Track the Films You Watch (2008) - Page 60

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

1976 is the strongest lineup of best picture nominees in the history of the oscars. And I'd still give it to Rocky.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Le Boucher

I'm struggling to find the best description of this film - Hitchcock-lite, the Chinese food of mysteries, the bubblegum pop of French films, etc.

Basically, it's all style and no substance. It's pleasant enough to watch, and it's not like 'nothing happens', though it would be true that what does happen is so predictable that it's almost a surprise, cause you can't believe that there's not going to be some kind of a twist.

How about 'a foreign-film version of the bare bones of a Hitchcock film turned into elevator muzak for cinephiles'?

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Fall (Blu-Ray) - Like The Cell, this is a film with very striking images, but not terribly original... in fact, it's actually a remake of an obscure Bulgarian film called Yo Ho Ho. In the simplest terms, it's kind of a cross between Baraka and Pan's Labyrinth (or Spirit of the Beehive) and Princess Bride, with a heaping handful of stuff that you've seen in plenty of other movies (sometimes as homage). As a plus, however, this movie doesn't take itself too seriously. But it's an odd balance between the tongue-in-cheek world of the imagination and the more serious goings-on in the real world, and it's a balance that doesn't gel and neither side seems to strike the right tone. I appreciate the effort, but I found it difficult to become very engaged. When the weepy climax came, I was literally rolling my eyes. The images ARE striking (especially in hi-def), but too often calculatedly so, like a series of "money shots". And too much slo-mo. Lee Pace's performance is passable but uninspired. Still, it's a step in the right direction for Tarsem Singh... who also needs to drop the incredibly annoying schtick of crediting himself as simply "Tarsem". Rating: 6

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

11/16/08: BELLE TOUJOURS (Manoel De Oliveira, 2006)

To be honest, despite Portuguese director Oliveira’s considerable reputation (I was privileged to see the still-sprightly centenarian at the 2004 Venice Film Festival: by the way, this is the first among nine of his efforts I’ll be watching to commemorate this rare upcoming occasion), I was skeptical about this sequel to one of Spanish surrealist master Luis Bunuel’s greatest works – BELLE DE JOUR (1967); once I had accepted that premise, however, I was still disappointed that the earlier film’s protagonist, Catherine Deneuve, had refused to participate which – her understandable reluctance to tamper with her signature role notwithstanding – is even more curious given that she had already worked three times with Oliveira since 1995! Now that I’ve watched the film for myself – which is remarkably brief, a mere 68 minutes, for this day and age! – I realize that Severine (played now by Bulle Ogier, who had herself been delightful in Bunuel’s THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE [1972]) isn’t really the main role here, but rather Husson (a returning and still bemused Michel Piccoli, where he seems to have gotten over his perennial feeling of coldness by becoming an alcoholic!); for the record, Piccoli had himself been a regular of Bunuel’s (7 films) and, by this time, also of Oliveira’s (6 films).

Anyway, though the film (unsurprisingly) omits the seamless blurring of dream and reality that made BELLE DE JOUR so fascinating, it works better than a sequel to an undisputed arthouse classic 40 years after the fact has any right to – or I would ever have imagined myself (given my oft-declared admiration for Bunuel’s oeuvre). That said, we do find in here some definite nods to his past achievements – which clearly emerge to be among the most pleasing elements in the entire film: not only the retrieval of the famously mysterious buzzing box displayed by the heroine’s Japanese client in BELLE DE JOUR itself (though one can’t quite fathom how Husson was even aware of it in the first place, this was certainly a nice touch); the sardonic waiters during the ‘climactic’ meal recall their defecting counterparts in THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962; which has, happily, just been officially announced as a 2-Disc Criterion edition for next February!); Severine’s fate can ultimately be seen as a reversal of that experienced by VIRIDIANA (1961), going from lasciviousness to piety rather than the other way around; plus, of course and just as accidentally, the sheer fact that the leading lady of the original has now ‘morphed’ into a different other recalls the duality of the female protagonist of THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE (1977).

There is plenty of interesting character detail and amusing situations besides: Severine’s constant and nervy attempts at avoiding Husson (she still hasn’t forgiven him for spilling the beans on the girl’s “cathartic” vice to her now-deceased husband); Piccoli’s revealing conversations with a young sympathetic barman – played by Oliveira’s own grandson and frequent actor Ricardo Trepa – where, in spite of his obviously advancing age, Husson’s erudite distinction still catches the eye of two lonely prostitutes, regulars of the spot; Husson’s fascination with the gold-tinted statue of a female warrior on horseback in a Parisian square; not to mention, lovely views of Paris (by day and night) which are employed throughout as transitions between scenes. Eventually, the mismatched couple do get to run into each other – though, somewhat perversely, we’re kept in the dark as to their actual initial exchanges; they at least make an appointment for a candle-lit dinner, which is consumed in utter silence…but, then, the two gradually open up. Still, Husson’s evasiveness – giving a cryptic reply to Severine’s query (which has continued to haunt her ever since) about the exact nature of his confession to her husband all those years ago, in order to determine the meaning behind the tears she had noticed on Pierre’s cheeks soon after – so infuriates the woman that she storms out in disgust!


11/16/08: THUNDERBALL (Terence Young, 1965)

To begin with, I hadn’t watched this one in probably 15 years or thereabouts and, so far, I only own the first seven entries in the popular James Bond series on DVD: somehow, I hadn’t gone through it or the YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967) edition back when I first purchased them, so I took the opportunity to do so now on the heels of the newest and, sadly, disappointing 007 adventure – QUORUM OF SULLENNESS…er…QUANTUM OF SOLACE (2008). It’s still considered the most commercially successful outing in the franchise (the one where Bondmania reached its zenith) – and, while perhaps not among the very best of the lot (for reasons I’ll get to later), it’s highly representative of the phenomenally popular series.

Sean Connery’s somewhere near peak form here, the obligatory Bond girls (chief among them Claudine Auger and Luciana Paluzzi) gorgeous – like Olga Kurylenko from QUANTUM, the former’s character is given an extra edge by making the girl ultimately decide to aid Bond in order to exact revenge on her own jealous yet cold-blooded ‘guardian’ – and the villain (Adolfo Celi) appropriately imposing as well as sinister (sporting an eye-patch and keeping sharks in his private pool!); incidentally, it was nice to see again Celi and Paluzzi playing their signature roles after encountering the two Italians in so much native product over the years. While the narrative itself meanders somewhat throughout the hefty 130-minute duration (requiring extensive underwater footage), the plot involving SPECTRE’s appropriation of atom bombs for extortion purposes is both topical (in view of the recent Cuban missile crisis and the ongoing Cold War) and suspenseful.

The action – injected by the now-trademark witty repartee (including an in-joke regarding a pre-stardom Connery film, ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE [1958]) and sexual innuendoes (never more blatant, perhaps, than in the rack-gone-wild incident), which have unaccountably and regrettably gone missing from the latest incarnation of the super-agent – is big and brutal; for anyone who claims Daniel Craig’s ruthless persona was a departure for the series, one need only take another look at Connery’s seminal and iconic tenure in the role (especially the pre-credits fist-fight with a ‘widow’)! As always, Bernard Lee’s belligerent “M” and Lois Maxwell’s bemused Miss Moneypenny make an appearance – though the role of C.I.A. operative Felix Leiter is rather anonymously filled by Rik Van Nutter – as, of course, do Desmond Llewellyn’s gadgets: that said, the most memorable of these (the flying kit) is actually relegated to the prologue! Ditto, for the lush/exotic backdrops: here, we don’t just have the usual resort to casinoes, beaches and boats but a colorful Mardi Gras event and, as I implied earlier, a full-blown and superbly-staged underwater death match between heroes and villains (the film-makers’ peerless prowess in this department was subsequently rewarded with a Best Visual Effects Oscar).

Incidentally, along with “Casino Royale”, this is the one Ian Fleming novel which was owned by other hands (or, in its case, jointly) until some time ago: the former was filmed no less than three times, while THUNDERBALL itself (overseen by co-story author Kevin McClory, with regular producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli maintaining a merely executive position) eventually resurfaced as the jokily-titled NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983) – for which Connery, who had abdicated the role ‘for good’ 12 years earlier, would be persuaded to make a ‘series’ comeback!


11/16/08: A YANK IN THE R.A.F. (Henry King, 1941)

This watchable flagwaver (made prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks) – actually the first of seven films I'll be watching to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Tyrone Power's death – has a cocky American mail flyer itching for action and joining the R.A.F. in England; though his first mission consists in merely spreading anti-Nazi leaflets across Berlin skies, he then hits upon the idea of throwing out the packages outright in order to smash the German searchlights underneath!

While stationed in London, he conveniently runs into dancer-cum-nurse Betty Grable (amusingly drawing her attention by affecting a Cockney accent – conveniently filmed from behind, so that the actor could be dubbed! – soon after his arrival) and, despite the girl’s ‘reluctance’, rekindles their affair from back home. Of course, during the course of the film, she also contrives to perform a couple of brief musical numbers and show off her famous legs a lot. Equally predictable, though, is the romantic complication wherein Power’s British superior (John Sutton) also falls for the heroine, going so far as to propose to her – while amiably pompous/cynical sidekick Reginald Gardiner provides the comedy relief (just as obligatory in films of this era).

Even if the film is nowadays rightly criticized for the unrealistic depiction of war-torn England, the film succeeds well enough at what it set out to do – entertain (via action, drama and laughs), but also instill in home-grown audiences a sense of duty for the war effort in Europe. During aerial sequences, shots of the actors in the studio are skillfully blended via special effects with stock footage of actual battles; still, having Power bloodily shot down at Dunkirk and then making a mockery of his so-called war wounds simply to dupe Grable into submission is a bit much! Director King helmed several of the best vehicles tailored for Fox’s reigning male star of the era but, being essentially lightweight, this isn’t one of them – if still emerging to be “not essential but very enjoyable” (to quote a line spoken by John Sutton in the film in respect to his invitation to walk Grable home) and that’s mainly due to the undeniable Power-Grable chemistry displayed via their comic/romantic banter throughout the film.


11/17/08: I’M GOING HOME (Manoel De Oliveira, 2001)

This is another low-key yet compelling latter-day offering from the indefatigable Portuguese film-maker; given that it deals with a famous but ageing actor (Michel Piccoli once again) who decides to give up his boots, it was probably meant as such by Oliveira himself – though he’s still going strong seven years later, having not only made some half-a-dozen other films in the interim but, at nearly 100, has two more productions already lined up for 2009!

The plot starts off with Piccoli and his theater troupe (including a nice cameo by Catherine Deneuve) performing a Eugene Ionesco play about a mad king (with Piccoli being very funny at playing a doddering and dreamy fool), while later on they also put on Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”. Soon after the initial performance, however, Piccoli learns that his wife, daughter and son-in-law have all been killed in a traffic accident; this is a wonderfully directed sequence as the people who have come to inform Piccoli of the tragic events are forced to wait for the play to finish before intervening and, consequently, are seen pacing nervously backstage as the actors’ voices boom in the distance spouting droll lines concerning the impending death of Piccoli’s own character. As a result of the accident, the elderly actor is left with a young grandson solely in his care; though the two can’t afford to spend a lot of time together – due to the nature of Piccoli’s work and the boy’s own schooling – they display genuine affection for each other.

The repetition of certain scenes – Piccoli watching the child leaving for school or going to a café (this, then, becomes a nice running gag involving another habitual client who likes to sit at the very same table as the protagonist) – may be a nod to Luis Bunuel’s THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962), meant as a reflection on the way one’s life tends to become a series of routine chores. Having mentioned the Spanish surrealist master, as in Oliveira’s later direct homage to him – BELLE TOUJOURS (2006), which I’ve just watched – the film has several bits showing Piccoli just walking around town; these don’t merely serve to give us scenic views of the city, but also to crystallize Piccoli’s bemused character: however, we’re not spared the ugliness either, illustrated by the incident where one night he’s held-up by a junkie and deprived of his beloved newly-purchased yellow shoes (which, in the preceding sequence, ostensibly depicting a conversation between Piccoli and his over-eager agent, had themselves amusingly been the ‘protagonists’)!

The second half of the picture involves the flow of TV and movie work which Piccoli’s agent tries to set up for him: they immediately clash over an action-packed TV series (where the actor’s asked to play a dupe for a much younger woman!), but does accept the proposal of a renowned American film director (John Malkovich, another past alumnus of Oliveira’s) to take a small role in a new rendition of James Joyce’s “Ulysses” – for the record, I own Joseph Strick’s 1967 film adaptation myself but have yet to check it out. Still, their collaboration (Malkovich had initially felt privileged in obtaining the services of such a distinguished actor) isn’t a felicitous one: Piccoli has difficulty in both remembering and fluently delivering the heavy-going English prose, while Malkovich proves an exacting director – insisting on a rigorous fidelity to Joyce’s text. Tired of the whole set-up, Piccoli quits with the soft-spoken yet unequivocal interjection of “Je rentre a` la maison” (I’m going home), and staggers out onto the streets of Paris still ‘in character’ and period costume (baffling passers-by and the patrons at a pub no end); when Piccoli arrives at the house, he even ignores the grandson’s presence in the yard and goes straight up to his room. Had this been Oliveira’s last film, it would have been a wonderful tribute to the actor’s profession and an insightful reflection on old age and approaching death but, as I said before, the ceaseless Portuguese director still had (indeed has) other aces up his sleeve…


11/18/08: MASTERS OF HORROR: INCIDENT ON AND OFF A MOUNTAIN ROAD (TV) (Don Coscarelli, 2005)


The first entry in this popular series isn’t especially remarkable – being too derivative of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974), for one thing – if still quite watchable (largely thanks to a good leading performance by Bree Turner).

A woman driving her car on a mountain road by night is involved in a traffic accident; noticing a figure in the vicinity, she thinks it may be hurt and offers aid – this, however, turns out to be a monstrous-looking homicidal maniac! As she’s pursued deep into the woods by him, the woman thinks back (shown in intermittent flashes) on her troubled relationship with a cynical and patronizing husband fixated on survival tactics. Ironically, this rigorous training at his hands turns out to be very useful to her during the present arduous situation – since the heroine surprises her hulking assailant by demonstrating an ability to defend herself and even lay traps for him (though one actually immobilizes the female driver of the car she had run into, which obviously dooms her!).

However, the woman is still captured and taken to the killer’s underground lair – which is filled with the usual glut of rotting corpses (a number of whom have even been crucified and are proudly displayed in the front entrance). Therein, she also meets another ‘prisoner’ – an old man who, having gone mad in the interim, hinders more than helps the heroine’s attempts to get free of her own shackles! Eventually, she manages to overcome the maniac and coolly executes him; the denouement, however, is something of a mixed bag – coming up with one twist too many (the revelation concerning the ultimate fate of Turner’s husband at least is a nice touch, albeit still ripping off Mario Bava’s superb poliziottesco RABID DOGS [1974]).


11/18/08: PARTY (Manoel De Oliveira, 1996)

This was a disappointment: I had expected something sophisticated along the satirical lines of Jean Renoir’s THE RULES OF THE GAME (1939), given its backdrop of an aristocratic fete. Instead, we’re treated to a pretentious drama – basically a four-parter in which the main characters are named after the respective actors playing them! It’s also set on an island to drive further home the idea of an allegory – but whose point is obscure, with the stream of ambiguous and heavy-going chatter being interrupted only by the occasional lyrical moment (the film, at least, looks good)!

International stars Michel Piccoli and Irene Papas appear as the elderly couple, while lovely Leonor Silveira (a recurring presence throughout the latter phase of Oliveira’s career) is the younger woman and Rogerio Samora her jealous husband. They all try but are defeated by a meandering script – which eventually sees Piccoli expressing his love for Silveira: naturally, this gives rise to arguments…which are brought to an abrupt end by a gust of wind that ruins the younger couple’s garden party. Five years later, things resume at a castle where the two couples are newly gathered: as before, there’s no happy ending in sight for any of the characters – plus nature puts in a disruptive appearance yet again by way of a downpour.

Having to do perhaps with the impossibly advanced age of the director himself, what I’d watched of Oliveira’s recent work prior to this had been imbued with a sense of calm meditation – which, unfortunately, has been replaced here by an unwieldy (and, frankly, tedious) rhetoric!


11/19/08: BREAD (Manoel De Oliveira, 1959)

This ‘celebration of the working people’ documentary short evokes memories of films in this vein made by the great Soviet film-makers some thirty years before. It’s a thorough, strikingly-directed and, hence, absorbing look at the myriad processes which go into the making of ‘our daily bread’ – from the sowing of seeds by farmers to the growth of wheat, its grounding via machinery to produce flour, the mixing with water to form dough and, finally shaped in round masses and baked, is made ready for mass consumption.

While clearly the film’s main concern is the harmonious collaboration between man and machine towards the nourishment of one’s body, the fact that bread is similarly employed (via the consecrated host) to symbolize the sustenance of one’s soul doesn’t entirely escape Oliveira. Incidentally, the version I watched (recorded off late-night Italian TV) runs for a mere 24 minutes – whereas it’s listed as being 51 minutes (itself cut down from an original of 58) on the IMDb!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Encounters at the End of the World (Blu-Ray) - Henry Kaiser's under-the-ice footage served as the inspiration for two Werner Herzog films: the first was The Wild Blue Yonder, which was dull and shabby (the underwater stuff was easily the highlight). I'm happy to report that this one is much better. It's a loose, roaming documentary, similar in that sense to The White Diamond. The rambling nature of it does make it feel unfocused but it also serves as a springboard for a number of interesting tangents. From beautiful, otherworldly images to intriguing characters with amazing stories to philosophical rants, things are kept pretty engaging for the most part. The rogue penguin strutting toward the mountains -- and certain death -- is one of those classic Herzog images. And he's often displayed a sly sense of humor in his films, but some of his comments in this one are actually laugh-out-loud funny. Rating: 8

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

11/19/08: THE LUCK OF THE IRISH (Henry Koster, 1948)

Mildly entertaining romantic comedy with a touch of whimsy, rather too slight to live in the memory – but, nevertheless, worthwhile for Cecil Kellaway’s delightful Oscar-nominated performance as a mischievous leprechaun.

Newspaperman Tyrone Power is on his way to meet gruff boss Lee J. Cobb (with a bicarbonate-of-soda bottle never far from reach!), who harbors political ambitions and wants to appoint the hero as his ‘ghost writer’ – even if their views on the matter are on a different wavelength! Actually, Cobb’s daughter (Jayne Meadows), who’s also Power’s fiancée is the one pulling the strings; the trouble is that, while passing through Ireland, he falls for inn-keeper’s daughter Anne Baxter…not to mention running into ‘cobbler’ Kellaway by a waterfall (although the residents deny the existence of both man and location!).

Back in the States, Power beckons to the will of Cobb (or rather Meadows); he’s even given a plush apartment to live in…but, when calling for a manservant, it’s Kellaway who turns up! Besides, a chance encounter – actually ‘arranged’ by the genial leprechaun – with Baxter (who has come to America for some private family business) relights his interest, obviously reciprocated, in the girl; consequently, he begins to neglect his work in order to be with her. Eventually, though, Cobb is ready to appoint Power as editor of his old newspaper if he’s elected to the Senate himself – a position he politely declines; realizing she’s beaten, Meadows gives him up and Power and Baxter are free to return to carefree Ireland.

In the last scene, Power – now married and living at Baxter’s father’s tavern – is shown following a local custom (which he had himself witnessed the old man perform earlier on) by placing a whisky bottle outside the tavern door…which is then said to be picked up by a leprechaun (and, just as he had done before, the prancing and giggling Kellaway appears soon after to retrieve it).


11/20/08: I’LL NEVER FORGET YOU (Roy Ward Baker, 1951)

I’d been looking forward to this one, in view of its time-travel/reincarnation theme (released as part of a 10-movie set of minor Tyrone Power vehicles, I had opted to acquire it through ulterior sources – though I may still get my hands on some of the other titles). Still, I was surprised by how well this implausible yet fascinating theme is handled here – surely making for one of the star’s most underrated (and unusual) efforts.

Made in Britain, the film was based on John L. Balderston’s romantic fantasy play “Berkeley Square” (the literate adaptation here is by Ranald MacDougall) – already brought to the screen in 1933 under that name (while the original title of this one is actually THE HOUSE IN THE SQUARE); the first version is virtually impossible to see nowadays, though it did land Leslie Howard an Oscar nomination – the ultimate irony, given that the transcendental narrative essentially bestows its protagonist with immortality, is that an untimely demise was in store for the leading man of both cinematic renditions!

Anyway, Power is an American scientist working in England (the initial radiation experiment is intriguing but superfluous and misleading under the circumstances) who lives in a house belonging to an ancestor of his and who conveniently looked just like him. Finding the latter’s diary, he learns that he had been persecuted for his strange beliefs and practices and was eventually locked up in an insane asylum – he becomes convinced that, by some quirk of nature, the two had actually exchanged places and, soon enough, he’s hit by a bolt of lightning and wakes up in 1784!

He meets the family of his forebear including the latter’s future wife (Beatrice Campbell); thanks to letters which had been preserved and that he had read, Power’s initially able to comfortably fill his shoes – however, he then meets and falls for Ann Blyth, Campbell’s sister and of whom he was unaware! Soon, the hero begins to commit other gaffes by which he demonstrates to be perceptive of things that hadn’t yet occurred or, at least, weren’t common knowledge (from the gift of a shawl for Campbell which Blyth hadn’t even unpacked, the secret and subsequently famous portrait of a Duchess – played by Kathleen Byron – by the painter Gainsborough, delivering the lady’s own obituary at a ball, not to mention ‘feeding’ Dr. Johnson with some of his own celebrated epigrams[!], etc). This doesn’t sit at all well with either Campbell (who’s unwilling to keep up her engagement to Power, not least because of his constant attentions for her sister) or the vindictive Raymond Huntley (Blyth’s much older suitor). The hero, finding himself increasingly out-of-touch with the times, retires to a basement in a poor quarter of town to ‘recreate’ future inventions such as the light bulb and the model of a steam-ship; when these are discovered, they’re branded the handiwork of a sorcerer by eminent scientist Felix Aylmer – the place is destroyed there and then, while Power is on his way to perpetual confinement in Bedlam!

Other notable cast members are Dennis Price (playing an amiable rake, as was his fashion during this time – the relentless and rather effeminate pursuit of etiquette by the aristocrats, in fact, is just about the sole blemish on the picture) and Michael Rennie (as Power’s pragmatic scientist associate in the modern-day sequences). Incidentally, the film utilizes moody black-and-white cinematography for these bookends – while soft but attractive color is employed throughout the central ‘fantasy’ section; both are courtesy of Georges Perinal, a top French cameraman resident in Britain for over thirty years. Similarly, Power effectively tackles both facets of his character: the film, ultimately, can be read as both a morality play (the hero’s decision to tempt Fate which, as often happens, subsequently threatens to unbalance the order of the things) and a celebration of that well-worn Surrealist concept – l’ amour fou – in his relationship with a radiant Blyth (herself playing a dual role, the second as Rennie’s sister who had cared for the Power’s even more bewildered ancestor in his unseen tenure in the 20th century).

Given my appreciation for THE HOUSE IN THE SQUARE (the title I’m partial to myself), I’m all the more interested now in one day catching the original version. Finally, this was one of British director Baker (a future horror regular)’s brief four-movie brush with Hollywood – I’d already watched DON’T BOTHER TO KNOCK (1952; which I also own) and INFERNO (1953), but not the minor noir NIGHT WITHOUT SLEEP (1952).

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Slumdog Millionaire *****/*****

My favorite film of the year (so far)! 'Nuff said.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Agreed.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

The Third Secret - Mystery movie time! I need to start annotating my Netflix queue, there's all kinds of stuff in there whose presence baffles me. I've seen a couple of Charles Crichton films, but nothing amazing. I'm not a big fan of any of the actors. I can't remember ever hearing about this movie. So what do we have here? A prominent London therapist is found dead in his home. Although it's ruled a suicide, his teenage daughter enlists one of his patients (Stephen Boyd, playing an American news commentator) to find the killer. It's a solid little mystery with some creepy undertones and a few intense moments, especially the climax. Boyd is a bit stiff (except for one really hammy scene) but Pamela Franklin as the young girl is wonderful. The psychoanalytic elements are handled fairly well, at least not as embarrassing as Spellbound. It's not hard to see the ending a mile off, but it's still pretty gripping, and along the way are a couple of insightful observations about man's struggles with his psyche. Some pretty nice dramatic camerawork as well. Rating: 7


Out of Sight - I knew George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez were in this, but I didn't realize there'd be so many familiar faces. Luis Guzman, Dennis Farina, Michael Keaton, Don Cheadle, Albert Brooks (who I didn't recognize at all until they showed him with hair), Ving Rhames, Steve Zahn, Sam Jackson, Karen Allen, Catherine Keener. It's quite a parade of stars, which I guess is appropriate for a film that's pure Hollywood fantasy. Lightweight fare, but slick and fun. Soderbergh's more experimental projects are more satisfying, but his mainstream stuff is usually enjoyable. J-Lo and Clooney are charming enough, although I wouldn't say they have amazing chemistry together. Rating: 7


WALL-E (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - A few gripes, some nitpicky, some more serious. I hate it when you can tell that the acronym came before the definition. "Waste Allocation Load Lifter: Earth Class"? That's almost as bad as "Knowledge Reigns Supreme - Over Nearly Everyone". And when everything else is so meticulously designed and life-like, why do the people have to look so plastic and stupid? Especially when certain video sequences in the film feature an entirely human Fred Willard. I realize that having real actors co-mingling with CGI creations would probably look even weirder (plus it would be harder for them to make their oh-so-insightful point about humanity getting fat), but it's still jarring, not to mention inconsistent. And this leads to the largest problem: everything with the humans is retarded and annoying. Whenever they're onscreen, I just want to get back to the robots. Because that's where things really shine. This is Pixar's finest attempt at anthropomorphization yet. It's not like they're rats/fish/monsters/bugs/toys who, for all intents and purposes, might as well be people. There is a clear distinction made between the robots and the humans in the movie. The machines exhibit approximations of fear, love, guilt, surprise, amusement and so forth, and there isn't any kind of explanation for that, but at least they do it while still maintaining the qualities that make them machines. It's all done in a way that's very clever, and very cute. While there's nothing here of sufficient depth to qualify as sophisticated adult material (and no, I don't mean sex and/or violence) it's still quite a bit of fun. I'd even welcome a sequel. Just keep the humans out of it. And now, I've got about a billion hours of bonus features to get through. Rating: 9

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

11/21/08: CAPTAIN CAUTION (Richard Wallace, 1940)

This is one of a multitude of films (usually of the swashbuckling-adventure variety) whose title is “Captain” someone or other; its executive producer Hal Roach had himself just directed CAPTAIN FURY (1939) which, like the film under review, I should also be watching projected on a big screen in the near future. In fact, this is my third such venture to a private theater – which appointments are frequently organized by a mutual friend of the owner (a collector of classic films on 16 and 35mm) and mine – after THE SILVER CHALICE (1954) and THE VEILS OF BAGHDAD (1953); for the record, next up should be the similarly seafaring but Technicolored RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS (1953).

Victor Mature’s third film has him in dashing form as the rugged yet peace-loving navigator hero of the title (dubbed so by the heroine herself) who’s forced into action when his on-off fiancee’s captain father is killed in battle by the British Navy during the1812 War. The daughter, who also takes her father’s place on the ship and makes some unwise alliances, is played by Louise Platt – best-known as the child-bearing snob in John Ford’s STAGECOACH (1939) – and, while being fairly decent in the role, she evidently lacks the charisma and magnetism of a Maureen O’Hara (who would later make that kind of part her own).

The film (whose director would later also helm the Douglas Fairbanks Jr. vehicle SINBAD THE SAILOR [1947]) itself, while generally fast-paced and entertaining, is clearly below the standard of the far classier stuff Errol Flynn was concurrently filming at Warner Bros.; still, it strives to rise above these B-movie origins by packing as much action as it possibly can into the trim 85-minutes running-time – including a gladiatorial bout between Mature and a hulking, laughing brute aboard an English ship for the amusement of the aristocrats (actually serving as cover for an escape attempt below deck), and many energetic fistfights between sailors and pirates of opposing nations.

The characters are mostly caricatures – a duplicitous first mate, a stuttering stooge, a mandolin-playing immigrant, a womanizing Frenchman and his shrewish wife, a constantly grumbling old sea-hand, etc. – but the cast is interesting enough (Bruce Cabot, Leo Carillo, Roscoe Ates, Aubrey Mather and even a bearded Alan Ladd as a rabble-rousing prisoner) to keep one watching nonetheless. The condition of the print was (understandably) hardly optimal given the film’s age and status, with the hiss-filled soundtrack and some wobbly images being particular liabilities; however, as long as films of this vintage don’t appear on DVD (though TCM USA does occasionally screen such unassuming but undeniably fun fare), I’ll take any option that’s available to me.


11/22/08: STRANIERO…FATTI IL SEGNO DELLA CROCE! (Demofilo Fidani, 1967)

The directorial debut of Miles Deem…er…Demofilo Fidani is worthy of his reputation as “the Ed Wood of Spaghetti Westerns”: ineptly shot, with no flair for the genre and where scenes just plod along without any sense of pace or timing! Even so, I’d say it’s a slight step up from my previous encounter with his work – SAVAGE GUNS (1971).

Three cast members in the film also made their screen debuts here: Charles Southwood – later star of similar fare like Mario Bava’s ROY COLT AND WINCHESTER JACK (1970) – is a wooden lead, to be sure; the gorgeous Cristina Penz (who’s unfortunately saddled with the broadly characterized role of the duplicitous virgin bride-cum-gang boss’ moll); and Fabio Testi (later a popular star of “Euro-Cult” fare who occasionally dabbled in Arthouse cinema) as one of the villainous henchmen. The mostly anonymous cast is redeemed somewhat by the presence of Ettore Manni as “The Cripple”, a vengeful father after a gang of outlaws who murdered his son, currently hiding behind the persona of the town drunk.

A sequence involving an egg-shooting contest (featuring camera operator Aristide Massaccesi aka Joe D’Amato as a Sicilian cowboy(!), complete with twangy musical motif!) is as silly as it sounds – but the film’s metaphorical use of children in the initial bank robbery mayhem curiously prefigures Sam Peckinpah’s THE WILD BUNCH (1969)! Even so, the bandit’s getaway is accompanied by an upbeat, yodeling theme that is cringe-inducingly inappropriate! However, we’re treated to a couple of anachronistic novelties worthy of James Bond: the hero has a gun hidden inside his water canister, while Manni himself holds an ‘arsenal’ of bullet-shooting crutches! Finally, I’d intended to follow this up with a handful of other more respectable examples within the genre but thought better of it (since my viewing schedule for the rest of the month is all taken up).


11/22/08: NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (Irvin Kershner, 1983)

Much-inferior remake of THUNDERBALL (1965), which was possible due to Kevin McClory’s co-authorship/ownership of the original story. It also spelled Sean Connery’s lackadaisical return to the role he had made his own – while the film-makers here intended to offer competition to the official Bond saga, which had lost its original luster by this time, the result is just as uninspired (indeed, it’s basically indistinguishable from them!).

For one thing, the plot is barely there this time around; Klaus Maria Braundauer is a smooth enough villain, but Max von Sydow in a very brief turn as Blofeld is surprisingly ineffectual. Barbara Carrera looks good to begin with, but her eventual over-the-top antics bring to mind Madeline Kahn from the Mel Brooks parodies more than anything else (she still managed to earn a Golden Globe nod for Best Supporting Actress)! Kim Basinger, however, is no match for Claudine Auger from the original. Interestingly, the race change undergone by the Felix Leiter character (seen in CASINO ROYALE [2006] and, most recently, QUANTUM OF SOLACE [2008]) began here. Edward Fox makes for a rather annoyingly hysterical M, while the lady playing Miss Moneypenny proves hopelessly inadequate – but Alec McCowen is fun as Q. By the way, there’s even the comic interjection of Rowan (Mr. Bean) Atkinson as an incompetent embassy official! Action sequences are reasonably well handled – the shark scenes, in fact, improve on those in THUNDERBALL itself; exchanging the underwater footage for a North African desert, the climax actually recalls that of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967), which followed in quick succession! While the prologue here is quite lame, an interesting variation on the original’s famous jet kit is seen as Bond and Leiter are fired from a submarine in missile-like shells which then tear open to reveal the flying contraption!

Surprisingly, given Michel Legrand’s reputation, the soundtrack is pretty bland – though the title song (obviously a joke directed towards its reluctant star) in itself isn’t too bad. Incidentally, the credits are all quite impressive albeit working below-par: scriptwriter Lorenzo Semple Jr. (equally adept at serious espionage – THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR [1975] – as campy comic-strip fare – the 1960s “Batman” series), production designer Stephen Grimes (collaborator of both John Huston and David Lean), editor Robert Lawrence (SPARTACUS [1960]), Douglas Slocombe (who had recently done RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK [1981], the first “Indiana Jones” adventure) and, of course, director Kershner (ditto the second installment in the “Star Wars” saga, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK [1980]). There are, however, some undeniably cringe-inducing moments: Bond immobilizing a hulking villain by throwing his own urine sample into his face, wearing britches as if he were a hillbilly, riding a bicycle in his underwear, dancing a tango with Basinger and, worst of all, engaging in a silly and interminable computer game with Brandauer!


11/23/08: YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (Lewis Gilbert, 1967)

Solid entry in the James Bond saga – Sean Connery's fifth appearance as the secret agent in a row (his last, in fact, until DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER [1971] and, eventually, the non-series entry NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN [1983]) – featuring a lovely title tune by John Barry and Leslie Bricusse sung by Nancy Sinatra.

The relocation to Japan for the main action (resulting in impeccable photography courtesy of the renowned Freddie Young, who also contributes an inspired aerial shot of our hero at the center of a rooftop chase/struggle) adds much-needed novelty in the exotic department – though characters tend to be less well developed as a consequence. Tetsuro Tamba is imposing enough as his 'sidekick', but the all-important Bond girls have no distinguishing features – save for Karin Dor, a typical femme-fatale-ish villainess who manages to trap Bond in an unpiloted plane. Similar expansiveness was shown in Ken Adam's elaborate design of Ernst Stavro Blofeld's headquarters, hidden within the crater of a Japanese volcano; other attention-grabbing devices include Bond being 'killed' in the prologue (thus explaining the title), while he's later given an Oriental 'countenance' and even made to 'marry' a Japanese girl (an irrelevant undercover attempt, as it happens – since there is very little interaction between Bond, his local allies and the enemy before the final confrontation in the volcano interior)!

Its plot involving the abduction of space shuttles belonging to the U.S. and Russia, in the hope of provoking a war between the major powers, again plays on the fears of nuclear annihilation palpable during the Cold War era. Incidentally, this is the first time Blofeld himself steps in as chief villain (played with appropriate menace by Donald Pleasence – with a handy piranha-filled stream underneath a sliding bridge to replace the pool-sharks from the previous installment, THUNDERBALL [1965]). By the way, Charles Gray (Blofeld in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER) appears in a bit here as Bond's ill-fated contact in Japan! The most prominent gadget invented by Q (the ubiquitous Desmond Llewellyn) in this case is an artillery-equipped mini-chopper – employed in a sequence whose filming unfortunately cost an aerial photographer his leg!; there's also a memorably violent brawl which has Bond and his opponent lashing at each other with heavy living-room couches!

The show, then, is climaxed by one of the most spectacular actions bouts in the entire saga – for which Bond recruits Tamba's ninjas to fight the minions of SPECTRE; Blofeld, of course, is allowed to go free this time around…since he'd be involved in at least three subsequent direct matches with 007. Given that director Gilbert lived up to the challenge of ably following in the footsteps of Terence Young and Guy Hamilton, it was only natural he'd be asked to helm further Bond adventures – though, by the time THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977) and MOONRAKER (1979) came along, Roger Moore had firmly established himself in the role.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Mario, looking forward to your thoughts on Borzage's MOONRISE.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Pete,


I've sent you a PM.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

11/23/08: FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH (Amy Heckerling, 1982)

While not generally into teen comedies, I had decided to check the film out several years ago on Italian TV given its high rating on the Leonard Maltin guide; having attained something of a cult reputation in the interim, and not being quite sure of what I had made of it at the time, I recently rented Universal’s SE DVD.

Adapted by future film-maker Cameron Crowe from his own novel (culled from a year-long research into the subject by apparently enrolling incognito into high school!), the movie also incorporates his love of rock music (as later seen in the autobiographical ALMOST FAMOUS [2000], inspired by his exploits as “Rolling Stone” magazine’s youngest contributor). He brings undeniable insight into the sex-starved lives of teenagers which, with the little it has changed in the intervening years, I guess makes the film just as relevant today as the day it came out; the problem is that the whole has little appeal outside of its intended audience (which, at 32, I can’t really relate to despite not having a family of my own)!

The film is notable for its frank depiction of sexual encounters and its cast of youngsters, many of whom would soon hit the big time – Sean Penn as the constantly-doped surfer, Jennifer Jason Leigh as the virginal student, Phoebe Cates as her luscious and experienced best friend, Judge Reinhold as Leigh’s brother (who has a tough time keeping jobs at various fast-food chains), Forest Whitaker as a football star and, in bit parts, Eric Stoltz and Nicolas Cage (billed Coppola). Among the elders, the most prominent are Ray Walston as the disciplinarian (even vindictive) U.S. history teacher – who’s constantly at loggerheads with Penn – and Vincent Schiavelli as the biology professor. In the long run, however, the final verdict is that there are better movies of its ilk out there: NATIONAL LAMPOON’S ANIMAL HOUSE (1978) is more memorably irreverent and PORKY’S (1981) is bawdier and funnier.


11/24/08: PAST AND PRESENT (Manoel De Oliveira, 1972)

Perhaps the most enjoyable Oliveira film I’ve watched so far also proved to be the most frustrating experience (through no fault of the genial Portuguese director, whom I saw at the 2004 Venice Film Festival): unfortunately, the copy shown on late-night Italian TV was of an atrocious quality – with intermittent picture loss, rampant pixellation and considerable stretches where the dialogue was so low and muffled as to be barely audible (thankfully, the movie was presented in its original language accompanied by Italian subtitles), despite the volume of my TV being practically set at its maximum level! The irony is that this was scheduled again on the very same channel just the other week and, had I known of the poor state of my copy, I’d have tried to record it again…though, of course, I would’ve had no guarantee that they were able get hold of a superior print unless I went through the whole thing over again!

Anyway, having seen it, I’m now able to understand how Oliveira felt so completely at home making that Bunuelian tribute BELLE TOUJOURS (2006); in fact, this has much the same aura of elegant surrealism evident in the Spaniard’s contemporaneous masterpiece THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972), while throughout Oliveira displays an admirably Ophulsian propensity for intricately mobile camerawork. The premise is original and quite delightful: a woman has lost a husband and remarried; she used to despise the former but, now, she realizes how much she actually loved him and, consequently, starts to neglect Spouse No. 2. Also, the first husband had an identical twin brother – so the wife feels closer to him than her current husband; the latter, humiliated by this awkward situation, commits suicide! Then, the sibling of the deceased confesses that he’s actually the man she married and that it was his twin who had died (he just had the inexplicable urge to exchange identities with him!); so, the ex-bride and groom go to court to make their re-union legal…except that, by this time, it dawns on her that Husband No. 2 is the one she truly loves!

Amid all this, their close circle of friends try to make head or tails of the woman’s whims and quirks; further complications, however, arise out of the subplot involving a man who makes passes at two of the women (one’s married, the other happily cohabiting with her divorced ex!). The latter turns him down flat, while his affair with the former proves no less volatile than the leading lady’s roundabout ways; the man, then, deliberately picks a fight with his lover’s husband – who had earlier also exchanged harsh words with the heroine’s cynical second husband. Though lacking perhaps the cheerful mockery that Bunuel managed to bring to this essentially staid environment (even if the Mendelssohn score still lends it undeniable irony), Oliveira’s script is both intelligent and witty – to which his small cast of unknown actors (to me, at least) respond extremely well. These extend to even the minor roles of butler and maid: apart from indulging in their own romantic dalliances from time to time, the butler is visibly annoyed in having to attend to the mansion’s gates after every vehicle that calls at the premises (in fact, apart from a brief flashback and the church finale, we’re virtually stuck on the grounds of this single location). He also witnesses the second husband’s fatal leap from the window as well as the wife’s escape from the very same room (in which she’s been locked by Spouse No. 1 after her passion for his replacement is re-ignited), while the maid has no qualms about spying on her masters’ violent squabbles through a keyhole.

The ironic ending sees all concerned attending the wedding ceremony of a young bride and groom – with the central couple entering the church together but then taking separate seats away from one another because of lack of room; the emphasis placed on the newlyweds’ promises of lifelong devotion obviously ring hollow at this point while, seemingly on a whim, Oliveira decides to end the film on an amusing shot of the church organist (sporting the somewhat clichéd unkempt appearance of the typical musicologist). It should be said here that PAST AND PRESENT is the first entry in the director’s so-called “Tetralogy Of Frustrated Love” along with BENILDE OR THE VIRGIN MOTHER (1975), the five-hour TV serial DOOMED LOVE (1979) – both of which I own and intend to check out presently, as part of my ongoing retrospective honoring Oliveira’s 100th birthday next month – and the as-yet unavailable FRANCISCA (1981).


11/25/08: BENILDE OR THE VIRGIN MOTHER (Manoel De Oliveira, 1975)

This is yet another outstanding effort from Oliveira, which remains sadly inaccessible to most film buffs – despite the director’s considerable reputation among the Arthouse crowd, to say nothing of his current unique standing as the oldest ever active hand in the business! Once again, the reception of the Italian TV channel during transmission wasn’t optimal – though not quite as detrimental as had been the case with PAST AND PRESENT (1972).

It’s a defiantly theatrical experiment akin to Carl Theodor Dreyer’s GERTRUD (1964) (complete with three-act structure) on a distinctly philosophical theme that, afforded a deliberately stylized mise-en-scene, proves a generally mesmerizing experience – if essentially heavy-going and, at 106 minutes, an emotionally draining one in the long run. Consequently, the acting is inherently stolid – bringing to mind the largely non-professional casts in the (similarly spiritual) work of Robert Bresson. As can be surmised from the title, the narrative concerns a teenager who suddenly finds herself inexplicably impregnated (for the record, the contemporaneous A VIRGIN NAMED MARY (1975) – a low-brow but nonetheless interesting Italian comedy – was somewhat similar); her relatives (including a cousin/fiancé) and closest associates (maid, doctor, parish priest) grill her for the truth about the identity of the possible father. The presence of the village idiot (never actually seen, but his creepy wailing is the very first thing we hear on the soundtrack…which, as it happens, also features a rather ominous score) around the house brings them to suspect him – while, to save appearances, the cousin confesses to having taken advantage of the girl while sleepwalking (a condition she suffers from).

However, the heroine claims that this ‘immaculate conception’ is an act of God (she admits to being drawn at night by a blinding light in the woods) – which causes her misanthrope father to doubt the girl’s sanity, especially since her own mother died a lunatic! The first act sees the maid alerting the doctor and priest as to Benilde’s mysterious pregnancy; in the second, the doctor tells the girl’s aunt to have a talk with her – which later also involves her son, the heroine’s intended; finally, the aunt approaches her brother (the girl’s father) where all the various suppositions come to a head (the boy is willing to marry her regardless)…except that Benilde has a fainting spell and eventually informs all that God is calling her to Him!

As I said, the film obviously has a deeply religious tone to it – yet it isn’t overly pious, but rather considers every possible angle and then lets the audience make up its own mind; however, therein perhaps lies its problem. For one thing, we come out of it not really knowing whether Benilde’s visions and subsequent benediction were real or not (i.e. if she was genuinely inspired or else merely deranged). Besides, while the whole ‘miracle’ premise evokes Dreyer’s own ORDET (1955) – not to mention Benilde’s misunderstood personality paralleling that of Joan Of Arc (the subject of a 1928 masterpiece by that same Danish film-maker) – its ending denotes a resignation to the mystery of spiritual life as opposed to an affirmation of religious faith. The child is not even allowed to be born, whereas the outside world remains blissfully unaware of the deed after all – an ‘oversight’ which can even be directed at THE EXORCIST (1973), to which I’d propose the film under review as the perfect anti-dote!


P.S.Having just been impressed by this and PAST AND PRESENT (not forgetting Oliveira’s disarming debut feature ANIKI BOBO` [1942] – a paean to childhood innocence which had actually served as my introduction to his work a few years back), I hope some adventurous company takes it in stride to release the centenarian Portuguese film-maker’s hard-to-see yet vintage and decidedly important legacy on DVD: no time would have been more ideal than the present, but let’s hope this is a situation which is “Never Too Late To Mend”…


11/25/08: MASTERS OF HORROR: HAECKEL’S TALE (John McNaughton, 2006)

Intriguing yet all-too-familiar and, therefore, middling entry in the “Masters Of Horror” series; interestingly, it had first been offered to George A. Romero (who was unavailable) and Roger Corman (who had to decline because of ill-health) – their original option was a natural, since the episode deals with zombies in a period setting. Still, the final choice of director wasn’t an entirely happy one – even if McNaughton was perfectly capable of handling intense gore (HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER [1990]) as well as twisted sex (WILD THINGS [1998]), the intended Gothic atmosphere is largely dissipated through the dreary and utterly flat look which (regrettably) has virtually become the standard in today’s TV and film work!

Anyway, the narrative deals with a young follower of Dr. Victor Frankenstein(!) in the re-animation of corpses – though the first experiment he conducts (before a disbelieving audience) sees his female subject burned to a crisp(!), he’s later advised to seek the help of an itinerant necromancer. Dubbing him a charlatan after he brings a dog back to life, the scientist leaves to attend to his dying father – but, on the way, he’s taken in by an old man who tells him it’s not safe to rest beside a cemetery at night. The latter is married to a much younger girl, who naturally elicits the studious hero’s attentions (of which the husband is fully aware).

That night, the scientist is surprised to see the necromancer visit the couple – after which, the girl exits the house; the young man goes after her against the elder’s pleas not to interfere. It turns out she had been married to another, who has died – but her passion is so strong that the girl has the necromancer resuscitate him to keep their sex life going(!)…for which not only are his buried ‘neighbors’ invited to join in, but the union had even borne her a monster child! Witness to all this, the hero obviously tries to put a stop to it by shooting the necromancer dead…though when the second husband intervenes, he’s attacked and feasted upon by the living dead – while the scientist himself faints.

So far so good (that is to say, not that bad) – but the film is bookended by a sequence depicting the request of a grief-stricken young man to an old woman who’s said to be capable of raising the dead (during which Haeckel’s Tale itself unfolds). However, the ending – involving the wholly unsurprising revelation of the old lady as the girl in the story (though she looks nothing like the petite sexy actress of her younger guise!), who then informs the men in her life (i.e. two husbands, necromancer and scientist), obviously zombified yet conveniently residing inside the house, that dinner is served, all the while bottle-feeding her repulsive baby – is at once unnecessary, heavy-handed and potentially campy!

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

11/22 and 11/23: Bolt (2008) 1/2 out of

Bolt succeeds on a number of levels. Not only is it a very cute animal movie, but it's a great road trip movie and a satire of today's TV and film environment. There are a couple of star voices, but they vanish into their characters so well that I tend to forget who is voicing the part. The main trio of animals are all entertaining to watch. The cat and hamster get the funnier lines, but the emotional beats are shared among the three of them. The movie loses its half star because I find the fiery climax completely implausible.

My second viewing was in the 3D digital format. The experience was merely okay, and it did not rise to the level of Chicken Little or Meet the Robinsons in the 3D arena. It's not a bad way to see it, but it's not worth the price differential this time around.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Fanfan la Tulipe - Fanfan's got all the right moves. Fanfan is never fazed by anything. Fanfan has luck on his side. Fanfan always saves the day. In other words, Fanfan is kind of a dick. The character is meant to be a lovable scamp but I just didn't like him at all. The baudy humor is supposed to be funny simply by virtue of being baudy. The story may appeal to diehard swashbuckler fans, I thought it was all a bit old hat. The third act brings a few delights: a well-choreographed sword fight at the convent, an excitingly shot stagecoach chase, and a climax with Duck Soup-esque lunacy. But it was too little, too late for this dud. Rating: 5


Glass Lips - Also known as The Blood of a Poet, but not as purely Surrealist as Cocteau's film. A non-chronological series of fragments (all entirely without dialogue) from a young man's life, from his father's bizarre punishments to his mother's death to his time in an insane asylum. There are some intriguing moments -- a toy fire engine set ablaze while driving about in circles, a group of art museum patrons spontaneously recreating a pieta on the wall, scenes where Sebastian mimics his parents -- but on the whole it gets bogged down under a barrage of cliché "art film" tropes. Rampant nudity, sexual fetishism, overly obvious metaphors, random acts of vague blasphemy, exaggerated sound effects, assorted strange behavior (using a mental institution as a setting is the laziest way to show people acting weird). One gets the feeling that Majewski has some long-winded bullshit explanation for every scene. I wanted to like it more than I did... the tone reminded me slightly of Roy Andersson (but not as funny), and I find it harder to criticize a film that tries to be different. I certainly didn't hate it, and the visual style is pleasing, but a lot of it was just too ridiculous. Rating: 6


The Roe's Room - I wonder what I heard about Majewski that made me put two of his movies in my Netflix queue. This one is definitely more my speed. Again, big points for originality. Once more there's a father/mother/son dynamic, and again no dialogue... at least not spoken. It's billed as an "autobiographical film opera", even though it's too abstract to be truly autobiographical, it's shot on video, and most of the singing is done off-screen. The characters go about their lives without speaking a word, but the libretto vocalizes their thoughts and narration. As the seasons change, their apartment becomes overrun by nature. Glass Lips reminded me of Andersson (although less so the more I think about it), this one has a Greenaway vibe: very conceptual, very mannered. Sometimes too mannered, especially in the compositions. But the film really looks spectacular, particularly for video. And the music is quite lovely, too. Majewski brings together all his talents as a filmmaker, poet, composer and painter to create something very beautiful and unique. I'll be honest, I probably wouldn't choose to watch this again (it is borderline pretentious, as much as I hate to use that word) but I'm really glad I saw it once, and it gives me incentive to explore his other work. Rating: 9

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Australia (2008)

A girlfriend and I went to see this last night since the "boys" wanted no part of it. This is a big sweeping romantic adventure story with good acting especially from the young aboriginal boy played by Brandon Walters. This was his first role and he was absolutely amazing. I was mesmerized everytime that kid was on the screen and he is reason enough to go see this movie. I read that it's being compared to GWTW, a movie btw that I dislike. I wouldn't go that far, but it does cover some serious subjects like the treatment of the aboriginal people, the relocation of the mixed blood children and Australia's view of minorities,eg. women during that time. I don't pretend to know anything about Australia's history but I can imagine it will ruffle a few feathers. The title in a way is misleading because I was expecting more of a history of the development of the country but I was quite happy with what was on the screen. Though this movie isn't for everyone, I certainly enjoyed it.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Casino (rewatch, Blu-Ray) - The way Universal authored this disc is a fucking nightmare. When you start it up, you have to select your language. You know what, I bought this thing in America. Default to English and give me the option to switch later if I need to. Then you have to sit through a billion warnings and messages and logos. And if you pause the movie and walk away for 5 minutes, you come back to a Universal logo. Pressing play or pause does fuck-all. You have to press the down arrow. The DOWN ARROW, who would have guessed? Jesus Christ. I didn't figure that out the first time so I ejected the disc and then it was back to the language selection and all that bullshit again. Plus, I can't stand these Blu-Rays that don't remember where you were if you accidentally tap the stop button.

Anyway, I still like the movie (and the hi-def image is outstanding), even though it's hard not to think of it as Goodfella's kid brother. Heck, it's impossible. And Casino just doesn't hold up as well. The individual scenes themselves are mostly entertaining or stylistic in some way, but it never seems to add up to much. The film feels more like a series of anecdotes than a cohesive story that illustrates a point or takes you on a journey. Fun to watch, but a little too long, too much of a retread, and somewhat unsatisfying when you're done. Rating: 7


Marathon Man - A decent thriller that builds well. I was most struck by its view of the world as an incredibly hostile, antagonistic, and paranoid place. It felt like a Peckinpah film in that respect (Dustin Hoffman revisiting his Straw Dogs territory). The infamous torture scene is mighty unpleasant. As if everyone doesn't already hate the dentist. However, the plot is pretty farfetched and a lot of it is hard to swallow... no pun intended, if you've seen the ending. And speaking of that, in the DVD extras we learn about Goldman's original ending, which sounds far superior. But Hoffman "wouldn't do" it so instead we got this other thing. Fucking actors. Rating: 7


The Ballad of Narayama - Imamura's not really my cup of tea, but I admit I haven't hated any of his films yet, and most of them have been pretty good. This might be the best yet. I've had a short attention span lately, so I'll try not to fault this movie too much for being hard to get into. But the first half hour is a lot of set-up, it's only after that when things get interesting. The harsh realities of poverty force the residents of a tiny village to concern themselves only with the essentials: food, sex, and death. Frequent shots of wildlife hunting and copulating underscore the situation (not too subtle, but effective). Sumiko Sakamoto is superb as Orin, a 70 year-old woman in good health, but who must go to the mountain to die as per the customs of the region. The film's final, nearly wordless act is quite gripping. The musical score, however, is dated and not that good. Rating: 8


Du côté de la côte - Agnes Varda's New Wave tribute to the French Riviera and its tourist trade is lively and fresh, full of bright colors and playful compositions. Slight, but amusing. Rating: 8


Le Bonheur - Astonishing. Varda presents an idyllic world, bursting with brilliant colors (scenes fade in and out in different hues, though I don't think there is any particular "code" to the colors) and lovely strains of Mozart and absolutely happiness and contentment for everyone. There is no conflict in this movie. But it raises a host of conflicts in the viewer, resulting in one of the most provocative and subversive films I've ever seen. Varda never tips her hand, never lets you know how she feels about what the characters are doing, or how you should feel. There is only an occasional uneasiness in the editing and a growing sense of dread in the observer. My favorite Varda so far. Rating: 9


L'Opéra mouffe - In this short, Varda take some candid street scenes, mixes in a few staged scenes, and organizes the images to a selection of brief Kurt Weill-influenced songs. It's less interesting than it sounds. The best part is right in the beginning, where we see Varda's own very pregnant bare stomach and then cut to a giant pumpkin being sliced open. The rest of it is rather unengaging, and feels kind of like something Maya Deren might do if she didn't have a huge stick up her ass. Rating: 6


La Pointe-courte - Varda's first film, from 1954, may well be the first French New Wave film. Besides the striking cinematography, the movie has an unusual dual nature. On one hand, there's a man who has returned to the fishing community where he grew up. His wife, who has never been there, meets up with him a few days later. On the other hand, there's everything else going on in the town. The fishermen going about their work and trying to avoid the health inspectors, a young couple seeking the approval of the girl's father, too many cats prowling about, a riverfront festival. All that stuff is marvelous and interesting and real. The married couple, however, is a drag. "They talk too much to be happy", proclaims their sister-in-law, and I agree. The two are constantly dissecting their relationship in detached, abstract tones. It reminds me of the worst of Resnais (who served as an editor on this film). Whenever they came on screen, I started to tune out and just admire the slick camerawork. Towards the end, their story becomes more engaging as it gets resolved, but all the talk talk talk about the nature of their love for each other is pretty tedious. Fortunately, you never have to endure it for that long before the movie returns to the other stories in the village. Rating: 7

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

Fireworks - A masochistic fantasy/dream/nightmare. This is my first experience with Kenneth Anger, and I have to say I'm a little underwhelmed, especially as this seems to be one of his most renowned works. Rather typical experimental film, with a few intriguing ideas but it's almost as if they happened by accident. I can appreciate that it was surely quite radical for its time (both in style and content) but it didn't do much for me. Rating: 6


Puce Moment - There's not much to this (it's only 6 minutes long, a fragment of an unfinished film), but I actually liked this a lot more. It had an air of true mystery to it, it didn't just feel like a student exercise. The colors were unusually bold and the silent-movie frame rate effect was effective. I especially enjoyed the music, a couple of odd folk-rock tunes by someone named Jonathan Halper. I thought it sounded 20 years ahead of its time... until I discovered that although the film was made in 1949, the songs weren't added until 1966. Oh well, they're still neat songs. Rating: 7


Rabbit's Moon - Fireworks was what I was afraid Anger would be like, but this is an unexpected surprise. A very lovely and poignant commedia del'arte, done in beautiful blue tinge and accompanied by appropriate doo-wop songs. The repeated triple zoom-cut of the moon was really enchanting. Its influence resonates in the work of Lynch and Maddin (and is perhaps itself more than a little influenced by Cocteau). Rating: 8


Eaux d'artifice - Another blue-tinted film, and although the water photography is very nice, overall I found this one pretty dull and pointless. Rating: 6


The Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome - Well, this is just silly. It looks like a bunch of friends playing dress-up (which is pretty much exactly what it is) with a bunch of mythological and occult gibberish tossed in for the heck of it. C'mon... Aleister Crowley? What are we, 19 years old? The colors are incredible and I'm sure it's innovative filmmaking, but it's too annoying and ridiculous for 38 minutes. Recommended only for people who take Current 93 seriously. Rating: 5

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

I think it's often just lazy writing when toilet humor tries to compensate for everything else. The first half of this film I found to be tedious with all that back and forth stuff, but it got more interesting later when we learn more about the characters and their true feelings for each other.

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

November Recap

Ratings range from BOMB to ****

Bolded titles are first viewings.

The Art of Travel **
The Band's Visit ***
Battle of the Bone *
Brain Dead (2007) **
The Counterfeiters ***
Dead Set ***
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed BOMB!
High Noon ****
The Inner Life of Martin Frost ***
Mad Detective ***
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World ***
Mon Oncle Antoine ***
Moontide ***
Moscow Zero *
Night of the Living Jews **
Onechanbara **
Scream Farm **
Short Order **
White Heat ****
Working Stiffs ***
Z! *



Total films viewed: 21

First viewings: 17

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

November Recap

26 films seen, 23 for the first time

Best films seen for the first time (out of )

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 1/2
Number Seventeen
The Beyond
Shuttered Room
Halloween 4
Body Heat
Reincarnation

Re: Track the Films You Watch (2008)

November Re-cap

Total movies watched in Nov - 33

Movies watched for the 1st. time - 20

Favourite movie watched - Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Notable New Movies Watched - The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse; Invisible Stripes and Australia


11/1 The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (1938)
11/1 Arctic Tale (2007)
11/1 2001 A Space Odyssey (1968)
11/3 Batman Begins (2005)
11/4 Service with the Colours (short) (1940)
11/4 Snatch (2000)
11/4 The Day the World Ended (2001)
11/5 Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)
11/6 Aliens (1986)
11/6 Rails & Ties (2007)
11/7 Quiet, Please (short) (1939)
11/7 Mr. & Mrs. Jesse Crawford at Home (short) (1939)
11/7 Blood Diamond (2006)
11/7 Planet of the Apes (1968)
11/8 Eragon (2006)
11/8 Invitation (1952)
11/9 Sunset Boulevard (1950)
11/9 The Monroe Doctrine (short)
11/10 The Rock (1996)
11/10 Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
11/11 Bridges Over the Toko-Ri (1954)
11/11 Invisible Stripes (1939)
11/11 Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)
11/13 The Gauntlet (1977)
11/13 27 Dresses (2008)
11/14 The Hunt for Red October (1990)
11/14 City for Conquest (1940)
11/24 Stargate (1994)
11/26 Australia (2008)
11/27 Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)
11/28 Shadowboxer (2005)
11/30 The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep (2007)
11/30 Casino Royale (2006)