Wendy's Films of 2010 # 166 - #176: A Rush to Finish 2010's Reviews! - The End!

#166. The Shop Around the Corner (1940)

Not as much of a Christmas movie as I'd hoped, but I loves me some James Stewart and this was no disappointment.

#167. American Pop (1981)

Neat animated film chronicling the history of pop music throughout the 20th century by following the descendants of one immigrant boy. There's one portion of the film (or one character, I should say) that's hard to like, but such is life.

#168. Terror of Mechagodzilla (1975)

A 70s movie from Japan where an alien race attempts to destroy earth with their Mechagodzilla, Godzilla comes to the rescue! Unfortunately a bad scientist has created Titanosaurus and uses him against Godzilla. It's pretty much exactly the way it sounds!

#170. Network (1976)

Was pleasantly surprised by this one; an intriguing drama about a television network: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm going to take this anymore!"

#171. Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

I grew up with the 1994 remake of this classic, and boy am I glad I finally saw the original.

#172. TRON: Legacy (2010)

I don't suppose we'll be getting this one in now, but hey! Why not add it to the reviews? I found it provided a good source of entertainment, perhaps a wee bit long though.

#173. Black Swan (2010)

As a wise man named Posen told me today, his three questions of the week are: "How was your Christmas?" "What are you up to for New Years?" and.. "Have you seen Black Swan?!?" I

thought it was the best film of the year, though I haven't seen every one, but it seems to be a wide-spread consensus among those I know.

#174. Chinatown (1974)

Second Faye Dunaway film I watched this week and both were excellent! Jack Nicholson was so good back in the day, I wish he and Robert De Niro would come back to life.

#175. Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey (1991)

I loved Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure growing up, so it was only a matter of time before I had to check this one out. It started off really strangely, but I ended up laughing a fair amount. Also, it references this next movie!

#176. The Seventh Seal (1957)

It almost seems fitting that the last film I saw this year would be this one, especially since GenX will soon be closing. It wasn't done on purpose, I just didn't have the time to watch Throne of Blood before tomorrow night. As such, my last film would be a seemingly bleak one, but one that has hope and a sparkle in its eye. What a wonderful way to end the year.

Wendy's Films of 2010 # 135 - #165: A Rush to Finish 2010's Reviews! - Part 2

#135. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

A really good adaptation of the graphic novel series, and also by one of my favourite directors Edgar Wright. I loved it, but Hot Fuzz is still my favourite.

#136. Knight and Day (2010)

Not a completely awful film, but I probably wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they were looking

for a completely stereotypical romantic comedy.

#137. I'm Not There (2007)

Really good. I love it when people take a different turn on bio films (like getting six different actors to play Bob Dylan.) Cate Blanchett was definitely my favourite.

#138. Inception (2010)

I saw this at the BFI Imax in London, England! Haha, alright, bragging done. I liked it quite a lot, but not as much as everyone else seemed to.

#139. The Runaways (2010)

All I wanted was to see a film in Cannes, but the only one I could find was in this dingy old theatre showing a movie already out on DVD in Canada. Wasn't bad, I surprisingly liked Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart in it!

#140. The Warriors (1979)

A classic in its own way, but it just didn't quite hit the spot.

#141. MacGruber (2010)

Some great comedic moments, but I don't know if I'd watch it again.

#142 & #145. Sugata Sanshiro (1943) & Sugata Sanshiro: Part 2 (1945)

The first films of Akira Kurosawa (one of my favourite directors) and though it may not be my favourite, it definitely made a good impression. It's about a man who must learn to encompass the attributes of judo not only in practice, but in life. The second film is quite as good as the first, I'd say.

#143. Dracula (1931)

Starring Bela Lugosi as Dracula, this film reeks of being a classic: reeks in a good way, that is.

#144. Repulsion (1965)

Wow, what a good film. It got under my skin and I couldn't shake it off for hours (even days). Catherine Deneuve is stunning.

#146-148. Back to the Future (1985), Back to the Future 2 (1989), Back to the Future 3 (1990)

What a great series. I can't believe I'd never seen them before. I think I liked the first and third ones the most, but they're all pretty awesome.

#149. Zombieland (2009)

A fun zombie themed comedy, good for a laugh.

#150. Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Really good: not recommended for pregnant women. Between this and Repulsion (both part of Polanski's apartment trilogy,) I prefer Repulsion

(and I found it creepier).

#151. Death Kappa (2010)

Pretty much just another Japanese monster film, but one I enjoyed and would recommend to lovers of the Japanese monster film genre.

#152. The Old Grey Whistle Test (1971-1987)

This DVD was a sampling of famous acts that aired on the show throughout its history, really quite a good collection of musicians (John Lennon, Bruce Spingsteen, Tom Waits) and something interesting to listen to if you've got an hour or two to spare.

#153. Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)

An older Elvis who wakes up from a coma in a nursing home and must attempt to save the other patrons from a mummy who attacks them nightly. Makes for an interesting concept, no? I didn't go crazy for it, but thought it was neat.

#154. Micmacs (2009)

A great new film by one of my favourite directors Jean-Pierre Jeunet; it has his quirky humour, unique visual style and fun atmosphere.

#155. Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)

A kind of terrible film, but sort of good in a terrible way. It's pretty much what you'd imagine.

#156. Trick 'r Treat (2007)

A great film to watch on Halloween, though not too scary (which is great for me!)

#157 & #158. Samurai I (1954) & Samurai II (1955)

The first it a pretty good samurai film, but the second made my lose interest and I never ended up watching the third.

#159. Look Around You: Season 1 (2002)

I loved the concept for this series. It's basically all those old science videos you used to watch in school, but completely nonsensical and awesome.

#160. Barton Fink (1991)

Please don't go into this movie thinking it's going to be funny. It's really really good, but it's not really funny.

#161. King Kong (1933)

This really is a classic. I'm really glad I finally got to see it and enjoyed it more than I anticipated!

#162. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

I'd go so far as to say this is my favourite in the series. It just has way better pacing and the story gets a chance to breathe.

#163. Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

I won't lie, I really liked this

movie. The Borg are frightening (I've always found the concept of AI or human/robots to be fear-enducing) and all the usual cast do their part well.

#164. Howl (2010)

An interesting take on the work and life of Allen Ginsberg. It grew on me, I liked the animation, but probably won't watch it again.

#165. Freakazoid: Season 1 (1995-1996)

Just a good old Saturday morning cartoon; I'd forgotten how much I liked this as a kid (the few episodes I'd seen anyway) and I love how self-referential it is!

Wendy's Films of 2010 # 111 - #134: A Rush to Finish 2010's Reviews!

What with the store closing and all, I decided to take a slightly unconventional turn in an attempt to finish reviewing every new film (new to me, that is) I watched this year. I knew I wouldn't make it writing longer reviews since I have over 60 movies left on the list, but thought that this might at least be fun to read even if it wasn't very descriptive.

#111. True Blood: Season 2 (2009)

My guilty pleasure. Sexy, southern and full of bloodlust; it's like eating a dark, rich dangerously delicious chocolate cake that I just can't get enough of.

#112. Snake in the Eagle's Shadow (1978)

Jackie Chan a school janitor? You bet, but as expected he's soon to become a kick-ass martial artist! Good, but not the best Chan movie I've seen.

#113. Batman: The Movie (1966)

"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb." Cheesy, corny, wonderful 1960s fun: "It looks bad, batman. This brassy bird has us buffaloed."

#114. Lifeforce (1985)

A crazy sci-fi, vampire, zombie movie that's bound to blow your mind with it's absurdity, badness and greatness.

#115. Princess Mononoke (1997)

Probably my favourite Hayao Miyazaki film so far. The music, the animation, the colours, and especially the story: everything just blew me away.

#116. Subway (1985)

A neat film directed by Luc Besson and starring a french-speaking Christopher Lambert who roams the subways of Paris while blackmailing the woman he's infatuated with. It's very 80s and kind of strange, but awesome.

#117. Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (2009)

Really? You need a review? Nah.

#118. Delicatessen (1991)

Colourful, classic Jean-Pierre Jeunet full of funny, sweet, dark and strange moments that are sure to please (if you're like me, that is.)

#119. Super Mario Bros. (1993)

I have no idea how they came up with the ideas they used in this film, but it's pretty fucking crazy and I kinda liked it.

#120. The Ladykillers (2004)

I really enjoyed this one, though that trend is pretty common with

me and the Coens. I'm still not totally sold on Tom Hanks, but hey, he's not so bad.

#121. Twilight: Eclipse (2010)

Unfortunately, it was better than the first.

#122. The Awful Truth (1937)

I love my Cary Grant romances and this is another classic. Perhaps not as wonderful as some of his others, but it seems he really can't go wrong.

#123. Project A-2 (1987)

"But I'm not cooking! So it stays open!" Apparently I thought this Jackie Chan line was so terribly funny that it deserved to be quoted, but I can't for the life of me remember why. I can't even remember what the movie's about. I think he plays a straight cop in a crooked area of town or something...

#124. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Crazy disgusting slimy ear bugs. Also, it's quite awesome.

#125. The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

Colourful, nonsensical, neat to watch and Heath Ledger's last film.

#126. Objectified (2009)

Ooo, this documentary was way more boring than I thought it would be. I fell asleep.

#127. Porco Rosso (1992)

Wonderfully detailed, beautifully animated Miyazaki film about a mysterious swine-resembling pilot that takes a begrudging liking to a young girl and the antics that ensue.

#128. An American in Paris (1951)

Charming in a 1950s musical kind of way. Not my favourite old musical, but it'll do.

#129. The Beaches of Agnès (2008)

A lovely film by Agnes Varda about the life she lead, the man she loved and the beautiful films she made.

#130. Freaks and Geeks (1999-2000)

Probably my favourite series of the year (either that or Skins). It's a great, funny, interesting show about high school in the early 80s and I just can't get its lead, Linda Cardellini, out of my head. (Also starring James Franco, Seth Rogan, Jason Segal and directed by Judd Apatow. I know, right?)

#131. The Jerk (1979)

A charming idiot (Steve Martin) somehow ends up alright after leaving his family

#132. Against All Flags (1952)

Errol Flynn. Pirates.

#133. Super Fly (1972)

Pretty good blaxploitation film about a man who wants out of the cocaine dealing business: "Can you dig it?"

#134. Undeclared (2001-2002)

Sort of a continuation of Freaks and Geeks, directed by Apatow, but starring a completely different cast and taking place a few decades later. Also, not quite as good.

Ryan Watches A Motion Picture #83: The Creature From The Black Lagoon (1954)

Still insatiable
hungry for monster movies
I watch Black Lagoon

There are embarrassingly huge gaps in my cinema history, and The Creature From The Black Lagoon has been on my 'to watch' list for years and on my mind for the past few months. Finally saw it, and was surprised by how much I liked it. Great atmosphere, great monster, and an environmental subtext I hadn't been expecting. There's a shot where the leading lady tosses an unwanted cigarette into the creature's lagoon, and the camera moves below the surface to the face of the creature, who watches silently. Thanks to how it's shot the cigarette becomes invasive, and, more importantly, insulting. This is some of the earliest environmental awareness I've seen in a Hollywood film, sci-fi fear of toxic waste and nuclear war aside. There's a scene where poison is dumped into the lagoon to force the creature out of hiding, and the comatose fish that litter the water's surface highlights the disregard for the natural world that the scientists, behaving more like hunters, are exhibiting.

The creature itself looks awesome, and the amount of understanding and sympathy we find in him makes for great monster cinema.

So: A thoroughly satisfying classic.

Ryan Watches A Motion Picture #78: The Mummy's Hand (1940)

Continuing my march into monster movie mania, The Mummy's Hand!

A lot of light comedy and not as much hammy horror as I had hoped. You do get a bit of it though - the sort where there's a slow-moving monster creeping closer and closer to a half-asleep love interest and EEEEEEEEK other love interest bursts in and BLAM BLAM but too late! Her dad is maybe dead but no he's just knocked out cold and she's gone! Oh noes! If only it had more of that and the lurchy dusty mummy responsible for the whole mess it might have been worth sitting through. We've seen the mummy before, we don't really need him saved up for a big reveal or final act. Turn it loose. Let the new Egyptian empire begin its ancient reign of terror anew! Bricka bracka firecracka' siss boom bah! Go Mummy Go, Amun-Ra-Ra-Ra!

Instead you'll have some dull character set-up that ends up accomplishing little by the time the curse hits home. A good chunk of the movie is spent on a magician character's various parlour tricks, or rather, the edits that make them work. A buffoony support character practices one of tricks throughout the first half of the movie so he could, I thought, use it at an opportune moment and save the day later. Turns out it was just filler. Like the stock footage they used from the first movie with Boris Karloff edited out.

So: Not terribly worth it.

Ryan Watches A Motion Picture #77: Frankenstein (1931)

So much is different from the original story that comparing the two is a pretty good waste of time. This film exists as its own entity and really has a life of its own. Of the classic monster movies I've seen to date on my Hallowe'en trek, this one is by far the best. I daresay it's a masterpiece. At its heart it contains a 'who is really the monster' dynamic that has since become awfully trite, but in its original form still potent.

As if the hints of German Expressionism wasn't enough to catch my interest, much of the acting is actually pretty good, which, given the other classic Universal horror films I've watched, was a total surprise. Boris Karloff is fantastic as the monster, and it's easy to see how, I think after this film, he became a household name. His monster is incredibly sympathetic. After a sheltered and grim life filled with torture, the monster frees himself and escapes into the woods. There's an amazing scene where he finds a little girl. The little girl hands him a flower, and they sit down by a pond. She shows him how you can throw a flower into the water and watch it float gently along. The monster is so overjoyed to find something kind and delicate and beautiful in the world that it is genuinely tear-pulling when something goes wrong. He gets up, trying his best at laughter, and throws the little girl into the water because she's like a flower too. She drowns, and it's genuinely disturbing to see the monster's panicked reaction when he doesn't understand what's happened. I hadn't felt that stirred by a movie in a long time. I was really bothered by the moment.

Made before the motion picture code was actively enforced, you get some cinema that's not afraid to upset you. While the edges will sometimes show, the violence is shocking when it wants to be, and I found myself continuously surprised by what the film was prepared to do. The film bubbles with potential violence, and by the time the mob lights their torches, the loss of control that you didn't realise was creeping into your brain reaches its apex. People shout through the streets, dogs yelp, women and children cower on the sidelines, and the beast has been loosed on the monster. It was a torch that was initially used to torture the monster, and it's unsettlingly fitting that an army of them tries to flush him out of hiding, trap him, and set him ablaze. Karloff's thrashing screams while the flames rise about him will stick with me for awhile.

Also surprising, I'm noticing that the female characters in these early monster movies aren't as helpless as I expect them to be, and I wonder if that had anything to do with the code as well. They're not neutered characters, and rigid gender roles don't seem to have been installed as safety mechanisms yet. The women in these films are just as sensible as the men, and they aren't afraid to speak their mind. In the years to come, that wouldn't be the case for quite a while. Hell, it's mostly not the case in films today.

Despite all of the injustice in the film, it's hard to really hate anyone in it save for an annoying comic relief character I'll just ignore. The monster is understandable, Dr. Frankenstein is understandable, the angry torch-wielding village folk are understandable, and even the abusive Fritz is understandable. He's a deformed hunchback that Dr. Frankenstein treated like shit. Of course he was going to whip the monster and burn him when Frankenstein wasn't looking. Nobody's really to blame in this film, which makes it so remarkable. It ends off remarkably too, with an an ironic ending that presses home the severe tragedy at the centre of the film.

So: Fantastic. I expected an iconic cheese-fest and got a dramatic masterpiece that probably made it to my list of favourite films.

Ryan Watches A Motion Picture #76: The Mummy (1932)

Still going on my Hallowe'en kick and finally getting around to seeing the great monster classics of film history. I had decided a few weeks back that I was going to go for a classic costume this year, and I settled on the one that (I won't call the Invisible Man a monster, he was just a big jerk) is probably talked about the least: the Mummy!

You're probably familiar with the Brendan Fraser Mummy from 1999. I'll pause to shudder for a sec. It lifted some elements from the original Mummy, namely the fact that there's a guy named Imhotep that fell in love with the Pharaoh's daughter. She died. Then his love drove him to seek out forbidden rituals and raise her from the dead, but he was caught, and soon sentenced to be buried alive and partially mummified. A terrible curse was laid down upon his tomb.

Made a year after the success of Dracula and featuring much of the same cast and crew, The Mummy doesn't possess the same magic but manages to be a pretty cool flick for a number of reasons. I guess I'll tell you what those might be, since this is a review and I only get fed my fish heads if I write a review. I also might get my beloved red bouncy ball back.

For starters, I saw this film before I watched the historic Frankenstein, and this was my first run in with the real Boris Karloff. I find that I love Boris Karloff. He's starring as Imhotep, and his rigid creepiness, sullen voice, and gaunt face have all been parodied so often that I felt immediately familiar with him. It was a treat to finally see the icon at work.

Secondly, like with Dracula, I was surprised to find an interesting female character, this time one both alluring, evasively clever, and amazingly unafraid to refer, just once, to sex. She's played by Broadway actress Zita Johann, who was actually seriously interested in the spiritualism of the occult and took her role perhaps a little too seriously. There's a famous scene in the movie where she dies in a past life. She reportedly fainted for real in that scene, after a strenuous day of filming without much food or water thanks to the director's cruel and ridiculous feud with her.

Now, the plot is almost identical to the plot of Dracula. We get the dude who played Van Helsing playing Doctor Muller, who is, like Van Helsing, a master of occult lore and adept at fighting the supernatural. He helps everybody out when shit hits the fan. Like Dracula, the Mummy seems to be after a young woman in Muller/Van Helsing's care. Imhotep also seems to be able to control people's minds, like Dracula could, by staring hard at them. What makes him different, though, is motive. The man isn't entirely evil, he's just obsessed with a love he couldn't attain. That's all. Leave him alone, you guys.

I was hoping, especially for my costume research, to get some serious dusty cloth-wrapped mummy action. Sadly there is virtually none in the first Mummy. Instead you get a slightly wrinkly Boris Karloff, who has inexplicably been restored to much of his living health. There's no lurching violence, but there are a few ancient Egyptian spells used to wreak some havoc.

So: A cool piece of monster history, if not as great as other first monster appearances. Certainly better than most Monster Movie sequels to come. The Mummy manages to hold his own. Also, look at this:

Ryan Watches A Motion Picture #72: Dracula (1931)

Since it's the season for witchery and other assorted evil delights, I decided to check out the Dracula Legacy Collection, which collects the classic Dracula films done by Universal Studios, the set of films that laid out the iconography of the vampire. Empty castles, long candles, winding staircases, cobwebs, capes, heavy accents. All the campy Count Dracula signifiers we now pick up from saturday morning cartoons came from that first Bela Lugosi hit.

And it's cool. It has some really memorable moments - great lines, great visuals, and some pretty engrossing scenes; my favourite being a scene where an aged Dr. Vanhelsing is visited by Dracula and told to leave. Their battle of wills is timeless, and most of it comes through in their almost archetypal posturing, a posturing that has the ring of the silent film era.

Since Hollywood really started flexing their sound film muscle in 1927 (The Jazz Singer being among a host of big '27 releases), in 1931 'talkies' were still a new art. Dracula director Tod Browning, also of Freaks fame, was pretty uneasy with sound and was one of those silent directors that kind of petered out after sound came into the picture. He had thrown in the towel by 1936.

His Dracula seems to forget that it's a sound film at times. I say his, but allegedly Browning's set presence was at near zero and most of the directing was done by the cinematographer, which might also account for the persistence of silent image over sound in the film. There are long stretches of dialogueless silence, and an insistence on capturing strong facial expression and holding the shot for emphasis. The make-up work is pure silent film, with its heavy whites and dark lips. Also, apart from the brief and orchestral 'come out to the movies' style opening credits sequence, there's no soundtrack. Not one shred, not a hot lick of music to be found in this film. While it gives the film the sensation I imagine the fish that chokingly set a first flipper on land had, it's a strangeness that works. It creates pools of tension and atmosphere that might have been ruined otherwise with unnecessary dialogue or the emotional imposition that music carries.

So: A classic treat and a fascinating look at a silent film probing into the world of sound.

Ryan Watches A Motion Picture #48: Secrets of a Co-Ed (1942)

I must hide my secrets away.

An earlier work of Gun Crazy (1950) director Joseph H. Lewis. The film is a warning to all the young women restless with the salty sweat burn of young lust. As a gangster puts it in the film: “Awwww, women! They’re the cause of everything!”

A young woman named Brenda secretly desires a life free from restraints and obedience. She’s infantilised by a patriarchal world of crooked lawyers and nonchalantly violent gangsters afflicted by the beauties of women. Brenda passes up on a well-to-do life with a young lawyer-to-be for a hood named Nick who likes to shoot people. Brenda meanwhile writes about all her woes in a diary. Her “secrets,” she calls them, and the diary gets referred to unnecessarily as “the secrets of a co-ed.” Twice.

Once Brenda and Nick run away together, Nick mentions that a “crazy fortune teller” once told him about famous couples like Romeo and Juliet, Mark Antony and Cleo, people who lived crazy for each other no matter what. Apparently, the fortune teller was a huge jerk, since he/she left out the bits about PAINFUL DEATH. Spoiler: Nick dies. And because she finds Nick’s body, Brenda’s pegged as the killer. Makes sense to me. She who smelt it dealt it.

There are two shots sort-a-maybe-kinda worth seeing. One consists of a zoom on a possibly phallic cigar, moodily crushed in hand by Brenda’s angry father after he orders Nick dead for dating his daughter. The other is during the final minute. Brenda is seen through a fireplace fire, sitting, rising, and tossing her diary into the flames. She metaphorically avoids the flames of hell and walks away with the good boy she was getting bored with at the start of the film. Her secrets are probably lost for all time.

So: Currently I am waiting for an inter-dimensional spaceman to channel the contents of that diary directly into my brain. When that day comes, woe unto thee, for my arrows will blot out the sun.

Wendy's Films of 2010 #81: It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

Now just to give you an idea as to how far behind I am in writing reviews, I actually remember the date I saw It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. On April 17th (that is... 43 days ago), I had a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon which included watching this film, and now... 43 days later... I am finally saying so.








Let me start off by saying this film has one of the best dance sequences of all time, I nearly broke myself laughing at how completely absurd and awesome it is. I can only hope that there are still people out there dancing like this at this very moment.

The cast of this film is also ridiculous; it includes: Spencer Tracy, Milton Berle, Buddy Hackett, Mickey Rooney, Buster Keaton and Jerry Lewis. As the tagline says, "Everybody who's ever been funny is in it!" That's quite an exaggeration, but it's still pretty insane, especially for 1963. Now keep in mind this is an epic; it's 3 hours long, so know what you're getting yourself into and don't complain about how long it was afterwards.

The story goes that a criminal reveals the location of a grand sum of money just before he dies. Those strangers standing around as witnesses embark on a rollicking journey to uncover it for themselves, losing some on the way and pick up others to further their means. I like that it's not a hollow tale as it's a reminder of how easily good people can succumb to greed and obsession. There are countless scenes I could talk about, but since I like to keep things short I'll mention only one. It takes place in a gas station after one man is mistaken for a murderer and tied up. Not knowing what's going on, all those involved commence fighting until the station is a hilarious mess of insanity. Also, who knew you could just remove a car door with your bare hands? Each group gets a good laugh in at least once (with gags to spare), and I'd definitely recommend this one to the classic comedy lover.

To go: 216 days, 284 films.

Chris 2010 Viewings #32 & 33: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo / Birdman of Alcatraz

NOTE: This review was written over the course of 1.5 months, almost a sentence at a time, days apart, usually with no attempt to re-read what came before it. I finished it so I could get it out of my life and move on. No reflection on the films themselves, which are good, just my own lack of interest in my dud premise. I encourage you to NOT read this.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Sweden, 2009) Directed by Niels Arden Oplev. Starring Michael Nyqvist, Noomi Rapace, Lena Endre.

Birdman of Alcatraz (US, 1962) Directed by John Frankenheimer. Starring Burt Lancaster, Karl Malden, Neville Brand, Thelma Ritter, Telly Savalas, Edmond O'Brien.

Back when I watched these movies, one of the things that intrigued me most about the main characters was their ultimate unknowability, even though in both cases we follow their story for two and a half hours. Both are antisocial loners: Tattoo's Lisbeth Salander is a young computer hacker with a mysterious past who can't be pinned down; Alcatraz's Robert Stroud is a convicted murderer, jailed in his early twenties, and spent the remainder of his life in prison.

Both are abnormally intelligent, Lisbeth having a photographic memory and mighty investigative skills, Stroud undertaking an ambitious study of disease in birds in spite of being confined to solitary. Salander's unknowability is enhanced by her being a fictional character, a creation of Swedish novelist Stieg Larsson. Stroud is unknowable because the film presents him that way: a man of violence who is seemingly tamed by his exploration of the avian world, in spite of giving very little about himself away. In real life, Stroud remained a violent psychopath who killed two more people in prison than we're permitted to know about by the filmmakers.

Still, the film makes Stroud become an admirable character in some regards and my only real qualm with the film is that I've spoken to enough people over the years who seem to think that, by the end, Stroud's continued imprisonment is an injustice and the film is a social tract about the limitations of the penal system. In reality, the film does no such thing and that's what makes the film genuinely interesting: Stroud's behaviour changes, but is so directed towards his life with birds that it's impossible to know - is he rehabilitated or just redirecting his considerable energies? What kept me rapt for the last half of the film's running time was not knowing whether he would snap or was genuinely under control. Lancaster's performance plays into that beautifully: there's nothing extraneous about it, as if he couldn't give a damn what anyone else is thinking about him. Is the film's Stroud a benign figure at the finale or is the evil still lurking? In the end and to the film's infinite benefit, Frankenheimer and co don't even try to answer the question. They are merely interested in the unlikeliness and striking contrasts of the story.

The unknowability of Salander, on the other hand, becomes a bit of a plot device to Tattoo's filmmakers. As written by Larsson, Salander is a savant type, but in a bid to tame the 700-odd page novel, she is given even more prowess. One note rings particularly false: when she cracks a mysterious code in a missing persons case that has been cold for 40 years. There's not a single aspect of the character's persona that suggests she would have the slightest interest in the text that would give her this insight, and sure enough when one looks to the source material, the solution comes from a much more plausible (and ultimately more affecting) source.

Salander teams up with a disgraced journalist who has been hired by a wealthy industrialist to solve the mystery of what happened to the latter's niece, who disappeared many years ago. The novel balances the investigation with the backstory of both Lisbeth and the journalist, an aspect that has led many readers seeking a straight mystery to lose patience with it. The film streamlines the narrative considerably, and will delight those who found the book too digressive.

I saw the film first and delighted in the mystery, a sturdy one in the tradition of the recent Scandanavian thriller vogue, in spite of some nagging tonal flaws. The book reads well even with the details of the mystery resolved because the extra material definitely enhances the narrative. Two scenes of intense sexualized violence are a bit jarring and tasteless in the film's streamlined form, but sit better in the extended form (though, appropriately, still are not even remotely comfortable). It is worth noting that Tattoo and its forthcoming sequels were shot as one super-production, and exist overseas in a lengthy TV miniseries version that add hours of running time to the saga.

Ryan Watches a Motion Picture #7: The Apartment (1960)

Billy Wilder's oscar-winning comedy about a man who lends his bachelor pad out to lovers at the expense of his own lovelife. Jack Lemmon is C. C. Baxter, the overly helpful nice-guy and American everyman trying to earn his share of the big dream. He works in a big building at a desk in a huge room of other desks and other people working, hardly paying attention to each other. Day in, day out. But then he falls in love with Shirley MacLaine, which I would have done too.

Jack Lemmon is fantastic and neurotic and absolutely lovable as misunderstanding and misfortune pile upon him like mountains on Xenu. Lemmon's posturing translates a profound frazzledness that winds my muscles up something fierce and makes me uneasy, and I can only relax as he starts to gain his confidence and deal with his problems. There's a wonderfully dark undercurrent in this film that I really hadn't expected, and it works to raise some staple arthouse points about the effects of modernity on the individual human being.

So: One of the best romance films I've ever seen. Watch it, sucka.

DVD MIA #3: While the City Sleeps

US, 1956. Directed by Fritz Lang. Starring Dana Andrews, Thomas Mitchell, George Sanders, Ida Lupino, Rhonda Fleming, Vincent Price, Howard Duff.

I don't think While the City Sleeps is the best of Fritz Lang's American films (The Big Heat almost certainly holds that title), but it may be my favourite - it's certainly the most entertaining. It`s a sly, funny and suspenseful tale set at a news syndicate while a series of sex murders is going on in the big city. The man who founded the empire has died, leaving the works to his useless son (Vincent Price). The only man dad thought worthy of the job was the resident editoralist and TV news anchor (Dana Andrews), who has no interest in such a job, since he routinely fires off bestselling books and receives Pulitzers where he is. So Junior decides to pit three veteran department heads - wire service man George Sanders, newspaper editor Thomas Mitchell, art department head James Craig - against each other for a coveted managing director position, little suspecting Craig is sleeping with his wife (Rhonda Fleming at her va-va-voomiest). The contest: whichever department head can unmask the sex killer first gets the job.

Sanders and Mitchell immediately try to convert Andrews to their causes, using two women - Sanders`mistress, gossip columnist Ida Lupino, and his secretary, Andrews`potential fiancee, Sally Forrest.

Anyone who enjoys vintage Hollywood movies should get a jones for this movie just looking at that cast, and I`m happy to report that Lang and the scenario use them all to marvelous effect. Ever the perceptive social critic, Lang is fascinated by how the various players used the police and other peoples lives purely for the advancement not even of their common employer`s cause, but their own selfish ends. Craig doesn`t even actively pursue the job, preferring the let Sanders and Mitchell cancel each other out and just gets it on with Fleming in the meantime. Andrews, on the surface the most respectable of the bunch, thinks nothing of putting his fiancee out as bait for the sex killer, figuring the end justifies the means.

The dialogue is witty and acidic, the suspense sequences solid, even if the actions that initiate the murderer`s ultimate capture ring a bit false. Why this isn`t on DVD is beyond me, so if it pops up on TV or you find an old tape of it, I highly recommend you seize the opportunity.

Chris 2010 Viewings #20: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral

US, 1957. Directed by John Sturges. Starring Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas.

John Sturges directed some great movies (Bad Day at Black Rock, The Great Escape), some overrated ones (The Magnificent Seven), and some crappy ones (Marooned), but was overall an above-average helmer for a testosterone-heavy action picture. Not a Hawks or a Ford or a Boetticher, but solid.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral is par-for-the-course Sturges. It has some excellent elements, it moves at a good clip, never really bores, while never showing any really sign of a directorial personality. I wasn't especially excited to watch it, but I figured what the hell, Burt Lancaster is always good, I'm falling behind in the movie-watching contest, let's roll. Kirk Douglas in in there too, whatever, he's been in a lot of good movies, even if - Ace in the Hole aside - he's never much rocked my world. And I hold Michael Douglas against him, how could you not? In fact, this is my favourite thing associated with Kirk Douglas:



And that's not even his voice, it's Frank Gorshin! Anyway, I'm not saying I don't like him, just never meant that much to me.

After Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, I wish to apologize to Kirk Douglas for my prior indifference. You, sir, are the bomb. I even forgive your son's hiney in Basic Instinct.

The story in this film is the familiar one of Wyatt Earp (Lancaster) and Doc Holliday (Douglas) and their showdown with the bad ol' Clanton boys at the O.K. Corral. Lancaster is surprisingly boring in this film: Earp is just so damned good and incorruptible that it's hard to be much interested in anything he does. I never dreamed he could be so lacking in screen magnetism. It's shocking.

But Douglas, who admittedly has the much more interesting role as the much-loathed, frequently almost-lynched Doc Holliday, is just fabulous, I would have been happy to watch him for hours more. Burdened with self-loathing, alcoholism, tuberulosis, and a passive-aggressive relationship from hell, Douglas grabs hold of this role and savours every ounce of the dramatic potential. He tackles it like it's the tastiest multi-course dinner ever set before him and invites you to enjoy every last nibble and drop with him. This movie has an insanely good supporting cast - JOhn Ireland, Joe Van Fleet, Frank Faylen, Earl Holliman, young Dennis Hopper (as the one potentially redeemable Clanton), Jack Elam, DeForrest Kelley, Ted de Corsia, Whit Bissell, Kenneth Tobey, Lee Van Cleef - but what lingers from this movie for me is Douglas, Douglas, Douglas. Well played sir, and I will hereby shut my mouth on the matter.

DVD MIA #2: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

By decree of the boss man, movies/DVDs only count towards the great 2010 viewing tally contest if Gen X carries the film for rental. For my extracurricular viewing, I've created DVD MIA, a series covering movies not available on DVD in North America.

US, 1956. Directed by Fritz Lang. Starring Dana Andrews, Joan Fontaine, Sidney Blackmer.

Fritz Lang's last American film, and it's a solid one. Thriller fans may find it routine, in spite of a satisfying twist that maybe isn't the one most viewers will expect. Lang's concern here isn't with crafting suspense but with exploring degrees of culpability among his characters. Proof positive of the film's lack of suspense movie oomph is that the recent Michael Douglas remake seems to have screwed around the plot to the point where it barely resembles the original's.

One thing the two have in common is the central gimmick - a writer of integrity (here it's Dana Andrews) sets up an elaborate plot to frame himself for a murder in order to prove a point. He's given the idea by newspaper publisher Sidney Blackmer, whose daughter (Joan Fontaine) is his fiancee. Blackmer fiercely attacks capital punishment in the pages of his daily, with frequent verbal blows directed at the pro-C.P. district attorney. By planting evidence and secretly, scupulously documenting Andrews' actual innocence, the pair hope to get Andrews sent to death row, to be saved at the last moment by the exculpatory documentation. I'll bet you've never seen a movie before if you haven't already guessed that something is going to throw a wrench into their plan, and it wasn't the wrench I was expecting.

Lang is clearly happy as a pig in filth with how many avenues this scenario opens up to explore his obsession with human guilt. Blackmer and Andrews may have noble motives in their plan, but is it noble to hijack - maybe permanently - the investigation of a lonely stripper's murder in order to make their point? What kind of sexist, patriarchal monsters do they have to be to mess so much with the emotions of Fontaine, the woman they have in common? How about the police detective who once romanced Fontaine, what are his motives for steering the case in the directions he does, to the point of contradicting himself in two back-to-back sentences in the climactic scenes? And what of the murder victim, never spoken of positively by a single witness, in contrast to the relatively noble motives of one particular lawbreaker? Not to mention all of the other gray areas I won't bring up so that I don't ruin the plot.

The film is very low budget, and looks it, so one will often search in vain for the striking Lang visuals established from the very beginning of his career. For fans of ambiguity and thought in mainstream genre cinema, however, there's plenty to chew on here.

Chris 2010 Viewings #19: Night Nurse

US, 1931. Directed by William Wellman. Starring Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Blondell, Clark Gable.

The thing I love about these pre-Hays Code talkies is how reliably bonkers the best of them are. It's almost as if the restictions on sex, violence and conduct that Hollywood imposed upon itself post-1934 also included a narrative control clause as well. Night Nurse is featured on the Forbidden Hollywood Collection, volume 2, along with four other peculiar relics from this oddball period.

The film doesn't start promisingly, though 30s audiences hadn't been E.R.ed and St. Elsewhered to death, so maybe the life of two nurses in training (Barbara Stanwyck and Joan Blondell) at a big city hospital would have been more fascinating then. For a modern audience, the first half hour is mostly carried by the charm of the two ladies and Wellman's need to show them dressing and undressing every few minutes.

The fun really begins when the girls become full-fledge nurses and get a placement, taking care of two angelic little girls whose slow descent towards death doesn't seem to bother their alcoholic floozy of a mother. And why does surly chauffeur Nick (Clark Gable) refuse to allow the nurses to seek outside help? The tone is full tilt Victorian-tragedy-meets-Reefer Madness as Stanwyck fights furiously to save the youngsters while Mom holds debauched parties with free-flowing liquor a few rooms away.

Luckily, Stanwyck has an ace up her sleeve: a prohibition-bustin' bootlegging potential boyfriend with mob connections. The final scene, which combines the cute couple finally coming together while casually discussing the violent death of one of the other characters, is delightful, especially the grim punchline.

Ryan Watches a Motion Picture #6: Witchfinder General (1968)

A gem of a film based loosely on the life of the Witchfinder General, one Matthew Hopkins, a lawyer turned witch-hunter during the tumultuous upheaval of Cromwell's revolution. Hopkins roved from village to village exploiting the superstitious for good coin by inflicting cruel witch-finding tests upon anyone suspected of being a witch. So basically anyone kind of weird. Or anyone people just didn't like.

In the role of Hopkins is the inimitable Vincent Price. Now, this film gave him his 75th role, and by this point Price had understandably been coasting through his horror roles like a sleeping Cthulu through the epochs, but two things now awakened him:

1. The shock of having a director like Michael Reeves, who had wanted Donald Pleasence in the role and was furious over the studio's insistence on Price. Reeves refused to speak directly to him the first day, and when Price fell from his horse, reportedly didn't even check to see if the man was alright.

2. The level of the crew's competency was something Price hadn't expected. Everyone on set was dead-serious about making a good film, and the majority of the cast seemed to be delivering the kind of performances he could actually work with.

These two things sobered Price, and later, he conceded that his own performance in the film was probably the best of his horror career. His Witchfinder General possesses a quiet belligerence made more menacing by an aloof, emotional disconnection. That disconnection doesn't seem lazy, though. It seems carefully set, and most of it comes off through his enigmatic stares.

The level of torture and violence that initially got this film banned in places, by today's standards, manages to be bloody without being gory, and fiercely uncomfortable instead of indulgent. The watershed Bonnie and Clyde was released just a year earlier, and the kind of screen violence that was emerging held a new potency. Witchfinder General could actually be considered England's Bonnie and Clyde, as both pushed the boundaries and ended off on a violent down-note. Reeves ended WG with an improvised and unnerving final sequence that will ring in my memory for some time.

So: A fluid and stylish revenge tale with Price back in action. Check it out.

Chris 2010 Viewings #18: Point Blank

US, 1967. Directed by John Boorman. Starring Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, Keenan Wynn, Carroll O'Connor, John Vernon.

So they sez "Have you seen Avatar yet?" they sez.

"No," I reply, "I can't do it."

They stare blankly back at me, and I scan their eyes for any sense that they understand where I'm coming from but they just need some clarification, but it's not there. Damn it, I have to go back into it again.

"I can't..." I sputter, trying to say as much with as few words as possible, "It's just... James Cameron... those shitty screenplays with the cardboard cutouts standing in for... not even for characters, but for types... child in danger... tough woman... cold-hearted capitalist/scientist/evil du jour... the ham-fisted way he says everything... Even the movies of his that I like I can never actually embrace..."

"Yeah, the script is incredibly bad," they say, and I wait for the word. I know it's coming. I watch their lips purse as if in slow motion. If it was a hitman coming for me I could crouch into a position and take him out, unawares, that's how sure I am that it's coming at me... here it is....

"BUT..."

It can't end well. They want me to give in, and I know I never will. I feel so very, very tired. I have fought this fight dozens of times and it always ends the same way. It's usually someone I like, too, so I can't get too uppity about it because I know they mean well and I know that the movie really excited them and after a while they forgot the whole digital planet was pretend and got immersed in the experience and I don't begrudge them that. It doesn't make me better than them or vice versa and I could say it all looks like a video game but I know that no video game actually looks that good but it's as close as I can get to explaining my disconnect, and I just don't want to go into it again.

I mutter something non-commital and completely incoherent. "That's awesome that you liked it so much" and I will wonder for the next half hour or so if that sounded really condescending and what an asshole I must have come off as. But I cannot say "maybe I will see it" even if that is indisputably true - that I may. Anything's possible. But I will not. And now I am tired.

I haven't seen Point Blank in 10 years or so, but last year I read all but one book in Richard Stark/Donald E. Westlake's Parker series (everything except "Plunder Squad" - if you can loan it to me I'll be your friend forever; if you give me a copy I will maybe even see Avatar in exchange). Point Blank is loosely based on "The Hunter", the first in the series. It's on in HD. No better time to revisit it, I should say.

"The Hunter" is irrelevant to my enjoyment... no, my immersion in Point Blank. If fidelity to source material mattered one whit to me, I would be infuriated by the film, its relocation to the west coast, re-naming the lead character, the addition and removal of characters, the re-jigging of the back story, the restructuring of the plot. I could give a rat's ass. "The Hunter" is "The Hunter" and it is fantastic. Point Blank is Point Blank and it is transcendent.

Lee Marvin is the rechristened "Walker", career criminal, seeking revenge on the people who betrayed him and seeking the money he is owed from the job he was working when double-crossed. Lee Marvin is an actor who gives little if your preference is for performances that win Academy Awards. But he gives way more than any grandstanding soliloquy ever could, the way he moves, the unpredictable way he reacts. John Boorman knew this, and right after he made Point Blank with Lee Marvin, he made Hell in the Pacific with Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune as American and Japanese WWII soldiers stranded on an island together, and most of the film is without dialogue, just watching the way these two guys who don't understand each other interact.

Boorman made lots of great movies, but none is greater than Point Blank, his second. Point Blank has images that live inside you long after you've seen it and even if you have forgotten their context. Lee Marvin emptying his revolver into an empty bed that he thinks his enemy is sleeping in. We see it a couple of times, most rivetingly in slow motion, partially because Boorman knows how much there is to digest in this deceptively simple shot of a man's body recoiling from the immense force he has unleashed. This shot is a permanent part of my brain, and it took one camera, one man, one gun. Fait accompli. But a different eye behind the camera, a different man, even with the same gun; not the same thing at all.

Later in the film Angie Dickinson and Lee Marvin are checking out a hotel from a distance. Angie stands in the foreground, with the hotel behind her. John Boorman cuts to a reverse shot, with Lee Marvin isolated in one corner of the widescreen frame with the ocean behind him and my breath is taken away. The scene is a matter of routine investigation in script terms, even in a good script like Point Blank. But the imagery is otherwordly in its perfection, its evocation. A man and the sea and the camera. Sensual. Deep. Limitless. And I wouldn't trade it for anything any computer has done in any movie, anywhere, ever. I couldn't.

Chris 2010 Viewings #17: Mogambo

US, 1953. Directed by John Ford. Starring Clark Gable, Ava Gardner, Grace Kelly.

Manly man Clark Gable lives at an outpost in Africa, capturing big game for circuses, zoos, and the like. He also takes high-paying folk on safari. His only companions are some natives, a roly-poly Brit and a drunk Russian, who defied my expectations and at no point in the film gets anyone killed due to negligence or shiftiness. Into Gable's orderly life of macho comes vexy Ava Gardner, with whom he spars verbally and then gets it on. Soon uptight British anthropologist Donald Sinden and his uptight British wife Grace Kelly show up and Gable becomes convinced that Kelly is the one for him, and she gets the same feeling.

Gardner is upset and gets snippy with everyone, rendering her likeable character annoying for a full hour or so of the running time. Gable and Kelly go for walks when hubby isn't around and hold on to each other and wonder what they should do. They all go on safari, to observe and maybe capture some deadly gorillas. Will hubby get killed by a gorilla, thus removing the one obstacle to their great and wonderful love? Will Kelly and Gardner get into a catfight? Will the drunk Russian get someone killed by accident? (No, I told you that already.)

There is a lot of beautiful colour location shooting in this film, some good suspense, and reasonably entertaining melodramatics. The major cog in the wheel is that Gable and Kelly have no onscreen chemistry whatsoever (in spite of their offscreen affair), while Gable and Gardner have it by the bucketload, rendering the whole passionate Gable/Kelly love dilemma fairly ridiculous. Other than that the only thing really wrong here is that I spent the entire movie waiting for the Russian to get someone killed and it never happened.