The Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family (1941)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family (1941) – Y. Ozu

The surprising thing about “Toda Family” is just how much it foreshadows Ozu’s later themes and his greatest masterpieces.  For example, the plot here depicts how a grandmother and her youngest daughter are passed from the various households of her adult children when the patriarch/grandfather has died.  None of them treat their own mother/mother-in-law with respect and she ends up living in the family’s dilapidated villa near the seaside.  Shades of Tokyo Story, right?  But although the plot feels so Ozu-like, his style has not fully congealed into what we are familiar with in his classic films of the late forties and fifties.  Yes, the camera is often seated on the tatami mat with us and people speak directly into the camera in shot-countershot patterns.  Also, Ozu’s still life shots that punctuate scenes showing nearby vistas or that show a room or hallway before or after a character enters/departs are already here (and often beautiful).  But the settings and the milieu are the dwellings of the rich (not Ozu’s usual middle class group) and the camera occasionally presents things in un-Ozu-like fashion (it is hard to explain but you will know, if you know Ozu).  Moreover, as David Bordwell has pointed out, Ozu seems to have more patriotic fervour (this is 1941) than we expect of him – the “good son” (who first seems like a neglectful rogue), played by Shin Saburi, moves to China and declares how good it is and how you can do whatever you want.  He also scolds his bourgeois brothers and sisters for their failure to work and contribute to society.  Bordwell suggests that Ozu was just trying to get along in a film industry and society dominated by censorship at the time (much as Mizoguchi did with his jidai-geki films) but it feels a little unsettling.  Ozu would find his groove after the war and reach the highest echelons of film-making.

The Beguiled (2017)

☆ ☆ ½

The Beguiled (2017) – S. Coppola

I’m making it a habit of being underwhelmed by Sofia Coppola.  I mean, I want to like her films, so I keep giving her a chance.  And then the result is boring or lacklustre or irrelevant.  I don’t think I have really enjoyed one of her films since Lost in Translation, 2003 (and I liked The Virgin Suicides, 1999, which I saw much later, even more).  But this remake of the Don Siegel – Clint Eastwood pic from 1971 (which I only vaguely remember) seems pointless.  There is a suggestion that this version of the original novel is seen from the women’s point of view and that may be so, but it isn’t particularly overt as a statement.  Nicole Kidman runs the girls’ boarding school that has only a few remaining students since the Civil War is raging and Kirsten Dunst is her assistant.  When one of the girls stumbles upon an injured Union soldier (Colin Farrell), they take him in to nurture him even though they should be turning him over to the Confederate troops (this is Virginia).  His presence arouses sexual tension and competition among the women, although very reserved it is because this is the 1860s.  Nevertheless, the tensions rise to a crescendo and the film makes a play for the “thriller” label.  However, it seems to me that Coppola’s interest in that genre is half-hearted at best and she is really all about the atmosphere, the period recreation, and the acting.  She won Best Director at Cannes for this film, but I don’t see it.  Once again, this feels like all surface, no depth.    

Almost Famous (2000)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Almost Famous (2000) – C. Crowe

First things first, I accidentally watched the Director’s Cut of the film which is 162 minutes long (40 minutes longer than the released film, which I haven’t seen).  I’m not certain whether the extra time benefits the film or reduces its quality.  There were a few places where things felt long or indulgent.  But, of course, the whole premise is pretty indulgent – this is the story of Cameron Crowe’s experience as a teen journalist for Rolling Stone touring with The Allman Brothers (here replaced by a fictional band, Stillwater, starring Billy Crudup and Jason Lee).  Crowe wrote and directed the film and gives himself a pretty glorified part.  Moreover, taking place in the early 1970s, the action onscreen is also indulgent, in that there is lots of drinking and drug use (although this is mostly implied because the film seems somehow to be aiming for family friendly, despite the debauchery).  Which brings me to the question of whether this film feels “right” in the era of #MeToo.  In fact, it doesn’t.  Kate Hudson is the groupie with the heart of gold and, although the film acknowledges that she is treated badly by the band, it doesn’t really make any effort to condemn that treatment, at least not strenuously.  Instead, it is nostalgic good times all the way and the rockin’ soundtrack doesn’t hurt that sentiment one bit.  Crowe spends his time trying to depict the emotional journey of the hero (himself, played wide-eyed by Patrick Fugit) and he does manage to capture wistful naivete pretty well (a la your typical coming-of-age story), including a delayed coda that makes it all right.  A few scenes do suggest that the film could have verged into Spinal Tap territory, but it doesn’t (too bad).  However, this may be the only fiction film to ever have someone play Lester Bangs (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and that’s worth the price of admission on its own.  

Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

☆ ☆ ½

Dracula’s Daughter (1936) – L. Hillyer

This first sequel to Universal’s Dracula (1931) starts off pretty great as Professor Van Helsing is arrested for the murder of Dracula after being caught at the scene of the crime (and Dracula with a stake in his heart and all).  There is some funny business with two daffy cops charged with looking after the body (and that of Renfield).  Of course, no one believes Van Helsing’s story about vampires, except his former protégé and now eminent psychiatrist Jeffrey Garth (played by Otto Kruger).  He wants to clear his mentor’s name but has no clues until Dracula’s body is stolen by a mysterious woman who later turns up at Garth’s office seeking psychiatric help (foreshadowing Abel Ferrara’s The Addiction, 1995, I guess). This film is famous because Dracula’s daughter (played by Gloria Holden) seems very likely to be same-sex attracted (and there is a seduction scene of sorts where she hypnotises a young homeless girl…and then apparently sucks her blood, but this isn’t shown onscreen).  Unfortunately, most of the proceedings here are not exactly riveting and there is more talk than action, taking place in undistinguished parlours rather than spooky castles or other gothic settings.  A few scenes stand out but, as far as Universal’s sequels go, the no holds barred absurdity of later entries (Son of Dracula, 1943, or House of Frankenstein, 1944) makes them more fun. 

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) – G. Edwards

Enjoyable genre movie-making that answers the question “How did the rebels get the Death Star plans?” and thus serves as a prelude to Episode 4: A New Hope, which most of us know to be just Star Wars (1977).  Indeed, we are treated to cameos by Princess Leia (young Carrie Fisher, digitally), C3PO & R2D2 (briefly) and Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones) as well as some guy in Peter Cushing make-up.  (Jimmy Smits is here but I don’t know why, since I gave Episodes 2 and 3 a miss).  The real focus here is on new characters however.  It seems Mads Mikkelsen’s Galen Erso designed the Death Star for the Empire, under pressure, even after they killed his wife and sent his daughter into hiding (with Forest Whitaker, of the Rebels).  As revenge, he put “the flaw” into the machinery that the plans reveal. Years later, his daughter, Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), becomes convinced to get those Death Star plans along with Diego Luna, Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang, Riz Ahmed and a deadpan robot named K-2SO.  Aussie Ben Mendelsohn is the chief baddie (apart from D. V.). It’s all action from start to finish, with the typical Star Wars blend of smart-ass dialogue, bonding and sentimentality, and good vs. evil shoot-em-ups.  There are attempts to create distinct characters but they are not much more than pieces on the chess board here, totemic though some may be. In the end, the film looks good (CGI) and director Gareth Edwards keeps things moving at a good pace (however, like many films today, it is probably a bit too long).  Conclusion:  if you like the franchise, this is well worth your time.     

The Southerner (1945)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Southerner (1945) – J. Renoir

One of a handful of films from Jean Renoir’s American Period (roughly 1941 to 1947) that saw him tackle American themes but never straying too far from his interests in class and economic justice (that were most prominent in his greatest film, The Rules of the Game, 1939, and even La Grande Illusion, 1937).  Here, Zachary Scott plays a cotton picker with a young family who decides to strike out on his own as a sharecropper (renting some of his former boss’s land and including a share of the crop as payment).  His wife, Betty Field, enthusiastically throws herself into fixing up the farm and sowing the field.  His grandmother, Beulah Bondi, complains endlessly but is sweet deep down.  Renoir manages to lend some human feeling to the proceedings and the relationships among the family and between Scott and his mean-spirited neighbour (J. Carroll Naish) seem authentic enough.  It’s a tough life but Scott and his family tackle it in a good humoured way (most of the time). In some ways, this is almost a neo-realist view of the (poor white) South, though I reckon things would have been even harder for some.

The Big Sick (2017)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Big Sick (2017) – M. Showalter

Subtitled “An Awkward True Story” which sort of sums it up.  This is a romantic comedy based on the real experiences of star and co-writer Kumail Nanjiani (from Pakistan originally) who wrote the script with his European-American wife Emily Gordon about the difficulties at the start of their cross-cultural relationship. Kumail is a comedian but the humour here comes less from his stand-up show and more from the situations that he finds himself in (and his funny retorts).  Awkward, yes. But more important is the fact that the script allows some excellent actors (Zoe Kazan, Holly Hunter, Ray Romano, Anupam Kher) to create some rich multi-faceted characters who face difficult situations humanly (and humanely). You see, the plot finds Kumail and Emily (Kazan) falling in love (with some cheesy moments) but then facing difficulties due to the influence of his parents who want him to marry a Pakistani girl.  They break up just before she gets really sick.  This makes things pretty heavy (lots of hospital time).  Fortunately, the emotions seem true even if the script doesn’t always find the right words.  Your heart is supposed to get touched…and it does.  Also, I did laugh.  So, a winner from this often justly maligned genre.      

Ringu (1998)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Ringu (1998) – H. Nakata

The harbinger of the J-Horror wave seems to have lost a little bit of its punch, seeing it again 20 years later.  I guess it is difficult to put yourself back in the same thunderstruck frame of mind, trying to grasp the bizarre plot as it unfolds with very few clues and only weird facts (such as the urban legend that watching a certain videotape could lead to your own mysterious death 7 days later).  I forgot just how much the movie holds back, saving its shocks for very late in the running time.  Instead, we follow erstwhile reporter Reiko Asakawa (played by Nanako Matsushima) as she investigates the links between the videotape and a series of simultaneous teen deaths.  Creepiness builds up, particularly when she calls on her clairvoyant ex-husband (played by Hiroyuki Sanada) to assist and they travel to distant Oshima Island, which seems to be the setting for some of the scenes in the spooky video.  Of course, they learn about Sadako and her mother Shizuko, both now deceased, and their sad fates.  Will putting their spirits to rest end the curse of the videotape?  Probably not.  I saw this as a double feature with Ringu 2 back in the day and recall the sequel as being weirder (and perhaps more confusing) but also scary.  Indeed, the whole J-Horror genre seems to be predicated on a lack of logic that American remakes just can’t seem to replicate – it’s all about the sensation of horror, the images and situations, rather than any rational storyline that matters.  That said, Ringu manages to maintain coherence pretty far into the piece; if only one could return to that naïve state and watch it again as if for the first time.

Where Danger Lives (1950)

☆ ☆ ☆

Where Danger Lives (1950) – J. Farrow

Robert Mitchum gets himself into trouble by falling for a suicidal femme fatale who is brought into the hospital where he works as a doctor.  He really falls hard, ditching his steady nurse girlfriend and spending all of his time with the mysterious and very wealthy young Margo (played by Faith Domergue in her debut picture).  Soon, Mitchum is in a direct confrontation with her father (Claude Rains, in a brief but showy turn) that leaves him on the run to Mexico with Margo by his side.  They get waylaid in a few hick towns and nearly caught by the police (or were they?) until, in the end, fate catches up with them (as you knew it would).  Straightforward noir with no real frills but Mitchum is always great to watch, with his devil-may-care attitude and constant nonchalance – even here where he spends half of the movie concussed.  Director John Farrow (Mia’s dad) directed a few noirs (The Big Clock and Night has a Thousand Eyes, 1948) but was more of an all-rounder.  Worth a look for aficionados.