The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) – T. Hooper

The title put me off from this one for thirty years and now that I’ve watched it, there’s no denying its visceral nature and memorable (indelible?) images, particularly given the very low budget.  However, is this something that you really need to watch? Probably not.  On the plus side, there is less gore than you might think, with a lot of the horror left to your imagination (a scary place). This is much preferred (but don’t go thinking that director Tobe Hooper is as discreet as Val Lewton or anything).  Also, there is the implicit vegetarianism theme – humans are likened to cattle being slaughtered for meat and the methods used are clearly spelled out (and exemplified). Worth thinking about in this age of factory farming. On the minus side, well, this movie is sadistic; the last victim is female (as usual) and there is always the risk that some wrong-minded viewers might feel support for attitudes that condone violence against women (the word “bitch” is telling). However, the character with a disability is treated fairly equitably.  Still, you should think twice before exposing yourself to a film where a bunch of young people get chased around by a man in a leather mask with a chainsaw.  Unless you want to be freaked out, that is.     

Castle of Sand (1974)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Castle of Sand (1974) – Y. Nomura

Expert police procedural from Yoshitaro Nomura which follows two detectives trying to solve the murder of an elderly man at a railway station in Tokyo.  The first hour of the film appears to be nothing but dead ends. There are only two clues, the victim’s heavy regional accent and the word “Kameda” overheard by a bar hostess.  Finally, a linguist offers a breakthrough and the investigation gains some traction.  Around the halfway mark, the film starts to transition with a look into the life of the killer (who has already been observed in passing a few times).  As the detectives piece together some amazing clues, we are provided with the killer’s complete backstory revealing his motive, if not justifying it at all.  In some ways, the shape of the film is not too different from Kurosawa’s great High and Low (1963), which is the best police procedural I have seen.  Yet, despite a drawn out sequence during a piano concerto that seeks to reveal the mind of the killer, I still felt he remained opaque (and the film drags at this point, past the two-hour mark).  But the title remains apt – some castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually (and even though the direct Japanese translation is “sand bowl”, the logic remains the same).  The film looks great in color and widescreen nevertheless.

Monsieur Gangster (1963)

☆ ☆ ☆

Monsieur Gangster (1963) – G. Lautner

French gangster spoof that finds Lino Ventura (best known for his later appearances in Melville’s Army of Shadows and Deuxieme Souffle) unexpectedly inheriting a crime syndicate from an old friend that comes with the obligation to look after the friend’s teen daughter.  This is the kind of role that De Niro might take on, a tough guy who plays for laughs but maintains a straight face. Of course, the teenager causes all sorts of trouble, as do the underbosses of his old friend who wish to run the business themselves.  So, there are some broadly comic moments (as when Ventura takes to punching the deliciously put-out Bertrand Blier every time he sees him) and some action sequences (some shoot-outs).  But apparently something is lost in translation for the English-language viewer because this film is much loved in France specifically for its clever dialogue by Michel Audiard; the subtitles do show some unusual phrasing but nothing that leaps out to make you laugh.  One scene where the gangsters reminisce about the old days while drinking moonshine was funny anyway and probably was hysterical to French-speakers.  In the end, I was hoping for a bit of a Grisbi type picture but instead I got a situation-comedy that nevertheless evokes some of the genre.

  

Scrooged (1988)

☆ ☆ ½

Scrooged (1988) – R. Donner

Loud and largely unfunny – I guess I was right to have skipped this back in the day.  Bill Murray doesn’t really do a convincing “mean” – his sense of humor is wryer and more smart-ass than the sub-Don Rickles insult comedy which he is asked to deliver here.  The script is a barrage of bad jokes and celebrity cameos flung at the wall with the hope that something will stick.  And since this is a version of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, we need to believe that Murray is a bad man in need of transformation -- but he doesn’t go all the way in either direction (his previous film The Razor’s Edge should have taught him something). Nevertheless, the pay-off at the end (after being visited by scary David Johanssen and awkward Carol Kane plus a guy in a skeleton suit) does hold some rewards – we get a classic Murray improv riff, not exactly funny, but at least feeling authentic at last.  Or perhaps I’ve simply forgotten what Murray was like in the ‘80s now that he has matured into a very good and often subtle character actor.  No subtlety in this picture, however.  Oh and if you are wondering, the Scrooge character is a TV exec and there is a tacked on romance sub-plot (featuring Karen Allen) that Dickens didn’t cheapen his material with.  The “Tiny Tim” surrogate is a young Black fellow who hasn’t spoken a word since his father was killed – and, of course, miraculously does as everything comes together in the spirit of Christmas.  If only this sentimental ending were earned.   

Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (1970)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Investigation of a Citizen Above Suspicion (1970) – E. Petri

Almost grotesque in its point-making, Petri’s film targets corruption, fascism, and power by showing that a leader of the police force might theoretically be immune from prosecution, even for murder.  Gian Maria Volonte plays said cop, the head of the homicide division (but promoted to the head of the political division as the film begins), who murders his mistress and plants obvious clues incriminating himself to test whether he really is “above suspicion”.  Rather garish to look at, as some Italian films seem to be, and full of travelling shots, flashbacks, and minor characters that clutter things up a bit, this is still Volonte’s show as he dominates everything (and even more so when he starts targeting subversives as a function of his new role).  I guess it is blackly comic how the police and surrounding bureaucracy do everything possible to deny Volonte’s guilt, even when he goes so far as to confess.  I didn’t think this at the time but perhaps Donald Trump’s ability to get away with the most heinous sexist and racist actions also fits this pattern…although in this case, actions have been minimized by supporters rather than completely denied (but this too would keep an authoritarian leader in place).

Papillon (1973)

☆ ☆ ☆

Papillon (1973) – F. J. Schaffner

Epic prison flick shot on location in Jamaica (substituting for Devil’s Island and surrounds in French Guyana) with Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman doing it tough after their convictions for pimp-killing and counterfeiting, respectively (although McQueen claims to be innocent).  Focused primarily on action rather than on thoughts (apart from dreams of escape), the film lacks the depth I had hoped for (and you can see this in other films by the same director, Schaffner:  Planet of the Apes, Patton, Boys from Brazil).  McQueen does a nice job of transforming from a steely tough guy to an addled old fool with rotten teeth (still dreaming of escape) but Hoffman’s performance seems rather one-note (if dedicated). Based on a supposedly true story by Papillon himself (Henri Charriere), the film has that seventies blockbuster look and feel but it doesn’t rise to the status of the great classics. Still, if you can handle the length, there are enough struggles and setbacks for the prisoners to hold your interest and the scenery looks great.   

  

Jason Bourne (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆

Jason Bourne (2016) – P. Greengrass

Director Paul Greengrass and star Matt Damon return to the Bourne franchise.  They invest the proceedings with a definite amount of zing, as do Alicia Vikander and Tommy Lee Jones as (possibly) duplicitous leaders of the CIA.  However, at this point, it is hard not to see that what once used to be fresh (dynamic editing, pulsing music, non-stop action sequences) is now part of a (successful) formula.  Nevertheless, even when watched on the small screen on an airplane, the film feels exciting.  Vincent Cassel makes a solid evil villain (“the asset”) and his inclusion allows more of Bourne’s backstory to be explained.  Is he ready to come in from the cold?  Is he even more angry now that he knows more about the Treadstone program?  Still, even with a few additions to the Bourne story, the plot here is only skeletal with just enough to hang the action sequences on.   Much like a Chinese takeaway meal, after you are finished, you may feel hungry again. 

  

Thunder Road (1958)

☆ ☆ ☆

Thunder Road (1958) – A. Ripley

Robert Mitchum plays up his “bad boy” charm as a “transporter” running illegal moonshine across the South in a souped up 1950 Ford.  Mitchum also produced and co-wrote the title song (not the Bruce Springsteen song, which only stole its title from this film) and no doubt selected his son, James, to play his younger brother.  You’ll need to set aside the unusual move that sees Mitchum still playing a kid at 40 but that’s probably not all that requires suspension of disbelief here.  Yet the action sequences, with the Feds and some crooked mobsters chasing Mitchum, feel authentic and so too do some of the Southern locations (filmed in and around Asheville, North Carolina).  I hear this is a “cult classic” and I don’t think it warrants that status but it’s not bad.  If only the rest of the acting was on Mitchum (Senior)’s level. 

  

The Young Savages (1961)

☆ ☆ ½

The Young Savages (1961) – J. Frankenheimer

Sober social problem drama that tackles juvenile delinquency by pointing the finger directly at broken homes and the slum environment.  Burt Lancaster is the District Attorney, formerly from the slums himself, who wants to put three young hoods who killed a blind Puerto Rican boy into the electric chair.  His boss, aiming for the governor’s office, approves; his wife, a rich white liberal, disapproves.  Lancaster takes his time investigating both viewpoints, including the families of the victim and the accused murderers (with Shelley Winters as his former girlfriend, the mother of one of the accused) as well as other members of both the Italian and Puerto Rican gangs involved in the incident.  And then he basically throws the case in a quest for the truth, demonstrating to the jury how the killers came to be killers and why they should be treated with mercy – of course, the victim’s family is stunned and disappointed (especially because the truth involves a dose of victim-blaming).  If the film didn’t discuss the institutional racism present in America, one might worry that its conclusion itself smacks of bias.  But no one would disagree that Lancaster has done the right thing by showing mercy – it’s just that it’s all a bit preachy as directed by earnest young John Frankenheimer fresh from live TV and not yet up to the standards of his classic films (The Manchurian Candidate, Seven Days in May).  Rather dated too.   

  

El Cuerpo (The Body) (2012)

☆ ☆ ☆

El Cuerpo (The Body) (2012) – O. Paulo

Slick Spanish thriller that takes the Hitchcockian path of revealing who the killer is from the start and then creating suspense as the police close in on him.  I can’t remember Hitch using flashbacks however (except perhaps in Vertigo) but here they add to the tension because we can see moments when even the victim may have discovered the plot to kill her.  This is a key part of the plot because, you see, the victim’s body has gone missing and all signs point to the possibility that she is still alive and leading the police to clues that identify her “killer” (and, of course, tormenting him psychologically along the way).  The whole film takes place in the morgue (more or less). Belen Rueda (from The Orphanage, 2007) plays the victim, a successful but emotionally cruel businesswoman, and Hugo Silva plays her younger husband with the incentive to kill his wife arising due to her large fortune and his much younger mistress (Aura Garrido) who wishes to have him all for herself.  Jose Coronado plays the stereotypic seedy police detective with problems of his own.  So, in many respects, El Cuerpo is straight genre film-making with no aim except to thrill and to entice viewers with a hard-to-anticipate twist ending.  The cinematic style is noirish (rainy nights, dark medical rooms) but nothing special.  Whether the ending is earned or not is up to viewers to judge – but, as with many pictures of this type, thinking back over the film after the ending is known does highlight its improbabilities.  But don’t let that spoil your fun. 

  

Safe in Hell (1931)

☆ ☆ ☆

Safe in Hell (1931) – W.  Wellman

Pre-Code (i.e., before censorship and enforced happy endings) Hollywood feature by William Wellman and starring Dorothy Mackaill (who is in every virtually scene).  She is a call girl (the only way she can make a living, she claims, and the woeful status of women might support it) who accidentally kills her former pimp.  When her true love, a sailor, returns just at that moment, he loyally helpls her to escape to a Caribbean isle with no extradition laws to the US.  She promises to be faithful and, despite the fact that alcohol is not banned, not to party either.  As you would expect, her new land is filled with dissipated criminals who are sex-starved for a white woman (the film is as racist as it is sexist, although the two black characters, who run the hotel, are not caricatured fortunately).  Eventually gives in but still keeps her chastity awaiting the return of her sailor; instead her pimp arrives seemingly back from the dead (but of course he was never really killed, just using the opportunity to score some insurance money).  But, lo and behold, when he makes a move on Gilda this time, she kills him for good.  The plot goes on – will she get the death penalty or not? And there are a few more twists and a fully downbeat conclusion (after only 73 minutes).  At the end, I thought, well that wasn’t much -- but somehow, over night, it haunted me a bit.  Mackaill is a charismatic figure and she evokes the desperation of her plight and the psychological issues (faithfulness vs. hedonism in the face of a cruel unjust world) pretty well. Director Wellman is better known for The Public Enemy (1931) and A Star is Born (1937).

  

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008)

☆ ☆ ☆

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008) – M. Zenovich

Even-handed review of the Polanski statutory rape case that manages to make relatively clear the legal shenanigans that have been involved while also making it clear that the director was guilty.  Just taking one look at the school photo of the 13-year-girl makes you realize how wrong he was – so young.  I don’t think it mitigates things to ponder the fact that Polanski’s parents died in the Holocaust and his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by the Manson family. In archive interviews, Polanski himself seems to brush off the seriousness of the charges, as did the French, who received him when he fled the US.  However, this documentary does make it clear just how much Polanski was jerked around by the judge, a publicity-seeking knob (as suggested by both prosecution and defense lawyers in interviews), and why he decided to escape to avoid any further complications in the case and its resolution.  I didn’t realize that the film was 8 years ago and therefore omits the most recent moves by the U. S. to extradite Polanski again and their unwillingness to allow him to wrap things up with “time served” as even the victim and her family now think should happen.  I’m of two minds – 42 days isn’t much of a sentence (the time he actually spent in prison) – but 40 years in exile might be. As a parent (albeit of boys), it is hard not to see the ugly side of things and hard not to doubt the complicity of the victim at the time.  All told, this is a lot of talking heads to watch but director Marina Zenovich keeps things interesting.

  

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

☆ ☆ ½

The Conjuring 2 (2016) – J. Wan

You’ve seen this one before (and not necessarily in the first The Conjuring, 2013).  All the various tics and tropes of the haunted house picture are dutifully trotted out by director James Wan, along with a healthy dose of The Exorcist (1973).  The film takes place in the 1970s (mostly England) and is based on a “true” story taken from the adventures of Ed and Lorraine Warren, psychics and investigators of the supernatural for the Catholic Church.  Can one really complain about genre pictures that don’t innovate (beyond updating slickly to 21^st century technology and methods)?  After all, you get what you pay for and I certainly didn’t check out the Conjuring 2 hoping for Ingmar Bergman.  So, does it deliver?  Yes and no.  There is a good effort to generate the requisite creepy atmosphere and there are a few unfair shocks, but the film feels overlong with a few too many bits of furniture thrown around the house.  The primary evil spirit is pretty scary but its underling, an angry old man, is more pathetic than frightening.  Everything wraps up rather quickly and defeating the evil was surprisingly easy.  But I still felt a bit wary heading off to bed in the dark, so I guess this sequel works at some fundamental level.

Black Friday (1940)

☆ ☆ ½

Black Friday (1940) – A. Lubin

Karloff is dapper as the doctor who illegally performs a brain transplant to save his friend, a professor of English literature.  But the picture really belongs to Stanley Ridges who, as the professor who has the brain of a gangster inserted into his head, has to act out these dual personalities.  Of course, Karloff has ulterior motives for the transplant as well – the gangster had hidden $500K just before he was killed (by Bela Lugosi and other former gang members) and Karloff hopes that the professor will remember where it is, with his new brain.  But things take a turn for the worse when the professor essentially becomes the gangster.  Since the film begins with Karloff being walked to the electric chair, you get no points for guessing how this will end.  Solid tale from the Karloff and Lugosi heyday (but the latter has only a bit part this time). 

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) – D. Trachtenberg

I couldn’t quite remember the first Cloverfield (2008) but that didn’t matter because this film has seemingly nothing to do with that NYC monster movie (although producer J. J. Abrams may be threatening a possible third movie that ties them both together somehow).  For what it is, 10 Cloverfield Lane manages to achieve its (limited) goals in a satisfactory fashion.  If that doesn’t sound like a rave review, it’s not.  But as a chamber drama set in a small space, an underground fallout shelter decked out by Howard (John Goodman) and occupied by him and two possible captives played by Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), this manages to produce a good deal of suspense.  We don’t know Howard’s motives for keeping the two prisoners down there and we can’t quite trust his explanation that a chemical or nuclear attack has occurred up above.  Of course, the plot unfurls from there and gradually more is revealed, as Michelle (our chief protagonist) fights to uncover the truth.  And mostly new director Dan Trachtenberg manages to pull this off, aided by Winstead’s strong performance.  I had trouble accepting Goodman as a (potential) bad guy but that’s more a function of his charismatic past performances than his acting here.  So, if you like this sort of B movie produced as an A movie (in Abrams’ terms), then you might like this—or it might be disappointingly shallow.

  

The Hateful Eight (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Hateful Eight (2015) – Q. Tarantino

Here’s another example where “style” seems to dominate “substance” – and usually I don’t mind that.  However, Tarantino’s latest film overstays its welcome (even watching it in two sittings) and becomes a bit ponderous, rehashing his familiar mannerisms (talky colloquial script laced with profanity, sudden bloody violence, suspicion between characters with unknown loyalties, flashbacks to tell us what really happened) a bit too readily. On the plus side, the film must have looked spectacular in Ultra Panavision, projected in 70 mm on the widest possible screen; Tarantino’s compositions for this canvas are great, particularly those that capture panoramic Western vistas (of Telluride standing in as Wyoming).  Many familiar faces returned to the Tarantino fold for this one with the lion’s share of the plot falling to Samuel L. Jackson, a bounty hunter and former Union soldier (the film takes place just after the Civil War) and he is charismatic in his usual way, but subject to a lot of derogatory racial attacks.  Kurt Russell acquits himself well in John Wayne-mode as another tougher bounty hunter.  Jennifer Jason Leigh is Russell’s prisoner and she is given a rather one-note role, grunting and grimacing and receiving enough gratuitous physical violence to think that Tarantino himself must take pleasure in all the misogynistic (and racist) actions in his films.  Tim Roth and Michael Madsen also return, alongside Bruce Dern and a few other new faces.  All told, the film, despite its widescreen, seems strangely stagey, like a play transposed into Minnie’s Haberdashery, where most of the action takes place.  Perhaps eight central characters, all needing to be killed violently, was too many to handle.  Tarantino claims he will only make two more films, but perhaps that is two too many – he seems out-of-steam.

  

CSA: The Confederate States of America (2004)

☆ ☆ ☆

CSA: The Confederate States of America (2004) – K. Willmott

Faux documentary (in the style of Ken Burns’ Civil War) that imagines a future after the South won the “War of Northern Aggression”, complete with commercials hawking real racist products (that actually faded away as America became enlightened).  So, it turns out that after a few decisive battles and aided by European powers, Jefferson Davis takes the White House and Lincoln is tried as a war criminal but flees to Canada (aided by Harriet Tubman who is caught and executed) where he survives until the early 20^th century. Slavery remains a political and economic commodity for the new nation (CSA) and this leads them to eventually side with Hitler becoming isolated from the rest of the world after WWII (except for South Africa).  JFK (elected as a Republican) is assassinated for promoting abolition.  And so on.  Things are a bit uneven but the points are well taken.  However, it is hard to laugh at the bitter comedy here and even more so on the evening when Trump was elected.  Staring down an alternate reality seemed like a good thing to do but it might be harder to put into practice in the next four years.  

  

Crimson Peak (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆

Crimson Peak (2015) – G. del Toro

Dreamlike in its pacing and its visuals, del Toro’s latest ode to horror takes the form of a gothic woman-in-peril picture (e.g. Gaslight, Rebecca), set at the end of the 19^th century. The opening scene, a flashback to a childhood brush with a ghost for Edith (Mia Wasikowska), is fantastic in its Bava-esque colour scheme and spooky CGI ghost (embodied by Doug Jones from Pan’s Labyrinth).  But the film becomes rather deadly matter-of-fact after that, as we follow Edith’s grown-up story:  she is seduced by Baronet Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston) who is visiting America with his sister (Jessica Chastain with black hair – this is goth, after all) and when her father is murdered, she marries Sharpe and moves to England to the weird house they share.  Apparently del Toro had the house actually built and it is a monstrosity with a working lift at its heart, creepy apparitions within its dark hallways, and blood red dirt oozing up through the snow around it.  Of course, Sharpe and his sister have secrets that they are hiding and Edith is soon in danger – but the ghosts, scary though they are in del Toro’s gruesome depictions, may be helping her.  Overall, del Toro manages to keep things together by worshipping the themes of the gothic noir and not letting things get too over-ripe or cartoonish (as Tim Burton might do).  But some judicious tightening would surely have helped matters and Wasikowska is probably miscast, as her underplaying contrasts with the florid surroundings. Still, there is no denying the stylishness of what’s on offer.

  

The Big Short (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Big Short (2015) – A.McKay

In the end, there are just too many players and the “macguffin” is just too damned hard to understand but for a while there Adam McKay’s film about the events leading up to the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and 2008 holds some genuine suspense.  Not surprise, but suspense, because we know how this is going to turn out, we just don’t know what will happen to these individual characters.  Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt use the tricks of their trade to present us with some recognisable “types”, eccentric or otherwise, but no one is given a chance to become three-dimensional (though Carell and Bale give it their best shot).  All of these guys and a few others played by non-celebs took a chance by creating deals that would pay out if the subprime mortgage market collapsed – so they basically bet that the economy would fail because the banks were greedy – and they won.  Ultimately, this is a depressing story with a highly depressing ending (cheaters continue to prosper).  McKay exerts himself strenuously, directing this dry material to death, with a lot of ironic asides to the camera, some funny cameos to explain difficult concepts, a lot of mid-2000s montages (wow, 10 years can change things), and the requisite music to keep things moving.  So, it’s somewhat breathtaking but in a car-crash sort of way, without too much effort to get at real characterizations, understandings, or even outcomes.  But I guess I’m glad it’s there, as a warning/reminder/harbinger of things to come.

  

The Docks of New York (1928)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Docks of New York (1928) – J. von Sternberg

Vividly realized silent tale of a stoker who comes ashore to find drunken fun and winds up rescuing a girl from drowning and marrying her.  One of von Sternberg’s late silent films (before he hooked up with Marlene Dietrich), showing his interest in “painting with light” – there is smoke or fog in many of the scenes.  George Bancroft is compellingly lout-like but ultimately sympathetic as he overcomes his primitive male instincts to sacrifice himself for his “wife”.  Betty Compson has less to do and looks rather ambivalent about Bancroft but throws her lot in with him anyway; such may have been the fate of a good-time gal in the 1920’s – no other options.  Unlike other silent films of this period, von Sternberg doesn’t take things truly wide, trying to stun us with amazing set-pieces (a la Murnau), so I was a bit disappointed.  But keeping the drama small and focusing on the characterizations may be the strategy that led to his later success with Marlene – it was all about her and everything else was stripped away (or really everything else, indulgent as it became, glorified her).   

Whirlpool (1949)

☆ ☆ ☆

Whirlpool (1949) – O. Preminger

In the end, it’s ludicrous – but in some ways that’s what makes this film noir from Otto Preminger good.  Gene Tierney is a kleptomaniac hiding the fact from her psychoanalyst husband, Richard Conte (badly miscast).  Slick and evil hypnotist/astrologer Jose Ferrer finds her out and offers to treat her, by which he means control her and make her do his bidding.  About halfway through there is a murder, but Ferrer, the obvious suspect, has an alibi – he’s in the hospital for a gall bladder operation.  Police Detective Charles Bickford (gruff but lovable) is on the case but doesn’t believe for a minute that you could hypnotize yourself not to feel pain.  Perhaps the film would have succeeded more if Preminger just cranked it up to 11 and let the weird melodrama take over? As it stands, you aren’t quite sure whether the events shown are meant to be believable to the audience or not.  Poor Gene Tierney may have seen echoes of her own real life in this character, as she may have been hiding mental illness and alcoholism from her public just as her character hides her own inner troubles from others.  However, Ferrer is the only one to really capitalize on the bizarreness here, playing his vile charmer to the hilt.  Preminger’s other noirs are better (Fallen Angel, Where the Sidewalk Ends).

  

Asylum (1972)

☆ ☆ ½

Asylum (1972) – R. W. Baker

One of many portmanteau films from Amicus (an also-ran competitor for Hammer in England back in the 1960s and 1970s) but not a patch on the great original horror anthology, Dead of Night (1945) from Britain’s Ealing Studios.  These films always have a framing device to hold their separate stories together and Asylum’s conceit is that a young psychiatrist visiting the titular institution needs to decide which of the patients is actually the head clinician, now an inmate.  The missing doctor could be male or female, young or old.  The four stories are told in flashback by the various patients and suggest why they went insane.  A couple of the stories are quite spooky.  The first, in which a husband kills his wife and cuts her up into pieces that then come back to attack him and his mistress/the patient, is eerie enough.  So, too, is the third where young Charlotte Rampling is “assisted” by Britt Ekland in dealing with her domineering brother and her addiction to pills.  There are other stars here too (Peter Cushing, Herbert Lom) but their stories are less spooky if not without a creepy moment or two.  Of course, there is a “trick” ending to bring things together again.  Amicus made six or seven of these anthologies and really they aren’t a bad way to spend your Halloween, which was always going to be a mixed bag of tricks and treats anyway.  

Carol (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆

Carol (2015) – T. Haynes

Stately and slow drama from Todd Haynes, set in the early 1950s and looking gorgeous.  It is in fact an exquisitely realized “coming of age” story or perhaps I should say a “coming out” story except the two women here are only barely out of the closet and even so they experience a world of stigma and discrimination.  Cate Blanchett transforms herself (again) and provides a subtle portrait of a wealthy older woman who risks losing her four-year-old daughter in order to live an authentic life and to love who she wants.  Rooney Mara is the younger woman awakening to the possibility of same sex attraction. The script provides breathing room for the development of their affair but it does move very slowly, probably too slowly.  The fact that the law allowed a “morality clause” to be used to prevent LGBT parents to have custody of their own children is shocking but it is downplayed here in favour of the relationship dynamics.  Haynes has often been seen in the light of his fondness for Douglas Sirk (similarly to Rainer Werner Fassbinder) but here he seems to avoid the amplified melodrama of these masters, perhaps to make certain the characters and issues are treated seriously and not with any distortion or campiness. From an autobiographical tale by Patricia Highsmith.

  

Everybody Wants Some!! (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Everybody Wants Some!! (2016) – R. Linklater

Linklater calls this a “spiritual sequel” to Dazed and Confused (1993) and others note that it picks up just where Boyhood (2014) left off, as a kid starts his first year of college.  True that.  Here we have another crop of unknowns (mostly), starring as college baseball players (though we rarely see them play), living in a frat house environment and acting basically as you would expect young men freed from parental authority might act.  The time is Fall 1980 and Linklater brings the period music, clothes, and attitudes.  It’s part nostalgia and it’s part philosophical exploration of male competitiveness – and a whole lot of seemingly authentic talk (indeed there are only a few bum notes in the script).  Linklater is really a master director at this point and he is able to create real characters who we feel warm towards – there are no “bad” characters here, despite some rivalries and some at whom he affectionately pokes some fun.  But this is a dude’s film about dudes who are always on the prowl for girls, although it doesn’t feel exploitative like a Porky’s variation would – again this is Linklater’s talent to bring some humanity to the reality.  The central character, Jake, played by Blake Jenner, is perhaps the dullest of the lot but he’s also the nicest guy, perhaps signalling Linklater’s own values.  It is what it is – lighter fare with a ingénue cast – but entertaining all the way through.

The Forbidden Room (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Forbidden Room (2015) – G. Maddin

I wanted to love this and on one level, I really do.  Guy Maddin’s latest is a triumph of style over substance, perhaps his most eye-popping feature yet.  The screen bubbles and melts and exudes raw colour in a variety of cinematic fashions (silent, old technicolor, sixties schlock, etc.).  Things are typically outlandish, silly, and sometimes gruesome or sexy.  The high concept here is that Maddin decided to recreate some lost films based on surviving descriptions or scripts alone, films that Maddin himself really wanted to see (but obviously could not).  After all, he is also a film historian of sorts (with interesting pieces in Film Comment that I am half-remembering now).  So, 4, 5, or 6 films have been sliced and diced and welded together to make a deranged feature film (apparently to secure funding that the shorts could not).  The result is largely incoherent as a sum of parts but there are so many wild vibrant moments across the 2 hours – and thinking of this as an experimental film really helps matters.  Probably though it is not for the uninitiated and there are other easier entry points to Maddin’s oeuvre (My Winnipeg, 2007, is my favourite thus far, of those I have seen).   But really, just wow. 

The Producers (1968)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Producers (1968) – M. Brooks

Apparently shocking at the time of its release but sadly Mel Brooks’ comedy has lost its ability to shock…or perhaps I am unshockable at present.  But with the magic of the mind, you (or I) can imagine what it must have been like to be stunned by comedy making fun of Hitler (although Lubitsch’s To Be or Not To Be (1942) did take a very funny stab at the Nazis concurrently with WWII – later remade by Brooks himself).  The result isn’t laugh out loud funny, the way that Young Frankenstein or Blazing Saddles can be, but it has some charm, even if there are some dated jokes and sexism.  I watched this (for the first time) to commemorate Gene Wilder’s death – I salute him – he has a way with gestures and underplaying the comedy that contrasts well with Zero Mostel’s brasher moves.  They play the titular producers who determine that securing one million dollars in investments for a cheap Broadway play destined to flop on the first night will leave them sitting pretty and flying down to Rio.  Choosing “Springtime for Hitler” seems to be the perfect choice (acknowledged to be in bad taste) but alas the comedy plays well for the masses – and so much so that Brooks was able to create a Broadway show and then a movie remake in recent years.  There’s enough here to enjoy but I confess to being underwhelmed compared to my expectations.

  

Weiner (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ 

Weiner (2016) – J. Kriegman & E. Steinberg

I guess I needed to expose myself to even more political self-immolation. Or perhaps expose isn’t the right word in this context.  And that’s the sort of joke you get in this documentary about Anthony Weiner, former congressman from New York and subsequent mayoral candidate for the Big Apple. In a frankly unbelievable performance (made available to us because Weiner himself allowed the filmmakers access to his life), the candidate bravely continues his campaign despite apparently having an ongoing sexting habit.  So, viewers get to bear witness to his strange unwillingness to stay out of the public eye despite widespread derision – is it masochism? Narcissism? He seems to be self-aware enough about people’s opinions (perhaps unlike a certain presidential candidate).  The filmmakers keep things lively for 90 minutes, despite the scandal hitting in the first half-hour; they focus the “plot” in on the tension between Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, who is in fact vice-chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign (and they announced their separation just this month after yet more sexting).  But ultimately, we don’t really get inside of Weiner, nor Abedin, and we don’t know whether this is a tragedy because of his really solid ideas (he seems to be a fighter for the middle class) or a farce because of his unsuitability for office.  The filmmakers don’t really take sides.  So, it’s a bit like watching a trainwreck as you pass by in your car without ever learning enough about how or why it happened…

The Kingdom II (1997)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Kingdom II (1997) – L. Von Trier

I watched the first series of Lars Von Trier’s The Kingdom, a surreal horror comedy set in a Danish hospital, in the late ‘90s.  I couldn’t remember too much except that it ended with a baby being born with the giant head of Udo Kier on it and also that it was pretty all over the place in its wacky horror tropes (voodoo, ghosts, severed heads).  St. Elsewhere on acid, I guess.  So, when I finally ran across the second series (filmed in 1997), I wasn’t too concerned about returning to the plot close to twenty years later.  I figured I would let it just wash over me again.  Fortunately, there was a minute of “recap” at the start of the fifth episode – just enough to remember some of the characters – and then the over-the-top nonsense continued.  More or less, the denizens of the hospital are fools for denying the supernatural/spiritual/alternative side of reality, particularly because the hospital is beset by demons (led by Udo Kier himself).  With a low budget, lots of jump cuts, and more restraint than you might expect, Von Trier manages to create a compelling multi-character soap opera that wants to take itself seriously at the same time as it does not.  You have to take the good with the evil, as he says at the end of each episode (he’s the host, a la Hitchcock).  The most shocking thing of all, however, is that the series ends with another set of cliff-hangers and, as it turns out, Von Trier never got to make the third series as some of the lead actors passed away.  So, instead of finding closure for the open narrative that I left hanging a decade or two ago, I’ve now got a loose end that will never ever get tied up.

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)

☆ ☆ ☆

Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970) – P. Sasdy

One of the better Dracula sequels from Hammer Films (and there are a number of bad ones).  Christopher Lee was apparently reluctant to return – and he doesn’t have too many lines here (simply “the first”, “the second” and “the thirrrrrrrd”) -- but he is still a magnificently evil presence.  The plot revolves around three businessmen (in the early 1900s) who seek to experience thrills in this life, even going so far as to be willing to sell their souls to the devil.  Of course, when the ritual actually occurs they wimp out – the reconstituted blood of Dracula does not seem too palatable to drink (and a prelude to the movie shows us how it was obtained).  The grown children of the businessmen, two young women and two young men, add romance to the story but Dracula soon has the girls under his sway (‘natch).  As usual, Hammer’s production values are ace, lending spooky period atmosphere to the proceedings.  Worth a look if this is your thing.

  

A Nous La Liberte (1931)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

A Nous La Liberte (1931) – R. Clair

At first, it’s a prison flick with all the inmates singing about the freedom they don’t have.  We see two of them plot their escape – but only one of them makes it.  He manages to work himself from street busker to factory owner in a quick montage.  His factory makes phonographs.  When his old cellmate appears working on the assembly line (later ripped off by Chaplin, although he settled the lawsuit without admitting it), the boss thinks he is about to be blackmailed. But instead, his friend just wants help winning the girl of his affections.  It doesn’t work and soon a gang of crooks really do appear to blackmail the boss.   In a twist that might only work in the France of the time, he abruptly donates his factory to the workers, let’s his money blow away in the wind, and hits the road as a tramp with his friend.  So, this makes it something of an anti-capitalist piece but blink and you could miss it.  Renoir’s The Crime of Monsieur Lange (1936) hits the nail more squarely on the head.  But Rene Clair’s earlier film is an early talkie that still contains some of the lyricism and wowing art direction of the silents but I think I prefer his Le Million (also 1931). 

The Talk of the Town (1942)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Talk of the Town (1942) – G. Stevens

Comedy with serious undertones and nicely observed characters from George Stevens – who seems to be channelling Frank Capra with Jean Arthur in the lead and a story about “the law” and how it needs to serve the people rather than lofty principles.  Cary Grant stumbles into Jean’s life and the cottage she is about to rent out to Dean of the Law School Ronald Colman, he’s on the lam after escaping prison, falsely accused of burning down a factory.  The factory owner has the town in his back pocket and he’s railroading the case with a handpicked judge and jury.  Grant and his lawyer lean on Colman to assist, but he’s too principled to get involved in a local case…until his fondness for Grant and Arthur both win him over and he shaves off his beard and gets his hands dirty.  It works because we too grow fond of these characters, even if the larger themes are a bit garbled; Capra handled complicated issues better by ramping up the sentimentality and distilling the arguments to their simplest points, also throwing in quirky supporting players.  Stevens hits it right down the middle which is satisfying but it doesn’t go out of the park.   

The Warped Ones (1960)

☆ ☆ ☆

The Warped Ones (1960) – K. Kurahara

Although it may have been luridly eye-opening to the Japanese society of 1960, Koreyoshi Kurahara’s delirious new wave drama leaves a bad taste in your mouth.  After getting caught stealing, Akira, a psychopath, spends time in a juvenile detention centre.  Upon his release, he picks up where he left off, stealing a car with his buddy and a prostitute friend, and then he relentlessly targets and harasses the journalist who caused his earlier arrest and his artist girlfriend.  Akira loves jazz (Chico Hamilton style) and the movie is edited to a hep feverish rhythm but its stylishness can’t overcome the brutal content.  With no moral sense, perhaps not even an understanding of what is right and wrong, Akira moves from one situation to another, always doing the wrong thing, the wicked thing – but yet he grins all the way through.  The central action involves rape and its consequences and the film ends without punishment for Akira nor any real commentary on his actions or even a comment about the society (or world) that could produce such a person.  Everything is laid out to shock viewers but I wouldn’t recommend this except for its historical value; a better take on the same ideas is Oshima’s Cruel Story of Youth (also 1960).