Arrival (2016)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Arrival (2016) – D. Villeneuve

Denis Villeneuve’s science fiction film never underestimates the audience’s intelligence (using real scientists and linguistics scholars as advisors), yet it still comes across as somewhat loopy.  This may be because some of the logical connections that hold the plot together are given short shrift, ending up almost as MacGuffins (Hitchcock’s term for the objects that drive the suspense plot, such as a secret formula that spies wish to obtain, that never really need to be understood or explained).  For example, we almost get to understand the links between learning the alien language and developing a mastery over time – but not quite.  Nevertheless, the film is enjoyable simply for the process that it unfolds, showing how human methods can be used to tackle a surreal situation (and to some degree how human nature can get in the way).  Amy Adams, linguist, and Jeremy Renner, scientist, are enlisted by Forest Whitaker, Colonel, to meet the aliens (who have landed their ships in 12 locations around the world) and to learn the purpose of their arrival (which means learning their language, a painstaking but enthralling task).  Interspersed with this are flashbacks from Amy Adams’ life that help her to tackle the challenge.  The look of the film is sombre and the music often matches that mood.  Think of it as starting where Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1979) left off, with much of the action occurring inside the alien spacecraft.  What consequences would there be for humanity and for individuals?  There’s more to think about – with a “would you kill Hitler” slant – but I hesitate to indulge in too many spoilers in this review; I’m not quite sure the final twist was done justice (though it does make you want to watch the film again).  Definitely worth a look, particularly if you like sci-fi.

Sons of the Desert (1933)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Sons of the Desert (1933) – W. Seiter

Laurel and Hardy are ridiculous idiots – and, as usual, they are the butt of every joke.  Ollie is the “mastermind” of their plan to dupe their wives to travel to Chicago for a convention of their titular fraternal order.  Stan goes along for the ride but can’t quite grasp the cover story.  He also eats some wax fruit.  One thing inevitably leads to another and their wives find out.  But the fun is all in getting to that point (the Chicago scenes, featuring Charley Chase and some pre-code dancers are surprisingly brief).  Sure, there is slapstick but the laughs derive equally from Laurel’s malapropisms and Hardy’s slow burn.  The wives (Mae Busch & Dorothy Christy) hold their own without becoming caricatures.  What little plot there is allows the gags to be strung together fairly well.  Good for a few chortles.

Beyond the Clouds (1995)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Beyond the Clouds (1995) – M. Antonioni & W. Wenders

Beautiful people in beautiful locations – but is it Antonioni?  Well, of course, it is – this is the great director’s final feature done in partnership with Wim Wenders (in order to secure insurance coverage following his 1985 stroke).  But does it connect with Antonioni’s other films?  Mysteriously, it does – although this only becomes apparent as the film slowly unwinds through its four incomplete anecdotes, charting relationships between men and women (often in a soft-core state of undress) who invariably do not connect.  Or do they?  Except for the Peter Weller adultery sequence (where both Fanny Ardant and Chiara Caselli appear distraught), the characters seem nonplussed as their interactions go nowhere.  John Malkovich floats above it all, quoting from Antonioni’s book (as his stand in), holding the stories together, peering into windows, and engaging with Sophie Marceau.  None of this is particularly satisfying on its own but Antonioni’s eye for the image and a melancholy romantic soundtrack slowly work some magic, elevating the film above others of its type but nowhere near the masterworks of the director’s richest period (‘50s through ‘70s).

Anomalisa (2015)

☆ ☆ ☆

Anomalisa (2015) – D. Johnson & C. Kaufman

Whereas I appreciate the “craft” involved in creating this stop-motion puppet movie, the end result is far too much of a weird downer for my tastes at the moment.  I generally enjoy the weird and have enjoyed some of Charlie Kaufman’s earlier efforts (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, even Synecdoche New York). However, apart from the protagonists being puppets, the conceit here (that all the minor characters are voiced by Tom Noonan, male or female, and have the same facial features) makes the film feel flatter rather than heightens its appeal.  The plot, which tracks a man staying in a hotel for a conference across a single night during which he questions his past, present, and possible future relationships, is unafraid to wallow in psychological insecurity and distress.  But that’s not an altogether enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes (and a realistically awkward puppet sex scene is something I could probably have done without).  So, are there moments of authentic humanity here?  I think so – and David Thewlis and Jennifer Jason Leigh do bring the puppets to life – but the ratio of mundanity to surrealism was far too high.

  

Minnie and Moskowitz (1971)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Minnie and Moskowitz (1971) – J. Cassavetes

Unmistakably a Cassavetes picture, shot in that vérité, quasi-improvised style that he made his own, Minnie and Moskowitz follows two odd characters (played by Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, respectively) as they meet and fall in love.  If that sounds like straightforward romantic comedy, the actual film is anything but.  In Cassavetes’ universe, people seem to have serious problems with their emotional regulation.  Moskowitz especially runs hot and hot, while Minnie tends toward cool (so much so that she wears her sunglasses indoors and at night).  And whether this is a comedy at all is an open question:  I found the interactions between people to be predominantly tense, probably because of all the norm violations by Moskowitz.  Minnie seems to have a similar reaction but comes around to his honesty and openness.  What you see is what you get.  Apart from the central duo, we are also treated to a number of bizarre monologues from character actors such as Timothy Carey (a well-known weirdo) and Val Avery – these do verge on the comic.  Cassavetes also makes a sly reference to 2001: A Space Odyssey.  In other words, the film is looser and less serious than the tougher dramas Cassavetes is known for (Faces, A Woman Under the Influence).  As it careens to a conclusion, things fall apart a bit, as the actors break character to show the making of the film to have been a fun family affair (Rowlands and Cassavetes, who also makes an appearance as a true heel, were married and their mothers appear in the film).

City That Never Sleeps (1953)

☆ ☆ ☆

City That Never Sleeps (1953) – J. H. Auer

It’s Chicago actually.  Gig Young is a cop who is fed up with his life – he plans to ditch his wife for a stripper, quit the force, and move to California.  In order to get the dough to do so, he throws in with corrupt lawyer Edward Arnold, promising to “arrest” bad magician William Talman and drive him to Indiana where he is wanted for a more serious crime.  Things do go pear-shaped but watching over him is the “spirit of the city” Chill Wills who takes over as his partner when his real one is home sick with an earache.  Wills doesn’t prevent any crimes/murders but he does remind Young about the importance of his job and of the police in society.  They do some helpful things.  The film is a true noir, shot on location in high contrast black and white, showing dark alleys, a strip club, corrupt rich guys, bitchy Marie Windsor, bad mistakes, and depressing violence.  Although the leads are a bit ho-hum, Talman made a great noir baddie (see also Armed Car Robbery, 1950, and The Hitch-hiker, 1953) before he graduated to Perry Mason’s nemesis (district attorney Hamilton Burger).  Worth a look.

  

Tombs of the Blind Dead (1972)

☆ ☆

Tombs of the Blind Dead (1972) – A. de Ossorio

I was looking for creepy and this story about the accursed Templar Knights who were executed and had their eyes pecked out by birds but then came back from the dead to haunt their abandoned medieval Portuguese town seemed just the ticket.  Reviews suggested that the gore was on the lighter side for this kind of Euro-Horror and that’s true enough – however, a nasty rape scene was not what I wanted.  Although the human rapist does meet his doom at the bony hands/teeth of the Satanic knights, this does not justify sexual violence against women.  Considering the film without that scene – and, apparently, it was edited out in some prints – the film does have a spooky quality.  These lumbering blind zombies and their slow-motion horses are rather relentless.  Of course, as could be expected, the acting is not strong and the actions of the characters are implausible at best.  Moreover, the Foley artists were really working overtime (I’m reminded of the recent and recommended Berberian Sound Studio, 2012).  But I can’t recommend this film given its content -- not unusual for horror during this time period and in Europe, but still unwelcome.  I just wanted creepy.