of the soon-to-depart President. In discussing her future, she discusses how nobody among them knew that Reagan was next. Nobody knew that the Cold War would end. Nobody knew about Y2K. Nobody knew about the internet. It was the year 1979 and, in many ways, it was the calm before the storm of the last 20 years. In the last 20 years of the century, the change ushered into the world left it a dramatically different place and we are still coping with how to live in this world. The characters in 1979 are lost and have no idea how to leads their lives or what people around them are really like and truly want from life. Somehow, in 2017, we are even more confused and disconnected from the world, even if we are more connected to others than ever now. It is here that adding in the futures of the characters makes sense. We get to hear about what awaits them, while their 1979 versions go about happily or unhappily leading their lives, ignorant of what awaits them. It feels like time travel and offers unprecedented insight into the lives of these characters and one that will slowly unfold before their own eyes in the years to come. For all of the characters, however, their futures resemble that of the world. Things are set to really jump start and become some of the most important moments of their lives. Though they are all lost in life, the most important and life defining moments of their lives are awaiting them in the future and set to alter their perception of both the 20th Century and their own existence forever.

While the stylistic elements do not really work at times, Mike Mills does find success in creating a visually arresting film. It is subtly very well shot, in particular the sequence on the beach. With a group of kids walking on the beach at night, the scene is completely black except for the snapping of photos. The flicker of the camera's flash in the complete darkness is gorgeous. It is in these naturalistic shots and those of Santa Barbara's ocean, skyline, and the surrounding area that Mills finds great imagery. Highlighting the beauty and aesthetic of the area and the art of the world, these moments show a great foundation for a visually gorgeous film that really complement the realistic situations and characters.

20th Century Women is a good film. It will take some rewatches to determine how much of a good film I truly believe it to be, however. As laid out in this review, I have issues with the film. It is imperfect, but is there beauty in those perfections? Its portrayal of the mother-son relationship is powerful and truly hits home, especially as it has largely just been my mom and I for my entire life. Thus, the bond and connection between Jamie and Dorothea really hit home. Mills also finds great comedy in his odd characters and the situations they find themselves in throughout the film. Unfortunately, over indulgence in aesthetic and artistic montages of unrelated elements feel as though they distract from the point more than they contribute to reaching the finale. Though presenting well-written characters, it is lacks the dialogue punch needed to make it a truly powerful indie dramedy. Instead, it feels part classic indie dramedy and part artistic exercise in aesthetic and psychedelic 1970s style. The two make for an odd couple and one that is hard to embrace on an initial viewing.

8/10 - Assault on Precinct 13 feels its age and budget. Moments of death and action show the bad acting and the quick cuts to make it seem like bullets are actually flying in the window. Fortunately though, its action and plot are still terrific run and its shortcomings only really add to the charm of John Carpenter's second film. With Carpenter writing, directing, editing, and scoring the film, it is clear that this is a real labor of love. Action packed, thrilling, and decidedly odd, Assault on Precinct 13 is a terrific 1970s action flick that embraces all of Carpenter's trademark cheese and Howard Hawks influence.

The film depicts a Los Angeles street gang kill an ice cream man and a young girl, which is one the most controversial scenes of all-time. Kill dogs and adults, but do not touch kids, I guess. Regardless, this gang is tracked down by the girl's father who shoots one of them and bolts off for the nearest police station. Unfortunately, it is a police station manned by just Lt. Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker) and two secretaries. With the precinct being moved soon and the power and phones set to be shut off, the station is quickly surrounded as the gang picks off anybody that enters. Complicating matters is that a few cops had just dropped off some prisoners in transit because one was sick. With the street gang closing in, cops and others dying left and right, Lt. Bishop must bang together with one of the secretary's and two of the prisoners to defend the precinct.

One of the greatest accomplishments of the film is the bond and equality of the characters. Lt. Ethan Bishop is a black cop who accepts help from felons Napoleon Wilson (Darwin Joston) and Wells (Tony Burton). Leigh (Laurie Zimmer) also helps and proves to be just as capable as the men in defending the precinct from the violent crazies. Together, they all learn what it means to fight to the death and how, no matter who or what they are, they are all human at the core and capable of assisting others. In many ways, it shows how the cops and criminals, blacks and whites, men and women, are not all that different when you remove all the labels and give them nothing but a gun.

Carpenter's films always feel incredibly campy to me and Assault on Precinct 13 is no exception, though its budget has a lot to do with that. With cheesy deaths and a low-budget, Carpenter is truly in his wheelhouse with the campiness factor in this one, even if the plot is relatively grounded. What really adds to the general aesthetic of the film, however, is the terrific score. Composed by Carpenter himself, the score is tremendous and shows his talent in a variety of aspects of filmmaking.

A classic action film, Assault on Precinct 13 earns its status with an action-packed film, solid acting, and classic Carpenter entertainment value. While unpolished, it makes up for it with flair and guts that make the film shine regardless. Its constant theme of equality and togetherness in the face of extreme danger, as well as the mysterious and blood thirsty gang outside make the film both powerful and terrifying in equal measure.



7/10 - Director Michael Cimino's first film in the aftermath of Heaven's Gate, Year of the Dragon feels like a safe landing for Cimino. Touching on familiar topics explored in The Deer Hunter, such as PTSD, the Vietnam War, and a white man in an Asian environment, Year of the Dragon is a solid to good crime film. Captain Stanley White (Mickey Rourke) is tasked with running Chinatown for the NYPD, but is confronted by the Chinese mafia and a lack of support from his own department, for fear of deterring tourists. Year of the Dragon, however, is macho that the dvd itself has chest hair and started bench pressing the dvd during the movie. This movie is often dumb, loud, and action-packed, but always entertains.

With the crime situation in Chinatown spiraling out of control, Stanley White must confront his racist view towards the Chinese and his issues stemming from his time in Vietnam to be successful. Yet, as always, he does it in a macho way. As described by Yvonne Tasker and her theory on masculinity, Stanley is tortured to battle out his anxieties. He is shot, but above all, his marriage suffers and he loses his wife. He is emotionally tortured and his later girlfriend is raped. His masculinity is attacked and confronted throughout the film. Yet, it all stems from his inward aimed anger and inability to fight his problems from Vietnam. Though, as mentioned, he is doing better than a lot of other guys from Vietnam, he still struggles to cope with what he has seen and how it has jaded him. His wife accuses him of being selfish, as does his girlfriend. Yet, both miss the point. He is distracted and lost within his own mind. He goes through the motions quite well, but can never quite put things together and alienates those around him as a result.

Stanley White further resemblances the classic 1980s male action hero described by Tasker because everybody against him. He knows the Chinese mafia exists, but his bosses laugh him off and force him off the case. The Chinese push back, kill those he puts in their way, and attack him. Captain White is all alone and part of that is his own fault, but it is also demanded by his role as a male action hero in the 1980s. As is always the case, men feel alienated from society and that everybody - family, work, and friends - are against them. The 1980s were no different, but it is where this male character was truly forged on the back of Rambo or Die Hard. They are escapist and hyper-masculine films where the man is on his own to fight his way through his problems. Stanley White is this man and is forced to take justice into his own hands if he wants to get anything done around here. He truly embodies Tasker's idea of a man being against the system and he suffers from it tremendously in the film, especially compared to the other action heroes of the 1980s. His tale lacks a happy ending and instead of defeating the system, it beats him down.

This may certainly tie into one area where he differs from Tasker's theory on masculinity. His body is not spectacle. His muscles do not compensate for his helplessness. Mickey Rourke is not ripped, walks around in a fedora, and an overcoat. There are no scenes that highlight is physique. He is simply on his own and forced to trudge his way through the cold. He is helpless and has no idea how to cope or rectify this helplessness. As such, he is lost in the world and forced to fight it out on his own, but it is about as effective as swinging a baseball bat aimlessly around the room trying to kill a fly, all while you are blind. Lost and confused by the world he exists in, Stanley White thoroughly and fully hates himself and has no idea how to stop.

It is this helplessness that permeates Michael Cimino's film. Though action-packed, and it is the action that derails this film even in spite of the great climactic train sequence, the film is essentially a character study. It is a look into the dark and bleak life of this man and how unrewarding his life truly is for himself and those that come into contact with him. Unfortunately, one explosion too many, unnecessary background detail on his wife, overdone scenes in Thailand, and more, leave the film feeling bloated. Even more, it introduces themes of racism and the need to overcome them, but fails to really explore them. It has derogatory terms for Asians littered throughout, half-heartedly chastises characters for using them, and then drops the issue. It feels thematically undercooked, even if I love the Stanley White character's development and writing.

A step out of the dark cloud that was Heaven's Gate, it is a shame that Michael Cimino never really found his footing again in Hollywood. Fortunately, he left behind The Deer Hunter and its thematic brother, Year of the Dragon. While not as good as its older brother, the film is still compelling and character rich with a top-notch turn from Mickey Rourke. Better development of its themes and one less explosion would suit it well.



9/10 - My first Douglas Sirk film and wow, this is what I have been missing out on all these years? Why did nobody tell me? Excuse me while I run out and try to watch his entire filmography in one sitting. This film is glorious and I adored every inch of this stupidly cheesy 1950s America melodrama. Romantic, melodramatic, and gorgeously filmed and alight with colors, All That Heaven Allows is the cinematic definition of 1950s suburban America. Prim, proper, tight knit, and claustrophobic, the film depicts all of the odd personalities of the time, while also creating a glorious romance that is so sweet and sappy, it gave me a cavity. Yet, it is so well-written, so well shot, and so well acted that it is impossible to not get swept up in its gooey sentimental melodramatic greatness.

A classic in every sense of the word, one of my favorite elements of this film is no doubt the color. Everything pops. Ron Kirky (Rock Hudson) is a gardener and loves the trees and the foliage. It is not hard to see why. Compared to the inside of Cary Scott's (Jane Wyman) prim and proper home, the outside world is tremendous. The boring browns and neutral colors of the home clash with the sea of colors and glorious white snow at the end of the film. While also a product of technicolor which had the habit of brightening colors significantly, it does work in the context of the film. The outside world is beautiful and Sirk basks in this with shots of the trees, snow falling, and the simple beauty of nature. The color is radiant and pops, elegantly capturing suburban America and really paints a gorgeous picture. This imagery contributes to the overall feeling of the film and feels oddly romantic in and of itself.

All That Heaven Allows also brilliantly depicts an upper class society at the time and even today. Showing how they look down upon outsiders or "inferior people", the film really makes you feel why this relationship is so taboo. Rich and privileged, Cary needs to date somebody of her own class and age. Not only is Ron younger, but he is a gardener. A gardener! In this city? No thank you. The controversy is immense with Cary's two college aged children revolting against her and crying over their loss of class. However, the most powerful portion of this film is Cary's realization that everybody in this setting is unhappy. Her kids were happy with the lack of change, but set to live their life regardless. The adults, however, were unhappy and focused on things that did not matter. Ron tried to teach her to ignore unimportant issues, but she has been born and raised on caring about status and appearance. Thus, it was tough to overcome her own train of thought and prejudice. However, once she decided to venture outside of her dull existence and enter the world of bursting color and the vibrancy offered by a non-socialite lifestyle, Cary is finally able to embrace happiness and escape the cloud of her husband's death.

The writing of the relationship is tremendous. While melodramatically written and acted, the film is supposed to be that way and it truly succeeds. Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson have terrific chemistry with one another and it is truly a romantic film for the ages with a great couple to match. The film has a magical aura that truly sweeps you up and never lets go until the end, even when the couple is kept apart. The film is the type of cheesy and overwrought romance that is akin to a truly great, but hyped masculine action film. They appeal to vastly different senses, but find brilliance in their overabundance of emotion and playing it straight. While many hate melodramas, I am certainly learning that some overwrought emotion is right up my alley. Even better, a loving romance that is tremendously written, great colors, great cinematography, and terrific acting, are added to the equation here that truly make this a film for the ages.



9/10 - McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a pretty grounded film and is an unflinchingly depressing look at the frontier and the formation of small cities in the West. Depicting John McCabe (Warren Beatty), a legendary man who apparently killed a would-be governor, and the founding of a town he owns, Presbyterian Church, the film is beautifully poetic. With terrific sound, great colors, and a killer story, McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a revisionist Western. Touching on similar themes director Robert Altman's later film - Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull's History Lesson - and using music in a similar fashion to other later works of his such as Nashville, Short Cuts, or A Prairie Home Companion, McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a somber look at reality and a take down of heroism.

John McCabe is a man who founds a town. He starts up a saloon, builds the town with the help of assistants, and buys a couple whores for the boys to enjoy. However, when Constance Miller (Julie Christie) shows up, the town changes for the better. Whip smart and a whore herself, Mrs. Miller joins McCabe in running the town and builds up the fanciest whorehouse for miles. Horny men come from towns over just to get a taste of the whores in Presbyterian Church. In westerns, men are capable, stern, and stolid. They are incapable of feeling and cold, calculated killers. McCabe is not that at all. As a bounty hunter after his head says, McCabe has never killed a man, in spite of the rumors. McCabe defers to Mrs. Miller, in spite of his pride regarding the town and defensiveness regarding his smarts. He may not be a killer, but he wishes to defend his small town from the big business moving in to steal it from him. Mrs. Miller disagrees and wishes to sell. She is smart and wants to get her check and bolt town for greener pastures, but McCabe is sentimental and wishes to stay in the town that he built. It is worth its price in gold because of that sentimental meaning. He is proud of what he has helped to build, even if he is incapable of saying so. He also happens to love Mrs. Miller, but she is a whore and he is a man in a western movie. McCabe could never tell her how he feels, no matter how many times he tries. Unfortunately, he feels love for her and must suffer through his jealousy regarding the men who can pay $5 for her company.

Yet, in spite of his bravery and need to take down these bounty hunters after his life and the town, McCabe is no hero. Altman hates heroes and wishes to expose them as the frauds they are. Thus, while he shows McCabe defend the town, he gets no hero's welcome. He is not welcomed back to town with cheers and celebrations. Not anything like that at all. Instead, the brilliantly choreographed and gorgeously shot cat-and-mouse game with the bounty hunter during a snow storm and with easily a foot of snow on the ground already ends in death. McCabe does not get the mercy of a hero's death either. He gets shot and dies, frozen to death in the snow as the town is distracted by the burning church. Altman then brilliantly cuts to a shot of Mrs. Miller, McCabe's love, in an opium house. How hopeless, how depressing, and how merciless. Altman is a brutal man for this finale and shows his contempt for his characters and the way they operate. In his typical cynical fashion, McCabe is no hero for the town. He saves the town out of his own self-interest and desire to be a hero and get Mrs. Miller. He hates drugs and wishes she were not a whore. So what does Altman do? Well, he deprives McCabe of a hero's welcome, takes away Mrs. Miller via drugs, and leaves her as a whore. No happy endings here.

Shot with gorgeous browns all over the place in the buildings, the environment, and in the costumes, McCabe & Mrs. Miller is a breathtaking film. But, its beauty is deceptive. As mentioned, it is largely hopeless and depressing as a film. It brown warmth tricks the audience into believing this will be an uplifting and homely picture. But, it is anything but. As with all great Altman pictures, it uses music to cue in the audience to the true tone of the film. While the images and McCabe himself may lie and wish it were a warm tale, the somber notes and chords of Leonard Cohen's music accompany this film and thank God for that. They are beautiful songs for one, but also cue the audience into the somber, heart wrenching, and depressing nature of this film.

The film finds some irony in the name of the town. One of the biggest enterprises is whores. Aside from that, we have booze and gambling. During the film, a man dies after fighting another man over his mail-order bride, Ida (Shelley Duvall). During his funeral, the priest asks that the man's suffering from a cracked skull be accepted as atonement for his sins so that he may go to Heaven. The Church burns, the town saves it, but the priest was shot as he was mistaken for McCabe. All of these things occur in a town that is aptly named Presbyterian Church. All in all, it feels like a comment on Christianity. Born a Catholic and educated in Jesuit schools, but evidently non-practicing, Altman knew religion. As anybody religious can tell you, religious people are often incredibly hypocritical. No shame in that, but it is true. Church folks often preach adherence to the word of God and then go commit sins behind closed doors. For this town, they essentially embody a small church community and the hypocrisy that occurs serves as a critique of religious people and their "do as I say, no as I do" attitude towards sins. All in all though, they still expect to look up to God as they die and receive entrance to Heaven, regardless of what they have done.

An unabashed masterpiece, it feels as though with each passing film I watch by Robert Altman, I have a new favorite. This is true yet again with McCabe & Mrs. Miller standing as a truly phenomenal revisionist western and is a film that is truly depressing with somber tones from Leonard Cohen and a gorgeous color palette. Poetic and a take down of heroism and religious double talk, McCabe & Mrs. Miller is yet another brilliant work from Altman.



8/10 - "Money for a cripple?"
"From me? It isn't your day, is it?

Frightfully British, the greatest joke in The Three Musketeers is that it takes place in France. Director Richard Lester captures the period detail perfectly for France and the musketeers, but the comedy and dialogue is so British it hurts. It feels like France and the musketeers via Terry Gilliam and Monty Python at times. Fortunately, this makes the film absolutely terrific. Fulfilling its swashbuckler roots and action needs, but sprinkling in British comedy throughout, The Three Musketeers is fantastic entertainment throughout its entire runtime. With an entertaining cast, The Three Musketeers really hits on all cylinders.

Telling the classic story of d'Artagnan (Michael York) being tasked with saving the Queen of France's cheating ass, this film has got it all. From Raquel Welch and Faye Dunaway jousting with one another to Charlton Heston appearing as a cold and calculating Cardinal, The Three Musketeers is a comic feast. I mean, really, the King of France and another man play chess on a large outdoor board with dogs as the pieces. They tell a man their move and he gets the dog to move to the right spot. Tell me this movie is not wild. Rambunctious and off-the-wall odd, The Three Musketeers is a film that, as previously mentioned, could very well be a Gilliam film. That said, it is not all comedy as there is plenty of swashbuckling to go around. The choreography is hardly comic in tone for the most part (okay, they give up at the end playing it serious), but throughout, the choreography is quite good. The battles are entertaining and really deliver the goods for the entirety of the film. The jousting and swashbuckling together are incredibly engaging.

The film further delivers on his swashbuckling premise with great adventure and peril. Sure, the latter is derived from an adulterous Queen covering up her tryst, but it is peril nonetheless. As d'Artagnan voyages to London and back to Paris again, the film finds great thrills and rushes from the adventure. While decidedly comedic, director Richard Lester does not skimp on making the film thrilling and entertaining from an action perspective.

Originally envisioned as a vehicle for the Beatles, the idea was eventually scrapped and instead it turned out to be a far better film. While a version with the Beatles would have been absurdly funny and odd to watch, getting real actors for a film such as this was probably wise. That said, the British comedy and good choreography make this film an incredibly entertaining time that left me in hysterics repeatedly. A light watch, it is a more modern swashbuckling film, but still includes the sense of adventure and great jousting required of the genre.



5/10 - Once again, Sidney Lumet proves that the greatest mystery is where my opinion will fall regarding his films. Having adored his debut, 12 Angry Men, I continue to expect to love all his classics. Aside from Dog Day Afternoon and, to a certain degree, Serpico, they have ended in bitter disappointment. Network, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, and now Murder on the Orient Express have all left me feeling cold and unsatisfied. It is a shame because I love whodunnits. Fortunately for Lumet, the problems likely lie in the source material and the acting, not so much his own faults. With a nonsensical conclusion and a weak turn from Albert Finney in the demanding lead role, the film simply falls flat for myself, even if there was much intrigue to begin with.

Starting off hot, Sidney Lumet's film introduces us to all of the players on this train. It sets the scene and introduces us to the kidnap and murder of a young girl in America, Daisy Armstrong. From the jump, it has our attention. Who is Daisy? How is she connected to the murder on this train? As famed detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) interrogates everybody on the train, the film truly soars. The mystery behind each character, their supposed background, and the reasons they are on the train are enticing. Everybody seems to be lying or leaving information out, but why? What is their connection to the deceased or what other secrets could they be hiding? Who is guilty? Hercule begins to formulate a plot in his mind and quickly deciphers the killer. But who is it? How could he have done it so quickly? Well, he could not have done it so quickly. Lacking a shred of evidence and simply jumping to conclusions throughout, the film's mystery solving seems convenient. Hercule puts together evidence and discovers the true identity of the man who was murdered with ease. He is able to take fragments of words and easily determine what they are referring to without any other hints to that being the case. While I was still intrigued as to who was responsible for the murder, these conveniences and implausibilities really took me out of the film repeatedly.

The film is also lessened with the performance of Albert Finney. Playing a Belgian detective who is often mistaken for being French due to his accent, Finney cannot do either accent. He just sounds kooky. Far too eccentric and off-the-wall in his performance to truly carry a film of this type, the film really slumps at the end when it is just Finney speaking. As the detective gives his conclusion and goes over his opinion of how things occurred, Finney just cannot do it. I like the guy as an actor as a whole, but his performance here is shockingly sub-par. His rendition of Hercule Poirot is more in line with being a comical supporting character, not the lead character on who's shoulders the entire story rests. Thus, even if the plot had not fallen short, Finney's performance simply lacks the fire, punch, or appropriateness to really make the film work.

That said, aside from the horrible conclusion and bad turn from Finney, the film is very solid. Good costume design and solid direction from Lumet bolster the film and really make it soar at certain points and really builds the tension. Even before the murder occurs, watching this eccentric set of characters be introduced is great fun and then the interrogation sequences are incredibly well shot. It is in the interrogation scenes where performances such as those by Sean Connery, Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud, and Ingrid Bergman, really take hold and are given room to shine. All of them turn in really good performances in small roles and it is a shame that the film is forced to limit their roles because they all really made the most of their screentime. The only portion where Lumet really drops the ball as director is the opening with Daisy Armstrong's kidnapping. The rapid cuts and shots off the newspaper is really off-putting. Haunting sure, but it immediately made me wonder if I had made a mistake in expecting great things from the film.

Ultimately, I have no idea how Albert Finney got an Oscar nomination for this movie. He is a very good actor, but not here. He has a bad accent and may capture the eccentricity of the detective very well, but he is not a good match for a Belgian character. Even then, the eccentricity of the character is off-putting and ill-fitted for the material. Fortunately, the plot is bad anyways with far too many convenient discoveries and conclusions without any backing whatsoever. For the master of mystery stories, Agatha Christie was really on autopilot with this one, eh? Yet, somehow this is her most well-known story. Shame since it has a nonsensical conclusion and murderer that feels far too unrealistic.



7/10 - After Hours is either a ringing endorsement for cocaine or a cautious tale about what cocaine can do to the brain. With director Martin Scorsese channeling David Lynch's surreal approach to storytelling, After Hours tells the story of one man's really weird night as he tries to get home from the SoHo district in New York. Confronting dead girls, burned girls, weird girls, and an angry mob, Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is simply a man who wanted to have sex and got more than he ever bargained for. Truly an odd experience, After Hours is a film that feels so unlike anything else in Scorsese's filmography. While you can still feel his presence (and he has a cameo), it feels so odd to watch unfold. By comparison, The King of Comedy feels like a perfect fit in his filmography, that is how odd this film is to experience.

After Hours is one of those films where once it is watched, you spend the time after the runtime trying to figure out what the hell it was about and whether or not you liked it. One possible reading of this is in regards to castration and the danger women could pose to men. From the psychos he hangs out with to the image of the shark biting off a man's member, After Hours seems to be arguing that men need to be wary of weirdos. But, above all, Paul is the weirdo. Thus, while that seems to be what Wikipedia believes, it is not necessarily one that I believe fits the film. Rather, the shark biting of the man's member in the bathroom is more in line with business and working life. As shrewd business people are often called sharks (Shark Tank), After Hours could be seen as a warning to men and women alike about the threats of being a slave to work. From the encounter in his office where a co-worker expresses his desire to not work there forever, the waitress who hates her two jobs, the mob leader who drives an ice cream truck, and Paul looking up to the heavens and begging for mercy, for he is but a simple word processor, the film is all about work. Everybody hates their dead end jobs and want to quit. Yet, they show up and do the job anyways and float through the day as if they were ghosts. In many ways, After Hours is a surreal black comedy that shows the dangers of working life and how it leaves you susceptible to being attacked out in the world.

Yet, Scorsese's approach to the film feels so odd and so off-the-wall. With threats coming from every angle, Paul Hackett finds friendly faces around the corner, but they consistently turn against him and join the angry mob that accuses him of being a thief. The film just feels so abrasive and antagonistic against both its protagonist and the audience. We constantly feel claustrophobic and trapped in this hellish nightmare right alongside Paul and, as a result, this can be a tough watch at times. It is one where your expectations are consistently subverted with even more absurd happenings around every corner and whether or not they all work, they at least shock you.

Acting-wise, the film is solid. Lacking the true big names of many Scorsese films, Griffin Dunne still holds his own as a leading man in a Scorsese film. He plays the typically straight-laced and entirely frazzled Paul Hackett terrifically and really captures the necessary everyman notes. He is a guy who could be working in any office in America and be nothing but a normal guy. Thus, his response to this weird cast of characters feel entirely genuine and within range for a relatively normal guy who has a very, very bad night.

While After Hours is certainly a screwball black comedy, its comedy comes from the absurdity of what transpires. What transpires is the artists revolting on a man working for the sharks of the world that steal and trample on the little guy. An odd film from Scorsese, After Hours proves that cocaine is one hell of a drug and if you wish to experience this in your life, cocaine can certainly help you replicate Paul Hackett's wild and crazy night. But, if you do not wish to have an angry mob running through New York after you and be trapped in a paper mache statue, maybe lay off the cocaine.



7/10 - MASH is a hard film to really enjoy on a first watch or, really, any watch. I knew what to expect. It was a satirical war film from Robert Altman. It will be character driven with little-to-no plot and it was mock the perception held of soldiers, the medical teams, and a little bit of religion along the way. But, MASH is incredibly abrasive. Its characters are deeply unlikable with how juvenile and sexist they are. They mock the women mercilessly and expose their body just to see them naked and to determine their natural hair color. These are vicious, dangerous men and it is nearly impossible to wring enjoyment out of this dark black comedy film. But, fortunately, there is meat on this film's bones with some typical Altman trademarks to sink your teeth into. I can only imagine how much I would have hated this if this was my first Altman though.

Juxtaposing the brutality of war with the juvenile hijinx of the main cast, the film focuses on Hawkeye Piece (Donald Sutherland), Trapper McIntyre (Elliott Gould), and Duke Forrest (Tom Skerritt), three surgeons with the 4077th MASH in South Korea. Tremendous surgeons, they are also desperately horny and sexist throughout the film. But, the focus is the juxtaposition here. They are wise cracking idiots who perform brutal and bloody surgeries all day, but make jokes even during an operation. They travel to Japan to operate on a Congressman's son, make asses of themselves, complete the surgery with ease, operate on a baby, and then rush off to play golf. They are imbeciles and complete jerks, but they are brilliant men. Altman does a great job to portray this contrast, but it is truly a comment on war itself. No battle is shown here, but Altman expertly uses this pairing to show the brutality of war and the need to joke around to lose sight of the horror of the injuries they witness. They are able to make light of their situation to great effect and distract themselves completely throughout the film. The surgeons may have a horrible job, but these boys never let up and keep plugging along with crude jokes and horsing around the base.

Staunchly anti-hero during this period of his filmography, MASH shows just how much contempt Altman has for people perceived as unquestionable heroes. Soldiers are just another one with frontiersmen and cowboys being his next targets in McCabe & Mrs. Miller and Buffalo Bill and the Indians. Here, he shows the surgeons in the army as being unrepenting jerks. While the banter between the trio is hilarious at times, they are sexist pigs who harass a nurse and reduce women to nothing but their looks and breasts. The men sit around all day and play pranks on others and finish the film by ripping off another MASH unit headed by a General. These guys are complete jerks, through and through. While they meet a better ending - getting to go home - than many other heroes in Altman films, the whole point is to show what asses they guys are. Thus, calling the film itself sexist is to miss the point of MASH. These men are sexist and likely racist, yes. But, Altman wishes to pull the covers back off of soldiers and make people realize that these guys are not all good. Some are great heroes, sure. These surgeons do great work and save many lives. But, men like Major Frank Burns (Robert Duvall) and the trio of protagonists are not deserving of praise beyond their work. They are asses to those they work with and treat nobody else with respect beyond themselves. Honestly, this is simply more of Altman's classic cynicism, but dressed in satire and a taken down of the cult of heroism surrounding soldiers.

As with McCabe & Mrs. Miller, the film also includes some religious critique. Though less overt than in that film, MASH features Walter Burns, a very religious man. While praying, he is mocked by Hawkeye and Duke. In no time at all, Walter shows himself to be a complete jerk by blaming a young boy for killing a patient when there was nothing to be done for the patient. He then follows this up by having sex with Margaret Houlihan (Sally Kellerman) with the duo justifying that it is "God's will" they meet, even if Walter is married. In many ways, this is very similar to McCabe & Mrs. Miller in that Altman highlights the hypocrisy of many Christians. Saying one thing and doing another is prevalent in society, but man deride it in religion since it usually comes with a pompous attitude. Walter Burns is no exception as he believes himself to be a great man, at least better than the non-religious surgeons. However, it becomes clear that he is just as bad as they are, but at least they care to admit it and embrace the fact that they are assholes. Instead, he hides behind the veil of religion and pretends to be a good man. By comparison, Altman treats the Chaplin with great respect. He is shown to be a trusted and kind man who helps to save a suicidal patient. By the end, we see him praying of Hawkeye's car with no snide remarks from Hawkeye. Thus, though Altman wishes to critique hypocritical Christians, it is not an indictment of all the religious. In fact the most anti-Christian scene is when Walter's prayer is mocked, but that goes along with the sexism in the film. Walter, at that point, had not done anything to deserve this treatment and his praying was non-obtrusive. But, Duke and Hawkeye could not help themselves and opted to mock him, showing themselves to be complete jerks. As such, Altman is very fair. Regardless of your religion, there are jerks and hypocrites. Similarly, there are good people regardless of religion. Thus, while he pokes fun at the hypocrisy, he certainly embraces those who embody the values they preach.

A mildly funny satire, MASH is an abrasive film that takes some warming up to really enjoy. That said, it is a pitch black dark comedy, so that is to be expected. A critique of heroism regarding soldiers, a juxtaposition between comedy and war, and an indictment of hypocrisy in religion, MASH is just as cynical as Altman's other works, which is really what makes it so endearing. It is terrific fun to watch a man who is so cynical make a film.

The Doors was my first introduction into The Doors musically. Watching the desert scene with "The End" playing in the background hooked me in and made me sincerely interested into the story of Jim Morrison. After that I couldn't get enough and started listening to everything of their discography. They've since been one of my 3 favorite bands of all time and have been that way for about 12 years?

Val Kilmer's performance is top notch in the film as well. Can't think of anyone else who could pull off that look as well as he did in that film all the way through the many faces of Jim. Even if the script made him look like a much much bigger dick than he was by all accounts.

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by Maxy@Jan 27 2017, 07:04 PM
The Doors was my first introduction into The Doors musically. Watching the desert scene with "The End" playing in the background hooked me in and made me sincerely interested into the story of Jim Morrison. After that I couldn't get enough and started listening to everything of their discography. They've since been one of my 3 favorite bands of all time and have been that way for about 12 years?

Val Kilmer's performance is top notch in the film as well. Can't think of anyone else who could pull off that look as well as he did in that film all the way through the many faces of Jim. Even if the script made him look like a much much bigger dick than he was by all accounts.

Kilmer is brilliant. While I loved the look and feel of the film, he completely stole the show.

Originally posted by Maxy@Jan 27 2017, 04:04 PM
The Doors was my first introduction into The Doors musically. Watching the desert scene with "The End" playing in the background hooked me in and made me sincerely interested into the story of Jim Morrison. After that I couldn't get enough and started listening to everything of their discography. They've since been one of my 3 favorite bands of all time and have been that way for about 12 years?

Val Kilmer's performance is top notch in the film as well. Can't think of anyone else who could pull off that look as well as he did in that film all the way through the many faces of Jim. Even if the script made him look like a much much bigger dick than he was by all accounts.

One of the best parts about Kilmer's work was all the singing he did himself. He really embodied Morrison for the movie and it shows by that stellar performance.

#40 Niclas Wastlund - W - VANCOUVER WHALERS / MINNESOTA MONARCHS


NICLAS WASTLUND | HOF GM (LAP) - 1080 - 800 -178
Name: Niclas Wastlund
Age: 61
Height: 6'7"
Weight: 235 lbs
Number: 77
Birthplace: Hudiksvall, Sweden
Birthday: July 16th
------------------------------------------------------------
EEL Career Statistics
S1 STHLM: GP: 60 || G: 4 || A: 20 || P: 24 || +/-: 13 || PIMS: 112 || H: 133 || SB: 100
------------------------------------------------------------
NWJHL Career Statistics
S7 VAN: GP: 38 || G: 5 || A: 22 || P: 27 || +/-: 18 || PIMS: 22 || H: 63 || SB: 50
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL Career Statistics
S8 MIN: GP: 45 || G: 2 || A: 15 || P: 17 || +/-: 10 || PIMS: 81 || H: 54 || SB: 38 || TA: 23
S9 MIN: GP: 50 || G: 9 || A: 24|| P: 33 || +/-: 17 || PIMS: 95 || H: 116 || SB: 37 || TA: 60
S10 MIN: GP: 50 || G: 25 || A: 33 || P: 58 || +/-: 25 || PIMS: 62 || H: 136 || SB: 44 || TA: 38
S11 MIN: GP: 50 || G: 29 || A: 27 || P: 56 || +/-: 48 || PIMS: 31 || H: 194 || SB: 52 || TA: 41
S12 MIN: GP: 27 || G: 4 || A: 19 || P: 23 || +/-: 2 || PIMS: 31 || H: 60 || SB: 20 || TA: 00
S13 MIN: GP: 50 || G: 7 || A: 33 || P: 40 || +/-: 11 || PIMS: 57 || H: 91 || SB: 67 || TA: 0
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL Playoff Statistics
S8 MIN: GP: 12 || G: 1 || A: 5 || P: 6 || +/-: 2 || PIMS: 18 || H: 7 || SB: 14 || TA: 5
S9 MIN: GP: 7 || G: 1 || A: 1 || P: 2 || +/-: -3 || PIMS: 2 || H: 16 || SB: 6 || TA: 6
S10 MIN: GP: 21 || G: 6 || A: 5 || P: 11 || +/-: 5 || PIMS: 10 || H: 69 || SB: 14 || TA: 22
S11 MIN: GP: 11 || G: 5 || A: 3 || P: 8 || +/-: -8 || PIMS: 8 || H: 46 || SB: 12 || TA: 9
S12 MIN: GP: 15 || G: 1 || A: 13 || P: 14 || +/-: 5 || PIMS: 16 || H: 32 || SB: 9 || TA: NA
S13 MIN: GP: 9 || G: 2 || A: 8 || P: 10 || +/-: 0 || PIMS: 2 || H: 22 || SB: 20 || TA: NA
------------------------------------------------------------
SHL General Manager Record
S15 LAP: W: 20 || L: 24 || OTL: 6 ||  PTS: 46 || RESULT: 6th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S16 LAP: W: 33 || L: 15 || OTL: 2 ||  PTS: 68 || RESULT: 1st WEST  - LOST in 1st Round to EDM
S17 LAP: W: 29 || L: 16 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 63 || RESULT: 2nd WEST - CHALLENGE CUP CHAMPIONS 
S18 LAP: W: 25 || L: 23 || OTL: 2 ||  PTS: 52 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S19 LAP: W: 27 || L: 17 || OTL: 6 ||  PTS: 60 || RESULT: 2nd WEST - LOST in 1st Round to SEA
S20 LAP: W: 26 || L: 15 || OTL: 9 ||  PTS: 61 || RESULT: 3rd WEST - LOST in 1st Round to TEX
S21 LAP: W: 26 || L: 19 || OTL: 7 ||  PTS: 59 || RESULT: 4th WEST - LOST 1st Round to TEX
S22 LAP: W: 33 || L: 13 || OTL: 6 ||  PTS: 72 || RESULT: 2nd WEST - LOST in Challenge Cup Finals to MAN
S23 LAP: W: 30 || L: 18 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 64 || RESULT: 1st WEST - LOST 1st Round to SEA
S24 LAP: W: 31 || L: 12 || OTL: 9 ||  PTS: 71 || RESULT: 1st WEST - LOST in Challenge Cup Finals to HAM
S25 LAP: W: 25 || L: 20 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 55 || RESULT: 6th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S26 LAP: W: 26 || L: 22 || OTL: 2 ||  PTS: 54 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S27 LAP: W: 26 || L: 20 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 56 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S28 LAP: W: 26 || L: 17 || OTL: 7 ||  PTS: 59 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S29 LAP: W: 16 || L: 31 || OTL: 3 ||  PTS: 35 || RESULT: 6th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S30 LAP: W: 22 || L: 25 || OTL: 3 ||  PTS: 47 || RESULT: 6th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S31 LAP: W: 27 || L: 22 || OTL: 1 ||  PTS: 55 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S32 LAP: W: 38 || L: 10 || OTL: 2 ||  PTS: 78 || RESULT: 1st WEST - LOST 1st Round to CAL
S33 LAP: W: 29 || L: 16 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 63 || RESULT: 3rd WEST - LOST 2nd Round to CAL
S34 LAP: W: 30 || L: 12 || OTL: 8 ||  PTS: 68 || RESULT: 1st WEST - LOST 1st Round to TEX
S35 LAP: W: 28 || L: 18 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 60 || RESULT: 3rd WEST - LOST 1st Round to POR
S36 LAP: W: 24 || L: 22 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 52 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S37 LAP: W: 25 || L: 20 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 55 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S38 LAP: W: 20 || L: 26 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 44 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S39 LAP: W: 25 || L: 19 || OTL: 6 ||  PTS: 56 || RESULT: 4th WEST - LOST Challenge Cup Final to MIN
S40 LAP: W: 25 || L: 18 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 57 || RESULT: 5th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S41 LAP: W: 33 || L: 13 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 70 || RESULT: 2nd WEST - LOST Challenge Cup Final to WKP
S42 LAP: W: 28 || L: 22 || OTL: 0 ||  PTS: 56 || RESULT: 4th WEST - LOST 1st Round to EDM
S43 LAP: W: 28 || L: 20 || OTL: 2 ||  PTS: 58 || RESULT: 3rd WEST - LOST 2nd Round to WPG
S44 LAP: W: 30 || L: 16 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 64 || RESULT: 2nd WEST - LOST 1st Round to WPG
S45 LAP: W: 24 || L: 20 || OTL: 6 ||  PTS: 54 || RESULT: 4th WEST - LOST 1st Round to EDM
S46 LAP: W: 25 || L: 20 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 55 || RESULT: 3rd WEST - 2nd in Southwest -
S47 LAP: W: 20 || L: 25 || OTL: 5 ||  PTS: 45 || RESULT: 7th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S48 LAP: W: 20 || L: 29 || OTL: 1 ||  PTS: 41 || RESULT: 8th WEST - MISSED PLAYOFFS
S49 LAP: W: 21 || L: 19 || OTL: 10 ||  PTS: 52 || RESULT: 5th WEST - LOST Wildcard Round to EDM
S50 LAP: W: 26 || L: 23 || OTL: 1 ||  PTS: 53 || RESULT: 5th WEST - LOST Wildcard Round to CAL
S51 LAP: W: 21 || L: 25 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 46 || RESULT: 5th WEST - LOST Western Conference Finals to EDM
S52 LAP: W: 25 || L: 21 || OTL: 4 ||  PTS: 54 || RESULT: 4th WEST -
S53 LAP: W: 00 || L: 00 || OTL: 0 ||  PTS: 00 || RESULT: ??? WEST -
Total Record: W: 991 || L:  743 || OTL: 170  || TOTAL: 1,904
------------------------------------------------------------
Transactions:
Drafted 11th overall by Stockholm in the S1 EEL Draft
Drafted 7th Overall by Vancouver in EEL Supplemental Draft
Drafted 4th Overall by Minnesota in the S8 SHL Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accomplishments:
Named S1 Stampede Team Captain
Season 1 EEL All-Star Selection 
Named S7 Vancouver Alternate Captain
S7 Raymond Lindsay Award Winner (Fan voted League MVP)
Season 7 NWJHL All-Star Selection - 1st Overall in Fantasy Draft
1st Defenseman Taken in the S8 Draft
GM of Team Sweden at the S8 WJC
Team Sweden - Gold Medal Winner S8 WJC
S8 SHL All-Star
S9 SHL All-Star
S10 SHL All-Star - Voted #2 Starting D
S11 SHL All-Star - Voted #1 Starting D
S13 SHL All-Star
S9 Minnesota Chiefs Alternate Captain
S10 Minnesota Chiefs Alternate Captain
S11 Minnesota Chiefs Alternate Captain
S12 Minnesota Chiefs Alternate Captain
Team Sweden - S10 Olympic Team Captain
S10 Challenge Cup Champion - Minnesota Chiefs
S12 Challenge Cup Champion - Minnesota Chiefs
S10 Stevens Trophy Runner-Up
Vancouver Whalers' Top D-Man Trophy named "Niclas Wastlund Trophy"
** Suspended for 25 games in S12.
League Record for Best Plus/Minus in S11 for +48
Hired as Los Angeles Panthers GM - S15
Won Western Conference Title - S16
S17 Challenge Cup Champion - GM LA Panthers
S17 JJ Krever Award Winner (Top GM)
S22 Clarence Campbell Trophy Winner
S23 President's Trophy Award Winner
S24 President's Trophy Award Winner
S32 President's Trophy Award Winner
S32 Lance Uppercut Trophy Award Winner (Top GM)
S32 Joe McKeil Trophy Award Winner (Top Coach)
S34 Joe McKeil Trophy Award Winner (Top Coach)
S42 Joe McKeil Trophy Award Winner (Top Coach)
S43 Game 331 - 4-1 WIN v.s Toronto North Stars - 778th Win - 1st to hit this mark - Most Wins as a GM in SHL History
--------------------------------------------------
Contract:
Signed 3yr/10.5M Contract in S8 with NTC.
Signed 5yr/18M Contract Extension in S10 with NTC
Retired S13
Retired as LA Panthers GM After the S55 Season