Monday, July 29, 2019

Secret of the Incas (1954)


☆ ☆ ☆ 

Secret of the Incas (1954) – J. Hopper

The real reason for watching this is not because Charlton Heston’s Harry Steele might be the inspiration for Indiana Jones (complete with out-sized fedora and bomber jacket) but rather because of the bewitching presence of Yma Sumac, the Peruvian exotica singer with the multi-octave range.  It’s true that Sumac only has a bit part but she sings and that’s enough (you may know one of her songs from the Big Lebowski soundtrack).  The rest of the film is a bit ho-hum.  Heston is a cad living off what he can scrounge up from tourists in Cusco who has dreams of finding some missing Incan treasure.  He isn’t very likable, nor is his rival/antagonist Ed Morgan (played by famed character actor Thomas Mitchell).  When a young woman in trouble (Nicole Maurey) enters the picture, Heston uses her to escape Cusco in a stolen plane which they fly to Machu Picchu where Robert Young (soon Father Knows Best) is conducting an archaeological dig.  Location shooting is a plus.  The only bit that seems vaguely like Raiders of the Ark is when Heston figures out how to find the hidden treasure by causing the moonlight to shine on exactly the right spot.  He almost loses the girl to Young (and really he should have) but all’s well that ends well, for the Peruvians (and Yma Sumac) at least.   
  

Sunday, July 28, 2019

13 Assassins (2010)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½


13 Assassins (2010) – T. Miike

Director Takashi Miike is famous for the sheer number of films he cranks out (17 more since this 2010 release) and their audacity … and cruelty (see, or don’t see, Audition, 1999).  Here, he takes on the classical jidai-geki, the feudal samurai picture, by remaking Eiichi Kudô’s 1963 film of the same name, owing a strong debt to Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, 1954, and all the films about men plotting an attack/heist/mission that followed in its footsteps.  An aging samurai, Shinzaemon Shimada (Kôji Yakusho) is asked to gather a group of samurai to assassinate an evil and sadistic lord.  After a series of scenes that set the stage, Shinzaemon prepares to attack the lord as he and his entourage pass through a tiny village en route to their feudal lands from Edo.  Unfortunately for Shinzaemon, an old friend/competitor now works for the evil lord and develops a strategy to foil the plan.  The result is an hour-long (more?) battle sequence featuring grungy and bloody hand-to-hand combat and a lot of things blowing up or crashing down that is a tour-de-force of production design and craftmanship.  Miike’s preference for leaving in the gore is perhaps somewhat toned down (although there are plenty of gruesome shots here and in the earlier recounting of the evil lord’s deeds that you might want to turn away from).  In some ways, the film becomes gruelling but for action buffs (or on the big screen?) it is likely exciting.  However, the characters aren’t quite uniquely defined (as each of the 13 meet their fates, I struggled to remember who they were) and the plot ends in “just so” fashion.  No surprises here.  Yakusho remains a charismatic actor throughout.  Miike went on to remake Kobayashi’s excellent Hara-Kiri (1962) the following year…in 3D.

Thursday, July 25, 2019

No Way Out (1950)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½


No Way Out (1950) – J. L. Mankiewicz

Sidney Poitier (in his feature debut at 22) plays a young doctor who is assigned to the prison ward and ends up treating two hoodlum brothers who have been shot in a hold-up.  His efforts to save one fail, leading the other, extremely racist, brother (Richard Widmark, not too far from his evil turn in Kiss of Death, 1947) to accuse the doctor of murder.  Poitier is supported by the chief doctor (Stephen McNally) but he can’t rest until an autopsy is done to prove that he made the right decision (a spinal tap to check for a brain tumour).  However, the hospital needs family approval to go ahead with the autopsy and Widmark won’t give it.  The dead brother’s ex-wife (Linda Darnell) is contacted to try to convince Widmark but she is too unsure of herself to be of much help.  Then, when the newspapers print a story about the case, black and white (redneck) residents of the town get up in arms and a race riot unfolds.  To stop the violence, Poitier confesses to murder and is placed in jail, contingent on the autopsy being performed.  Meanwhile Widmark escapes and can only think of revenge.  It’s pretty astounding how awful the racist spew that comes out of Widmark’s mouth really is – you wouldn’t get this horrible blatant invective in a film these days (even if some terrible people actually believe this garbage) – but Poitier, as always, shows dignity and nobility in the face of this awful situation.  It’s a noir film for him, even if there’s a message for the audience.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

The New Girlfriend (2014)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½


The New Girlfriend (2014) – F. Ozon

For some reason, I have been completely neglecting François Ozon after enjoying Under the Sand (2000) and Swimming Pool (2002), as much as I can recall them.  He seems to have continued making films in a similar psychological vein and with some critical acclaim.  But I guess I was somehow fooled by the online descriptions of this one (and don’t read on if you’d like to be fooled too). It seemed like a thriller about a man who harboured a secret that was discovered after his wife died.  I mistakenly assumed that the secret was a “new girlfriend” – however, I couldn’t be further off-base.  Instead, the film is largely told from the perspective of Claire (Anaïs Demoustier), the best friend of the deceased wife, and it is her “new girlfriend” that the film is about.  And indeed that “new girlfriend” is the husband with a secret, David (Romain Duris) – and the secret is cross-dressing. As Claire and David (now called Virginia) grow closer, their relationship (kept secret from Claire’s husband) has serious psychological effects on both members (and Ozon seems to suggest these are positive freeing effects).  Clearly, Claire is seeking a replacement for her lost girlfriend (for whom she may or may not have had sexual feelings) whereas Virginia wants to be appreciated as a woman and to have a close girlfriend.  Or perhaps there is more to it?  Although the film feels like a Claude Chabrol French psychodrama at times, particularly as it gets into Claire’s confused head, ultimately it seems to have less to say and less tension than expected, save for a late plot surprise and a brief somewhat ambiguous coda.  Yet, we don’t get too many films that venture into this territory, unjudgmentally but with intrigue. Perhaps Ozon’s oeuvre is worth a look-see, after all.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Logan Lucky (2017)


☆ ☆ ☆

Logan Lucky (2017) – S. Soderbergh

Are director Steven Soderbergh and writer Rebecca Blunt taking the piss or do they genuinely have some affection for these blue-collar characters from West Virginia?  How close do the actors veer toward caricature?  I guess it is a testament to all that the line here is pretty blurred – after some initial discomfort, I settled in to their world and accepted (mostly) everyone on face value.  A lot of little seemingly authentic details flesh things out.  But this is still a comedy so we’re meant to laugh at some fools (e.g., Jack Quaid and Brian Gleeson). Channing Tatum and Adam Driver are brothers who have been unlucky in life and now plan to rob the local racetrack during a big NASCAR event (with the assistance of convict Daniel Craig, playing American).  The filmmakers play a bit of a shell game with the audience, refusing to give us all the details of the heist plan until it has actually unfolded – this “reveal” is mostly satisfying but a bit mechanical.  Soderbergh and his team are really aiming for “fun” here and the ironic sting in the tail is supposed to round things off and send the audience home with a knowing smile – but somehow things don’t really lift off.  It could be a somewhat jarring mismatch of acting styles at times or a generally subdued performance from Tatum or a “seen it all before” feel to the heist.  But it is certainly an amiable time-passer.

Monday, July 15, 2019

Eye in the Sky (2015)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½


Eye in the Sky (2015) – G. Hood

Another of those political thrillers that takes a specific event and zooms in on it, examining it from all angles and from the perspectives of different stakeholders.  In this case, we get a very topical look at what drones can do in the context of the “war on terrorism” – in particular, we learn the unbelievable extent of their ability to spy on anyone (“eye in the sky” indeed) as well as their use as an assassination tool.  Of course, the use of drones for either purpose is highly morally charged – except that we appear to have foregone debate on their use, as long as citizens of our own countries are not targeted.  In this British film focused on the battle against Al-Shabaab terrorists in Nairobi, Kenya, there is absolutely no questioning of the freedom to spy on anyone, even inside their private dwellings.  Given that an impending suicide bomb attack is uncovered through such spying, it is taken for granted that it is morally justified.  The film really focuses on the moral quandaries associated with the next decision, to use the drone to assassinate those responsible for terrorism, and tries to heighten those complexities by making it likely that an innocent young girl will also die if the drone attack goes ahead (this is akin to Philippa Foot’s Trolley problem, asking participants to choose between options that lead to the death of one child through action or the passive death of many more people through inaction).  Yet the filmmakers clearly seem to be barracking for the “attack” option, with Helen Mirren playing the Colonel in charge of the operation who strongly advocates for dropping the hellfire bomb (and Alan Rickman, in his last film role, the General who supports her).  Those who raise moral doubts are pooh-poohed and dismissed.  However, as events unfold, the likelihood of innocent deaths cannot be simply written off (and none of the British politicians want to make the decision, even as ALL of the Americans asked can’t see any of the moral objections).  Regardless of whether the filmmakers given equal and fair hearings to both sides of the argument, the film itself is a heart-pounding thriller that manages to put viewers on the edge of their seats even though the majority of the running time is consumed by hesitation and inaction rather than action itself.

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Hustle (1975)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½


Hustle (1975) – R. Aldrich

Better than I expected “neo-noir” from director Robert Aldrich and star Burt Reynolds.  Sure, it contains all the clichés of the genre (more like those from a TV cop series really).  Burt’s a worn out police detective living with his girlfriend (a hooker) and dealing with a dead girl washed up on the beach (also a hooker/stripper). He dreams of the time he spent in Italy when things weren’t so bleak and plays jazz records from that time.  Burt doesn’t emote much, yet he fills the role fine.   But Aldrich has loaded the film with some very fine actors who improve the script with their presence:  Catherine Deneuve as the girlfriend, Ben Johnson and Eileen Brennan as the parents of the dead girl, Paul Winfield as Burt’s partner, Ernest Borgnine as his boss, and Eddie Albert as the chief bad guy.  Yes, it’s seedy as hell and sexist (of course) but no one advertised this as anything different.  Still, there’s a melancholy mood that lingers and sometimes that’s what you want.

Sunday, July 7, 2019

The Aura (2005)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½


The Aura (2005) – F. Bielinsky

Argentinian neo-noir from the makers of Nine Queens (2000; Director Fabián Bielinsky; Star Ricardo Darín) that sets a mood that lingers and lingers in the grey-green Patagonian forest.  Is it possible to imagine this same plot set in the 1940s/50s world of the original noirs? Perhaps, yes, without too much trying.  Darín plays a taxidermist with epilepsy who might also fall somewhere along the autistic spectrum, having a unique almost photographic memory and a facility for plotting heists in his head.  But he speaks little and rubs others the wrong way when he does, preferring animals to people. His personal life seems very empty.  It is hard to warm up to him.  So, when he ventures on a hunting trip with a taxidermy colleague and winds up alienating him, we aren’t surprised.  But when he accidentally shoots and kills the owner of their hunting lodge and inserts himself into the casino heist that the man was planning, we suspect that he is getting in over his head.  Even more so when two gangsters show up to help carry out the robbery.  Bielinsky lets the plot unfold slowly, preferring to observe Darín’s responses as he encounters the other players (e.g., the host’s young wife, Dolores Fonzi) and as he hits inevitable snags in his plans.  Of course, his seizures occur at the least opportune times.  Perhaps a tighter film might have shed a few minutes to its benefit -- but the focus here is on noir-ish mood (anxiety, uncertainty, dread) less than on plot, remember? There are lots of dissolves here! Unfortunately, director Bielinsky died of a heart attack soon after the film was made, so this proved his last accomplishment.   

Saturday, July 6, 2019

You Were Never Really Here (2017)


☆ ☆ ☆ ½

You Were Never Really Here (2017) – L. Ramsay



There can be no denying that Lynne Ramsay is a masterful director nor that Joaquin Phoenix is an incredible actor.  Yet despite the artistic forces at work here, the material is too grim and their respective talents cannot elevate it to transcendence.  In fact, the viewer might be led to a quixotic state of having two minds here: the first mind is awed by the shot choices and compositions which involve abstract patterns of moving colours and light layered across the image whereas the second mind is dulled by the harsh story that finds Phoenix’s traumatised war vet acting as a rescuer of underage girls subjected to sex trafficking.  The two minds may meet occasionally, of course, as when Phoenix’s character (“Joe”) experiences flashbacks to his childhood (with abusive father) or the war (seeing one child shoot another for a candy bar) or to his main coping mechanism (suffocating himself with a plastic bag).  Ramsay interweaves these snippets as a cognitive psychologist might, showing thoughts as they are prompted by the present and their emotional impact (as conveyed perfectly by Phoenix).  As elsewhere, Phoenix is not afraid to let himself appear bedraggled, wounded, imperfect – he absorbs the horror of the world for us.  Yet, a too pat ending encourages us to go on.  I haven’t watched those Liam Neeson “Taken” films but this would seem a variation on those (but the plot itself, implicating the governor/local senator in the trafficking ring, is truly beside the point here).  Proceed with caution.

Thursday, July 4, 2019

Xala (1975)



☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Xala (1975) – O. Sembene

Director Ousmane Sembene’s satire on the state of African politics (circa 1975) starts off with a broad slap: African businessmen taking over the government of the country (presumably Senegal) from the French receive briefcases full of cash, presumably bribes. Then, the script hones in on one particular businessman (Thierno Leye) about to take a third wife who finds himself cursed on his wedding night with the Xala (impotence).  It doesn’t become clear until the end of the film who placed this curse on him (he suspects his other two wives as well as rival businessmen).  He visits an array of witch-doctors to try to find a cure and eventually does, but by then his finances are in disarray and his check bounces!  The rest of the Chamber of Commerce (all corrupt) vote to kick him out.  The final scene, where aggrieved beggars have their vengeance, is straight out of Bunuel (or John Waters).  Indeed, the low budget proceedings, sets and settings of African in the seventies, contrast with the tale of corruption (e.g., a line of Mercedes proceeds down a dusty street littered with garbage, watched by those seriously disabled beggars).  Music by Samba Diabare Samb (playing a primitive lilting stringed instrument) adds to the effect.  In retrospect, knowing the ending, everything falls into place and the film makes sense (and has bite) – but along the way it wasn’t entirely clear where it was going....