The Case Against Brooklyn (1958)

 ☆ ☆ ☆

The Case Against Brooklyn (1958) – P. Wendkos

Based on a true story, Darren McGavin plays the rookie cop who is assigned to go undercover to expose a bookie ring that has protection from a group of corrupt cops (who receive a pay-off).  It starts out Dragnet-style as a police procedural, seemingly narrated by the Chief of Police or District Attorney.  But at a certain point, the narration is left behind and we stick with Private Pete Harris (McGavin) as he tries to get evidence against the local “horse shop” and to find out who the kingpin is. The interesting twist is that Harris is not really a nice guy.  When he needs to get some information out of a widow whose husband has committed suicide after being roughed up by the bookies for big debts, he doesn’t hesitate to romance her, even telling is partner that he would “go all the way” if he had to.  His wife wouldn’t need to know – although, of course, later she finds out, when the widow suspects Pete is not all he suggests he is (an out-of-town businessman) and looks him up in the phone book (he is using his real name!) to find his home address. At any rate, after his partner is killed and things go even more sour on the case, Pete turns in his badge and goes rogue (something Jackie Chan has also done on a few occasions) -- yes, it is a cliché and this late noir is full of them (including stealing some plot twists from Lang’s The Big Heat, 1953).  It all plays out a bit like a TV drama but with added violence (for the time).  However, with no real sympathetic characters, it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.  As noir should.    

Argentina, 1985 (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Argentina, 1985 (2022) – S. Mitre

Whenever I see Argentinian star Ricardo Darín (such as in Nine Queens, 2000; The Aura, 2005; The Secret in Their Eyes, 2009; or Farhadi’s Everybody Knows, 2018), I’m always impressed. This film, which won the 2023 Golden Globe for Best Non-English Language Picture, casts him as the public prosecutor, Julio Strassera, who is charged with trying the case against the military dictators (in the Trial of the Juntas) who took over Argentina (from Isabel Perón) in a 1976 coup and ruled the country until democratic elections resumed in 1983. During the Juntas’ reign, they carried out a “dirty war” of “disappearances”, torture, and murder against those suspected of opposing them (many young people).  Despite the stated policy of the new government (of President Raúl Alfonsín) to hold the Juntas accountable, Strassera doubts that the prosecution will be allowed to win or, if they do, that anything more than token punishments would be meted out by the federal judges who will provide the ruling and sentencing. The film portrays him as an underdog and this is reinforced when he can only gather a team of inexperienced young lawyers to support him. Even as they gather the horrific evidence by interviewing surviving victims and their families, the film begins hitting the notes of the feel-good drama. The courtroom scenes give voice to those who have been violated and it feels like a real win for social justice when Strassera delivers his closing arguments (“Never Again!”). The fact that only a small number of the Juntas are given life sentences is the only downbeat note here (and in fact, according to Wikipedia, they were pardoned in the 1990s – and then had their convictions reinstated a decade after that). So, what could have been a more nuanced and subtle examination of the issues at play turned into something a bit more Hollywood (albeit in Spanish) – I would have given the Golden Globe to Decision to Leave (Park Chan-Wook). Nevertheless, this sort of history lesson, about the need to stay vigilant against fascism, is always welcome.

 

Woman on the Run (1950)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Woman on the Run (1950) – N. Foster

Above average noir, recently restored with the assistance of Eddie Muller’s Film Noir Foundation and streaming everywhere (it seems). We open as Frank Johnson is walking his dog in San Francisco late at night. He hears loud voices from a car parked on a road on the hill above and then a man falls out of the car and shots ring out. The killer sees Frank and fires two shots at him which miss.  The killer flees in his car and Frank rushes up to find the dead man and shouts to his neighbours at their windows to call the police.  When the police arrive, they tell Frank that he must identify the killer in a line-up and then testify to a grand jury investigating the mob about what he saw (the victim was about to give state’s evidence). Frank doesn’t much like this and at the first opportunity he high-tails it out of there.  So, the police turn to his wife, Eleanor (Ann Sheridan), who it seems doesn’t much like Frank, for assistance to find him.  When he does call, she warns him off.  However, she is convinced by money offered by an eager but cynical newspaperman, Legget (Dennis O’Keefe), to search for Frank. The rest of the movie involves the hunt for Frank with both the police, the gang, and Eleanor all chasing up clues that he’s left behind. Along the way, there is some great location shooting in SF, she learns that she’s still in love, and the film concludes at the beach with some scary rollercoaster scenes. There’s a twist or two and both O’Keefe and Sheridan sparkle.   

 

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022) – P. McKay & J. D. Payne

The pull of J. R. R. Tolkien’s fantasy universe is strong and so, when we accidentally signed up for a free trial of Amazon Prime, the kids urged me to let them watch the new series based on the old books. Having read and loved the books as a child (and enjoyed the spectacle of the movies), I acquiesced. Across eight episodes, this first series (of a promised five) weaves together numerous plot strands to begin telling the story of how the One Ring (that Bilbo found and Frodo destroyed) and its (eventually) subsidiary rings (3 for the elves, 7 for the dwarves, 9 for the humans) were forged in the Second Age of Middle Earth (thousands of years before The Hobbit). Galadriel (later Cate Blanchett, now Morfydd Clark) is part of this story, although we first meet her during a quest to find out if and where the vanquished evil minions of defeated Morgoth, including right-hand man Sauron, have fled… if they have survived at all.  But of course, they have and soon orcs are pillaging in the human-controlled territory of the Southlands (in which we meet a number of characters, both human and elf). Will they receive assistance? Perhaps the other human colony on the island of Numenor can be called on for help? We follow a number of other players there, especially after Galadriel finds her way there alongside the lost king of the Southlands, Halbrand (Charlie Vickers). Elsewhere, high elf Elrond (later Hugo Weaving, now Robert Aramayo) negotiates with Prince Durin IV (Owain Arthur) of the dwarves to secure the necessary force to build the forge and metal (mithril) to make the rings. Finally, we do see hobbits, er, harfoots, a migratory subspecies who stumble upon a giant who appears to have fallen from the sky inside a meteorite. I may have forgotten a subplot or two (and the many different human characters did become a bit of a blur when I was too distracted) but I think we’ve caught the main thrust of the story so far. Given that this is projected to be the most expensive TV series ever made (thanks to Jeff Bezos’s deep pockets), it does look impressive (with more real special effects than CGI, I’m told). But is the pull of J. R. R. Tolkien strong enough to get us to sign up for Amazon Prime to watch any future series? A shock twist at the end of series one has already encouraged my son to ask how much a single month of Prime might cost…

Nope (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Nope (2022) – J. Peele

Jordan Peele’s third directorial outing (after Get Out, 2017, and Us, 2019) is also a genre pic, straddling sci-fi and horror. Daniel Kaluuya is back, as O.J., a stoic horse trainer who supplies animal talent for movies, following in his father’s footsteps (the father who dies in a freak accident at the start of the film). His sister, Emerald (Keke Palmer), is helping out with the business but has other ambitions. When mysterious things start happening out at the ranch, O.J. and Em decide that capturing them on film might be either a ticket to fame and success or at least a way to salvage the flailing business. I’m not spoiling anything when I say that they think they have seen a U.F.O. and that the U.F.O. may be abducting their horses.  Straightforward enough but then again it isn’t. Peele takes us into undiscovered territory with a side plot that features a child star who barely escaped an on-set chimpanzee attack (and who now runs a western-style theme park). While not as clearly laced with social commentary as his early features (although there are nods to Black heritage and perhaps a general querying of our need to be famous/desire attention), this is still a solid creature feature, the kind where the unusual is treated seriously and rational steps are taken to address it (see also Tremors, 1990). Worth a look (and still a director to follow).

 

Crimes of the Future (2022)

 ☆ ☆ ☆ ½

Crimes of the Future (2022) – D. Cronenberg

Aiming for, and occasionally attaining, the kind of transgressive feel that he achieved with Videodrome (1983), David Cronenberg’s Crimes of the Future lays out a possible reality where humans have evolved not to feel pain or to develop infections and some produce new unknown glands and organs in their bodies on a regular basis. Viggo Mortensen plays Saul Tenser who has turned his organ production into a vehicle for performance art: with the assistance of former “trauma surgeon” Caprice (Léa Seydoux), he has the new adaptations extracted from his body (using an antiquated “autopsy machine”) in front of an audience at various underground venues. Together, they have achieved a notoriety or fame that brings them to the attention of the New Vice Unit (Welket Bungué) and the National Organ Registry (Kristen Stewart and Don McKellar; she says that “surgery is the new sex”). At the same time, Tenser is approached by a secretive man, Lang Dotrice (Scott Speedman) creating purple candy bars who wants him to do a live autopsy of his son (who we earlier see eating a plastic rubbish basket). Eventually, it comes to light that he represents a rebellious group of plastic eaters who are pushing evolution into a direction not favoured by the authorities (but which sounds environmentally correct: eating the industrial waste that humans produce). Representatives of a company, LifeFormWare, that makes beds, chairs, and other furniture that are adapted to their owner’s physical being, are somehow invested in the outcomes of the collaboration between Tenser and Dotrice (but the film doesn’t clarify this). Overall, this is a dark film, both cinematographically and thematically, and it isn’t surprising that some viewers walked out of the premiere (most likely due to the graphic surgery scenes). But it feels funny that Cronenberg uses his big budget techniques for what might feel more edgy and “real” if low budget techniques were used (such as earlier in his career). Likely too, the film might be too slow for some, although scrambling to understand everything that Cronenberg’s very imaginative future holds, some of which remains unspoken, may occupy much of your time. Remembering the “ground rules” such as the fact that no one feels pain (except those who subversively seek it out) is an additional challenge. Worth a look, if you have a strong stomach.

 

The House of Fear (1945)/The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939)

☆ ☆ ☆ ½     The House of Fear (1945) – R. W. Neill

☆ ☆ ☆         The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939) – A. Werker

We watched a Sherlock Holmes double feature (well, across two nights), featuring, first, The House of Fear (1945), the tenth film in the long-running series starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Watson, and then, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939), the second in the series and one of only two (along with The Hound of the Baskervilles, also 1939) produced by Fox with a comparatively higher budget before the series moved to Universal. As readers will remember, I used to watch these Holmes films on Saturday nights on Channel 38 with my Dad, so it is a pleasure to be able to watch them now with my own sons. Moreover, The House of Fear is loosely based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story The Five Orange Pips, which I read to the boys when we were camping earlier this year. That story turns out to feature the KKK as the villains, responsible for sending orange pips to members of a family against whom they held a vendetta and wanted to kill. In the movie, the orange pips feature in an Agatha-Christie-styled plot where a group of retirees called the Good Comrades die one-by-one after receiving the pips with suspicion falling on the survivors until only one is left. Holmes steps in with his powers of deduction to solve the mystery before it is too late (and Watson provides comic relief plus discovers the final clue). It's a fast-paced and fun affair.  Rewind to six years earlier and The Adventures is considerably more staid (although we do get to see more of 221 Baker Street than ever) with Rathbone and Bruce slightly less settled in their characters (it is jarring to see Holmes snap at Watson, even though this side of his personality was evident in the stories). This film spotlights Holmes rivalry with Professor Moriarty (George Zucco) who vows to commit the crime of the century, challenging Holmes to stop him. Clever Moriarty devises a distraction for Holmes – mysterious letters sent to Ida Lupino and her brother that suggest they are to be murdered – even as he plots to steal the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London.  For most of the film, Holmes is indeed distracted by the strange case and Moriarty very nearly gets away with his caper, even as Lupino is only very nearly rescued.  But the plot doesn’t completely make sense (due to some scenes left on the cutting room floor, as the DVD booklet explains) and Fox dropped the series when the film was poorly received. Fortunately, Rathbone and Bruce were able to take their act to Universal where they managed another 12 films of fun and mystery.