Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Once again, in the wise words of my Internet friend @StuSmallz... [taps mic]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/062b...860b/tenor.gif

Like the name suggests, I will use this thread to post details of my personal movie challenge where I gather a monthly "loot" of films based on a different set of criteria. Like most RT/Corrie refugees know, I've been doing this for a couple of years now, but after our exile to MoFo, and being a n00b here, I didn't feel like rearranging the MoFo furniture so to speak.

But it's 2021, so what the heck!

RT/Corrie refugees might notice that, unlike past years, I'm reducing the criteria from 15 to 10. Some reasons for that are to lighten the load for me given work and parental duties, but also to allow some more space for "freebies", if time permits.

I will also use the thread to post new episodes of my podcast, which is also titled Thief's Monthly Movie Loot (you can also find it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podchaser, and Google Podcasts).

Anyway, anybody is welcome to offer recommendations for any category, and anybody is welcome to join in the challenge. Let's loot!

---------------------------------------------------

Links to the loots of past months

January 2021 • February 2021 • March 2021 • April 2021 • May 2021 • June 2021 • July 2021 • August 2021 • September 2021 • October 2021 • November 2021 • December 2021

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

I wanted to share an extensive list of what I saw last year, for the record and mostly to let the MoFo's get the gist of the categories. It's 200+ films, so I'm gonna try to keep it as organized as possible for ease of reading...





































Rewatches are in blue, short films in red.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Decided to start my 2021 film-watching with the rewatch of a classic. Orson Welles' masterpiece follows the titular character (played by Welles) as we see him rise from a poor kid to a larger-than-life multimillionaire in search of something. The film is truly a masterpiece in pretty much every aspect. From the performances to the broken chronology, from the editing to the flawless direction. Really, the way Welles plays with lights and shadows, perspective and depth in his shots is something impressive. But beyond its technical merits, it really is a great, engaging film.

I've seen/heard a bunch of "making of" featurettes and commentaries, but I had never heard the Ebert one, so the next day, I watched that. The documentary only serves to highlight how impressive Welles' feat is. Ebert offers some wonderful insight into the production and filming process, as well as some thoughtful analysis about the film's themes.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

The above exchange occurs at the end of the first act of this 2018 Swedish sci-fi. In it, our lead character, who's referred to as "MR" (Emelie Jonsson) receives the shattering news from "The Astronomer" (Anneli Martini) after a risky maneuver to avoid space debris takes the titular spaceship off its course. There is nowhere to turn, which can be interpreted in multiple ways, as the passengers turn to numerous sources and places in their search of comfort, peace, and reassurance that "everything is under control", or "going as planned", as the Captain repeatedly says. But are they?

Aniara, which is based on a Swedish poem with a title that comes from a Greek word meaning "despair", offers a lot of that. The film follows the ship which is making a supposedly routine journey from a ravaged and almost uninhabitable Earth to newly established colonies on Mars. But when the accident occurs, the ship is left fuel-less drifting into the unknown. Much can be unpacked about the religious, philosophical, and existential symbolisms of it, but on the surface, the passengers find themselves getting slowly but surely more desperate about their situation, while trying to cling to numerous things in their search of hope and meaning.

I found this to be an incredibly thought-provoking film with economically effective production values and a subtle but great performance from Jonsson. Much of the story is focused on her character, a low-level employee at the ship that manages a spa-like AI room called MIMA, where passengers can go to relive past images of Earth in their search of solace. But as the fate of the ship becomes widely known, both MIMA and its "liaison", the "MR", find themselves burdened in more ways than one. But who can we turn to when things don't "go as planned"? The MIMA can be seen as a fairly obvious reference to God or religion, and its failure to completely soothe the despaired passengers works as both a criticism of it and its followers ("there is no protection from mankind").

But as the passengers shift their hopes into various directions, Kågerman & Lilja continue to tear everything down with relentless fatalism. Mars? ("it's cold. Nothing grows except for a small frost-proof tulip!"), science? ("maybe we shouldn't have said it's a rescue probe?"), any "celestial body" out there? But no, there's ultimately nothing or no one that can turn us away from our fate. In many ways, I feel like the film is telling us to learn to live with what we get instead of clinging to false hopes, but also warning us of how we can be taken off course beyond the point where there'll be no body to turn at.

Grade:

"This is my house!"... "This is our turf!"... "This is our country!"... "This is our planet!"... Films are full of examples of groups of people proudly and loudly proclaiming their place and their right to defend it whichever way they see fit. From Home Alone to Independence Day, to name a few. This British film puts a slight spin on it by putting a teenage street gang on one side and a pack of dog-like aliens that land on their block in London. As the teens realize what is happening, they don't hesitate to go out to protect their place, probably not fully realizing what they're up against.

I had read good to great things about this film for some time, so it's been on my radar for a while. I'm glad to say it was a pleasant surprise. What the film might lack in depth, it more than delivers in intensity and thrills. Even though they are essentially "thugs", there's an infectious energy in the gang that you can't help but root for. They are led by Moses (John Boyega), who apparently craves to be recognized one way or the other; whether it's by the group of friends that follow him or the leading drug dealer in the block that ends up recruiting him or just by the way he and his friends take care of things on "the block".

I had seen Boyega before he blew up with Star Wars since he had a small supporting role on Season 9 of 24, and I could see then that he had the necessary chops to be a good actor. But I was surprised by the restrained ferocity he brings to his role. On the other hand, we have Jodie Whittaker as Sam, an young nurse that is robbed by Moses' gang in the opening scene but who ends up reluctantly paired with them as they fend off the aliens. Whittaker manages to create a great balance between fear, vulnerability, and poise against the gang first, and the aliens second. The rest of the members of the gang also share the same confidence needed for their roles, even if they all don't have excellent acting chops.

Debuting director Joe Cornish manages to make the most of a relatively small budget by maintaining a simplicity to the alien creatures. His direction is not necessarily flashy, but it's efficient and energetic. There are some subtle and interesting tidbits about racial differences and social inequality in the script that hint at Moses mindset. Even if they are not fully explored, I'm glad they are there. It's a way to understand what "the block" is about and why they "take care of things" their own way, which is ultimately a sense of identity and belonging that you can't get anywhere else, and which makes you protect it at all costs; whether it's "the block" or Planet Earth.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

My original review from 2018...


The "revenge" sub-genre is very popular among studios and filmmakers. From Death Wish to Kill Bill, or Mad Max to John Wick, the search for payback for the death or harm of loved ones, highlighted by high doses of violence, is something that fuels the audience with a desire to see the bad guys get what's coming to them. But for every John Wick there's a Colombiana, or for every Death Wish, there's a Death Wish sequel, or remake. Fortunately, The Man from Nowhere is a breath of fresh air in what could be a tired sub-genre.

The Man from Nowhere follows Cha Tae-sik (Won Bin), a young man living a quiet live while running a pawnshop out of his apartment. His most frequent contact is with So-mi (Kim Sae-ron), a 10-year old neighbor who he reluctantly befriends because of her mother's addiction. But when the girl is kidnapped, Tae-sik sets out to rescue her and finds himself caught up in the crossfire of two rival gangs fighting for the organ harvesting market against the police.

The premise might sound tired and cliché, but the execution is not. Director Lee Jeong-beom takes his time to build the story and establish the characters, while keeping things moving at a nice pace. Things pick up mostly in the second half, with some kick-ass action setpieces and great fight choreographies. There's a particular continuous shot that will probably make you blink twice and go back.

But not everything is action. The performances from Bin and Sae-ron are pretty good, with the chemistry between the characters feeling honest. Bin manages to convey the tragic nature of Tae-sik, as we discover on the way, why he lives the way he lives, "only for today". The bad guys are well played, although there are so many that at some point, I got a little confused about who was who. Still, there are two or three standouts among the bad guys and henchmen, with one in particular stealing the show with a low-key, nuanced performance.

There is a bluff near the end that might feel like a bit of a cheat at first, but after the film ends, you understand where they came from, and how earned the moment is. The Man from Nowhere might not bring anything new to the table, but what it does, it does extremely well. I wouldn't mind rewatching this in the near future.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

From 1979 to 2015, China enforced the famous "one-child policy" to deal with the rapidly growing population. To achieve this, they used propaganda, law enforcement, fines, and ultimately forced sterilizations and abortions. This documentary follows the implementation of that policy and the impact it had in the general population and in the country overall.

Wang, who was born in China during that period, uses her family as a starting point to highlight the lengths to which the government would go to enforce this policy. To do so, she interviews a former village leader, authors of propaganda, as well as a midwife that claims to have performed tens of thousands of abortions. She also establishes the connection between the one-child policy and the growing Chinese adoption market, which was established in the 1990s, and is fed by child trafficking as a direct result of the one-child policy.

Most of what the documentary presents is both compelling and shocking, but there are times when it feels a bit scattered. I would've appreciated a bit more focus. Finally, Wang's general approach is also somewhat amateurish, both in how she addresses some of her interviewees and in how she directs it. There are parts where you can see the "seams" of her narrative, and the conclusions don't feel organic, but rather forced. Given the source material, I don't think that was necessary.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

For what it's worth, I'll cross-post reviews and blurbs through this thread, the Rate the Last Movie thread, and the HOF 24 when necessary.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

If you haven't already seen it may I suggest the absolutely batsh*t Wild at Heart for your Nicolas Cage film

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmof...el=astrosecret

For your Criterion one, have you seen The Naked Kiss or Shock Corridor?

For the animated film, are you hoping for something you can watch with the kids?

Yay, all is right with the world.

(I've already watched a couple that qualify :cool:)

Oh yeah, I've seen that. Loved it. I might check out Vampire's Kiss, which I've heard is just as batsh*t, if not more.

I saw The Naked Kiss last year. Haven't seen Shock Corridor. However, I had thought of using that slot for Shame, which also counts for the HOF24.

For the animated one, anything goes. I've been trying to catch up with classic Disney animated films, so I had Fantasia in mind, or something from that era (They've seen a couple of classic ones. Actually they rewatched Bambi tonight). I also thought of watching Soul (they already saw it), but I'm open for anything.

You can check out anytime you like... but you can never leave *cue guitar riff*

A film with the number 1 (One, First, etc.) in its title: Once upon a Time in China (counts?)
The first film from any director you like:*
The first Best Picture winner you haven't seen (starting with*Wings):
A film with a title that starts with the letters A or B:*Aniara
A film from the*Criterion Collection*whose number includes the #1 (i.e. 10, 21, 31)*
In a Lonely Place (#810)
A film from before 1920:*
An action or adventure film:*The Man From Nowhere
An animated film: *The Breadwinner
A film with Nicolas Cage (born January 7): *
A film from Cuba (Cuban Revolution, January 1):

A bit of explanation about this one, in case it's not clear...

I take the list of Best Picture winners, starting with 1927/1928 Wings and pick the first one I haven't seen. When I started with this category in 2019, I saw, well, Wings, which was pretty good. In 2020, I chose 1930/1931 Cimarron cause I had already seen The Broadway Melody (1928/1929) and All Quiet on the Western Front (1929/1930) before (for the record, Cimarron and The Broadway Melody aren't very good). This year, it's turn for 1931/1932 Grand Hotel.

In December, I do the same but from the other way. That is, I start with 2019 Parasite and go backwards till I find one I haven't seen. In 2019, I saw Green Book and in 2020, I saw Million Dollar Baby. If nothing changes, this year it will be the turn for 2002 Chicago.

https://youtu.be/RCoYazbA1Ic

La Casa Lobo (The Wolf House)

Our old friend Slentert from Corrie recently logged this on Letterboxd, so credit goes to him for introducing me to it. From what I gather the subject matter is pretty grim and some knowledge of Chile is necessary to fully understand it, but the animation technique looks incredible. I'm gonna shell out the bucks for a rental soon. Just throwing that out there for your animation category.

This has been on my watchlist for a while now. Let me know what you think when you watch it!

What's up with Slentert? I thought he'd make the jump to MoFo.

A couple of years ago, I had the *ahem* pleasure of watching D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation, a film that got from me what is probably one of the most visceral reactions I've had to a feature film, which was utter disgust and anger. Regardless of that, I decided to check this one out.

Broken Blossoms follows Cheng Huan (Richard Barthelmess), a Chinese immigrant that travels to Britain to "spread the gentle message of Buddha". Although things don't go that well for him, he falls for Lucy (Lillian Gish), the abused daughter of a brute boxer (Donald Crisp).

I found this film to be, at its best, awkward and at its worst, racist and problematic. Starting with Griffith's decision to cast an American to play the lead Chinese character, or with the awkward interactions between him and Gish. Although there is a slight vibe of innocence between them, the awkwardness in how he approaches her and how she reacts doesn't allow for their relationship to *ahem* blossom. It doesn't help that Gish looks significantly younger than him, even though there was only a 2-year gap between them.

What I think saved the film for me was the last act, in which Griffith takes a decidedly bleaker approach to the plot. There is a scene in particular in which Gish shines as she perfectly conveys the terror and impotence of a young "weaker" woman against abuse. Crisp was also very effective as her father.

Overall, I don't think the strengths of the film manage to take it over the hump, but there's at least something to appreciate here.

Grade:

Just wanted to say that I find the presentation of this thread very appealing. Nice work. 👍

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

So my cousin tells me we rented Broken Blossoms back in the VHS era but I'm afraid I don't remember anything about it. I tend to get my Pickfords and Gishes confused.

Last year I found myself watching a ton of Yellowface (not by design, it just turned out that way), and it's a weird thing. There's the outright racist stuff like Lon Chaney's Mr Wu, a "Chinese" man who murders his daughter because she'd fallen in love with a white man. But then there's Karloff's Mr Wong, who is unquestionably the good guy, the smartest guy in the room, and an excellent detective. But he's also Chinese for some reason? With Karloff's unaltered English accent? I mean, I'm thankful that Karloff didn't attempt a Chinese accent, but why did he have to be Chinese in the first place? Or, heaven forbid, why not hire a Chinese actor? (I know the answer to that last one, I'm just ranting here.) Broken Blossoms is from 1919, but the stuff I was watching went well into the 40s. Weird.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Well, Mr. Wong is based on a set of 30s short stories about a Chinese detective, so the character is supposed to be, well, Chinese. Why cast Karloff goes to your other question, and the answer is probably for the same reason they usually cast Caucasian actors in such roles during those times. I mean, was there any notable film from USA/UK featuring an Asian actor in the lead role?

Right, that's what I meant. (I don't spend a lot of time composing my posts, so I often have to explain myself later. :))

Bravo for portraying an Asian as the good guy for a change. Why undermine your gesture by hiring Karloff? There were 4 or 5 Wong films and Keye Luke actually played the role in one of them, and he was great. I wonder if audiences at the time would have accepted Asian leads if they were presented to them, or if this is just another case of studios underestimating what audiences would embrace (a thing that's still happening).

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

I'm not that willing to throw in the towel to the studios but it's obvious that there were a lot of things that Hollywood, et. al. were mostly oblivious to, while there were others that they weren't willing to budge. Add to that the different wars, which involved Asian countries, and I suppose it was a big no-no for an Asian to play lead.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Highly recommend this podcast. I am already a regular listener, myself!

Oh man, I'm flattered. Thanks for the kind words.

I'm a bit delayed on the first episode of this year, but we'll be back soon!

Yeah, another thing that fascinated me was the actual Asian actors in supporting roles. Like, what was it like having to do a scene with Karloff? Or if you're Karloff, how do you face these guys with your weird eye makeup? So I think the real answer is, yes, we were just that racist.

He's got a very soothing voice, doesn't he? 🙂

:bashful:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

For those interested, I edited the second post with a lengthy summary of what I saw last year.

Literally speaking, a rudder is a blade located underwater at the stern of a boat that, along with the helm, is used to move it towards a certain direction. Lacking one will probably leave the boat drifting at the mercy of the waters and winds, with no way to control it properly. Metaphorically speaking, being "rudderless" means lacking a guiding strategy or a clear sense of one's aims.

That is the title of William H. Macy's debut feature film, which follows Sam (Billy Crudup), a successful advertising executive that has to cope with the tragic death of Josh, his teenage son, during a shooting at his university. 2 years later, Sam has abandoned his former life, while living in a boat and resorting to alcoholism. Eventually, he seeks refuge in the recordings of his son's music, who was an aspiring musician.

The titular term can be used to define Sam's life, as he just goes along with the flow with no clear purpose or goal in his life. His son's music provides a rudder as he, reluctantly at first, begins playing it. First, alone in his boat, but then during open mic nights at a local bar. When a young man called Quentin (Anton Yelchin) finds himself captivated by Sam's music, he reluctantly agrees to play together, which eventually leads to them starting a band which they call... Rudderless.

Inspired by Sam's boat, the term can also be applied to the band per se, as none of them seem to be clear about their musical goals at first. Is it just to pass the time or for the thrill of the performance? Is it to get girls or make money? Sam is obviously using it as a cathartic exercise to cope with his son's death, which is something he doesn't share with his new bandmates. Maybe because of this or because of age, he isn't willing to commit to this project... he's rudderless, just going along with it with no clear goal.

Unfortunately, the titular term can also be partly applied to the film's execution and narrative. Like a one-man band, the script tries to play too many things, too many sides to the story which results in most of them not feeling fully realized or ultimately necessary. For the former, we have the poorly executed conflict with Josh's ex-girlfriend (Selena Gomez). For the latter, we have a somewhat pointless conflict between Sam and the supervisor of the lake resort where Sam's boat is. Like the titular term, Macy doesn't seem sure of where to lead the audience, which makes the film feel a bit scattered.

But despite those faults, the film manages to stay in course, thanks primarily to committed performances from Crudup and Yelchin. Although the way their relationship unfolds isn't perfect, there is good chemistry between the actors, and Crudup has some solid emotional moments towards the end. The second thing that anchored the film for me was the music. This soundtrack was right down my alley and I've found myself humming, tapping, and listening to it since I finished the film. Kudos to Crudup and Yelchin for actually playing and singing on it.

In the end, there are several things I would've changed that I think could've kept the film more focused, but as it is, Rudderless has enough good in it to keep it afloat.

Grade:

Nicolas Cage is probably one of the most enigmatic actors out there. Eclectic filmography, eccentric lifestyle, undeniable talent, and unique and memorable performances. That's what you'll usually get from Cage, no matter what. In the words of a good Twitter friend "he has never half-assed anything in his life". And that's right. You can usually expect to see Cage firing all cylinders in any role. Doesn't matter if he's playing a bumbling wannabe parent, a struggling alcoholic, or in this case, a wannabe "vampire".

Vampire's Kiss follows Peter Loew (Cage), an executive at a publishing agency that likes to work and party, while sharing his relationship and commitment issues with his therapist (Elizabeth Ashley). But when a one-night-stand takes a turn to the bizarre, Loew finds himself believing that he's slowly turning into a vampire. In the process, he torments a young secretary (María Conchita Alonso) by demanding her to find a specific contract buried in the archives.

Although the film was a commercial flop, it became a cult hit while also giving birth to several popular Internet memes that feature who else but Mr. Cage. And that's because, as said before, regardless of the material, Cage gives it his all. His performance is completely bonkers as we see Loew becoming more and more unstable in progressively crazier and more hilarious ways. The peak, IMO, is when he dons cheap plastic "fangs" because he thinks he isn't developing his own, which is absurdly funny by itself, but also lends itself to some great physical comedy.

Vampire's Kiss is not perfect; most notably, the subplot with the secretary is awkwardly executed. Despite that, he film is definitely worth it only to watch Cage crank it to 11, while making others wonder if Loew has changed or has he always been like this. If we look at Cage's career evolution, we might end up wondering the same about Cage; has he changed or has he always been like this? I think this film provides the answer.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

The alphabet scene is worth one star all by itself.

Oh man, yeah. I suppose some of its *charm* has lost its luster as most people have probably seen some of these "meme'd" scenes on YouTube (I had seen the "buggy" eyed scene a while ago), but to see it all in one package, so to speak :laugh: The alphabet scene I hadn't seen, though. But like I said in my write-up, the one that got me was him putting the plastic fangs and mimicking Count Orlok at the club :laugh: I was losing it all through that scene :laugh:

I have to admit the memes maybe enhanced it for me, like, ah, this is where that's from. The fangs are great.

But:
"I've never misfiled anything! Not once! Not one time!" This is f***ing gold, my god.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

After some, uhh, scheduling issues, technical difficulties, and 100 hours of editing, the first episode of the year of Thief's Monthly Movie Loot is out! Check it out.

Thief's Monthly Movie Loot 29 - The First Loot

Spotify users, click here

I want to thank my first guest for joining me in talking about first films, directorial debuts, and whatnot. We also share our Top 5 directorial debuts!

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

I was very honored to be on this episode!

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Cool stuff, downloaded, started listening, will finish tomorrow. :up:

Great one. An American friend recently mentioned this is on Shudder now, btw.

Yes, I learned that a few days after that post! Watching it this weekend, along with some of their shorts. Gonna research that cult/colony first so I'll have some idea about what I'm watching.

Glad you found us! :up:

Thanks! I enjoyed your "reveal" podcast with @TheUsualSuspect.

I started this last night when I got to bed, intending to listen to the first half or so, but ended up finishing the whole thing in one sitting. (Or one lying, as the case may be). A very engaging conversation, I look forward to more of the 2-person format.

some thoughts:
1. Slentert is a 60-year-old film scholar who for some reason wants us to believe he's 20. I'm willing to humor him, it's just kind of weird. :) (seriously though, how am I 30 years older than you? I watched cartoons all week.)

2. I didn't do very well on the "debut or not a debut" quiz. Even the ones I knew, I second-guessed myself. I had no clue that Shawshank was Darabont's first. Cool.

3. The love for Duel makes me very happy. Whenever I say it's my favorite Spielberg film, I always pretend that I'm joking so people won't think I'm crazy. Glad to know I'm not alone.

Thanks for the kind words.

As for Slentert, you're damn right he is :laugh:

Hahaha, I appreciate that everyone here is willing to indulge me in my delusions.

HELL YEAH! DUEL-HIVE!

Merriam-Webster defines "shame" as "a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety". People that feel ashamed usually feel humiliated, unworthy, or disgraced for some reason, be it by their own doing or by surrounding circumstances. There's a lot of that in Ingmar Bergman's aptly titled film.

Shame follows Jan and Eva (Max Von Sydow and Liv Ullman), a couple of former musicians that have sought refuge in a remote island as a result of an impending civil war. Their circumstances are not ideal and their marriage doesn't seem to be on its best shape, but the need for survival trumps every desire to live more "properly", and to survive, you must be willing to give up everything else: your normal life, your dreams, your pride.

Jan and Eva are two very interesting characters. Through the film, they both go through a rollercoaster of emotions, dependence and dislike, hope and despair. From the start, Jan is shown to be weak, meek, emotional, longing for the past while being frequently bossed around by Eva, who shows to be more resourceful, stoic, determined, and looking towards the future. But war and the need for survival will do things to you.

Shame is my fourth Bergman film, and probably my second favorite. The way he moves the camera and shoots every scene makes you participant of what's happening, whether it's the close-up of a loved one during an afternoon lunch, the rush through the woods as fighter planes and paratroopers fly by, or the distance between the two as they sit at the table or the desperate attempt to find someone, something around the house. But everything that happens in the film is anchored by the great performances of Von Sydow and Ullman, who perfectly convey the decay of their individual souls, and as a result, their marriage.

At one point, Jan claims that he can "change" if he wants, that he is not a "determinist", but as the events around them worsens, change surely comes for both. Ultimately, Shame is a story about the deterioration of this couple at the mercy of a war that ravages them from both sides, it's a story of survival at the expense of life itself. A story of great guilt, great pain, and great fear.

Grade:

One of my favorite quotes ever comes from Rush's "Tom Sawyer": "Changes aren't permanent, but change is". It captures the idea that, although the ways and manners in which we change through life might not be permanent, change itself will always occur, and continue to occur. That is the question in the mind of Sergio, the main character and narrator of this Cuban film, who finds himself in the middle of change after the Cuban Revolution. But is the change his or around him? or both?

Memories of Underdevelopment follows Sergio (Sergio Corrieri), an affluent writer that's trying to make sense of the changes around him in the early 1960s in Cuba. But the changes aren't all political, but personal. His wife and friends are fleeing to Miami, while he tries to cope with his new surroundings and the isolation that comes from it.

Sergio is not a particularly likable character. He's a bit self-centered, self-righteous, and arrogant, which makes it a bit hard to sympathize with his musings. But we're not necessarily meant to. It is nonetheless interesting to see the ways he internalizes the changes around him. Despite the premise, the film is not overly political in its stance, which is a good choice. The film does veer a bit into meandering, but never tips over.

Towards the last act, the film shifts towards a more straightforward narrative, as we follow the conflicts between Sergio and an aspiring, teenager actress (Daisy Granados) with whom he starts a relationship. This subplot sorta deviates from the more cerebral first acts, but it's well executed, in terms of performance and direction.

The Cuban situation is always one that tends to be polarizing whenever discussed. However, this film manages to be an interesting inside look into the more societal aspects of the country and its people, in the midst of impending change. Like most changes, it might not be perfect, but then again, what is?

Grade:

So even with the shorter list I still didn't complete it, and I kind of cheated on this first one.:cool:

A film with the number 1 (One, First, etc.) in its title: One Cab's Family (1952) - Tex Avery cartoon

The first film from any director you like:
A film from before 1920: The Student of Prague - Paul Wegener, 1913

A film with a title that starts with the letters A or B: Bad Ronald (1974)

An action or adventure film: We Can Be Heroes (2020)

An animated film: La Casa Lobo (2018)

Here's what I managed for the month, with a little commentary:

The first film from any director you like: Blood Simple (Coen Brothers) They really hit the ground running--modern noir featuring characters who self-destruct through their own foolishness are pretty much Coen staples. Terrific cinematography by Barry Sonnenfeld and scoring by Carter Burwell round out a perfect set of debuts.

A film with a title that starts with the letters A or B: The Black Cat Super weird little film highlighted by a Karloff-Lugosi tête-à-tête. I don't recall whose recommendation I saw for this (Captain Terror? Wooley?) but it hit the spot. Imperfect (Tak's review is dead on about the sexism and the ending) but fun.

A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #1 (i.e. 10, 21, 31): Day of Wrath (#125) Slow-building (supposedly too slow for contemporary Danish audiences, so I guess this is an old issue) 1600s period drama of of a young woman married to a much older church elder, in the shadow of a witchcraft inquisition. I appreciate that the age difference is commented on and a source of problems. Superb tension.

A film from before 1920: A Dog's Life Fun Chaplin short with the usual shenanigans. A big part of my enjoyment of these is still seeing the world the were made in.

An action or adventure film: Wonder Woman 84 I feel weird that I don't hate this as much as everyone else seems to. It's not good, exactly, but I actually kinda dig that at the end . Yeah, there's some pretty janky stuff in here (like, don't get me started on the creepiness of the body switch) which prevents it from being actually good, but I have a lot of room for forgiveness for certain kinds of movies. Plus, I really like Gadot as Wonder Woman. She's not the best actor but her awkwardness kind of fits her fish out of water character.

An animated film: Bambi My wife described this as being like a poem, which I think is spot on. The scenes of the forest burning is some of the most beautiful/frightening imagery I've seen in an animated film. And was not nearly so traumatic as its reputation.

A film with Nicolas Cage (born January 7): Con Air Oh, man, this movie is as aggressively stupid as I remembered. Unfortunately this is straight action hero Cage (with a "Southern" accent) not full-on Cage unleashed, which I think would have made the film more enjoyable. Its over-the-topness almost works, but too often it drifts back into simple cheesiness and dopey gags. Not for me, but great if you love this kind of thing, I bet.

I feel ya! I just finished Grand Hotel for the Best Picture category, and still need to see an animated one. But I suppose I still have enough time today and I can always sit with the kids for that one.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

@kgaard, you tackled a couple of good ones there that I've also seen within the last years; Bambi, A Dog's Life, Blood Simple... all great.

Yeah, it was a good month. I admit that frequently I watch whatever interests me and then retrofit it to the list, but that works out often enough. I’m sorry I didn’t get to Memories of Underdevelopment, which was on my list as well, but life got in the way, as it does. Next time!

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

I just finished Grand Hotel about an hour ago, but while I let it simmer, I thought it would be good to ask a question. So far, I've seen 62 of the 92 Best Picture winners. Most have been worth a watch, while others have been... pretty bad *cough*BroadwayMelody*cough*

So, even though eventually I'll try to get to all of them, which of the following should I prioritize?















As you can see, I'm very thin on the first decades, but I've seen most of the recent ones. I think I asked this question back in Corrie a couple of years ago and there was some consensus that The Greatest Show on Earth was pretty bad, and that Gigi was problematic. But let's get some new input.

Damn, I went with Grave of the Fireflies to close the month, and that was probably the worst decision I've had recently :bawling:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

I thought Darabont had a film before Shawshank

For my money from what I've seen myself It Happened One Night, The Lost Weekend, Midnight Cowboy, Marty, Kramer vs. Kramer, Oliver! and Chariots of Fire are all worth your time, in about that order. I've read great things about The Best Years of Our Lives but I'm yet to get around to it.

A bunch of those are ones that I haven't seen either, but the only one that stood out to me, as in "He hasn't seen ____??" is It Happened One Night. There's some other good ones in there too, but if you're looking to prioritize I'd go with that one.

He directed Buried Alive, which was a TV film, in 1990. But Shawshank was his feature film debut.

I'm an "easy cry" so you can imagine how well I handled that one. Oof. My face hurt afterwards.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Is the intro music new? I don't recall hearing it open the other episodes I have checked out so far...

It's new, that's one of the "firsts" of the year :D

The above quote is how Dr. Otternschlag (Lewis Stone) describes life at the titular hotel in Berlin, Germany. Nothing ever happens. But after almost two hours of runtime, we do realize that things *do* happen at the Grand Hotel; a great deal, actually. This Best Picture winner follows the comings and goings of a handful of guests at the hotel, most of which intertwine in interesting and unexpected ways.

Most notable among the guests are Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore), an ill bookkeeper who has decided to spend his last days in luxury; General Director Preysing (Wallace Beery), a businessman, and Kringelein's boss, who's trying to close an important deal at all costs; Miss Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford), a progressive stenographer hired by Preysing; Russian ballerina Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo), whose career is in the decline pushing her into depression; and Baron Von Geigern (John Barrymore), a gambler and jewel thief who's trying to come up with money to pay a former colleague.

Writer and playwright Tom Stoppard once wrote about hotel rooms that they "inhabit a separate moral universe", and perhaps that's why all these guests coincide in this place where they aim to do things that they won't necessarily do otherwise or just that aren't necessarily legal. From Kringelein's "last days" ventures into dancing and gambling or the Baron's attempt to steal some jewels, to Preysing's attempt to lure his potential partners, while also toying with adultery and even murder.

Although one would certainly want a bit more development from some characters, Grand Hotel does manage to balance its ensemble cast fairly well. Still, the pace seems a bit scattered at times and, although the film maintains a mostly light tone, there's a shift towards the bleak that seemed a bit abrupt to me. However, most of the performances are pretty good, with John Barrymore and Joan Crawford being the highlights for me. Finally, the set design was quite impressive, highlighted by some neat camerawork, especially in the lobby scenes.

In the closing shots, all of the above guests abandon the hotel one way or another, only to make space for new guests that arrive. People come, people go... new stories, new conflicts, new dramas of who knows what. "Nothing ever happens".

Grade:

Fireflies have an approximate lifespan of a couple of weeks once they break from the pupa. By human standards, this is a short time to "live", which is why little Setsuko (Ayano Shiraishi) asks the above question. How is it possible that these creatures that are so beautiful and bring so much joy and light to her life "have to die so soon"? This film transposes that question to the human condition in the midst of World War II.

Grave of the Fireflies, which is the second film from acclaimed Studio Ghibli, follows teenage boy Seita (Tsutomu Tatsumi) and her little sister Setsuko as they struggle to survive during the final months of the war. Orphaned, rejected, abandoned, and starved, both siblings have to rely and care for each other to overcome conditions that no human should live through.

I know it might sound naive, but I'm firmly against any war of any kind. Particularly if those affected are innocent civilians, and not necessarily the ones that are ultimately responsible for the conflict. Which is why the bleakness of this film hit me so hard. We see the two young children fall victims not necessarily to "enemy fire", but rather to the conditions in the aftermath of various fierce bombings. Houses are destroyed, hospitals and schools are inoperable, food is being rationed, how can they survive? But that is what war does. It smothers you till you can't breathe anymore.

Despite the subject matter, the film shies away from any overt political stance, which I think was a good choice. We get no glimpse of the "enemy", other than the sight of planes flying in the sky, and we get no glimpse of the local government or superiors; we hardly see any soldier, actually. What we see is people, old and young, live and dead, men and women, all at the mercy of forces they can't control.

The overall animation is pretty much flawless, but the real beauty and tragedy of the film lies in the relationship between these two siblings, which is one of undeniable love, support, and care. A snapshot of the millions of children from all "sides" that died during World War II. Beautiful creatures that brought joy and light to each other, for however long or short their lives were. Why did they have to die so soon?

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Ok, so this was my final tally for JANUARY 2021:

A film with the number 1 (One, First, etc.) in its title: One Child Nation
The first film from any director you like: Citizen Kane, Rudderless
The first Best Picture winner you haven't seen (starting with Wings): Grand Hotel
A film with a title that starts with the letters A or B: Aniara, Attack the Block
A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #1 (i.e. 10, 21, 31): Shame (#961)
A film from before 1920: Broken Blossoms
An action or adventure film: The Man from Nowhere
An animated film: Grave of the Fireflies
A film with Nicolas Cage (born January 7): Vampire's Kiss
A film from Cuba (Cuban Revolution, January 1): Memories of Underdevelopment


Overall, a solid month. My favorite first-time watches were probably Shame and Grave of the Fireflies.

As for a least favorite, that would probably be between One Child Nation and Broken Blossoms.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Aaaand here's the loot for FEBRUARY 2021:

A film with the number 2 (Two, Second, etc.) in its title:
A film with a title that starts with the letters C or D:
A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #2 (i.e. 12, 82, 912):
A film from the 1920s:
A sequel:
A comedy film:
A film featuring the name of a couple in its title:
A film with an African-American cast (Black History Month):
A film from Robert Altman (born January 20):
A film from Serbia (Statehood Day, February 15):


As usual, recommendations are more than welcome!

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

A film with an African-American cast (Black History Month): Clockers (Lee,1995)

A film from Robert Altman (born January 20): Short Cuts (1993), If you have seen that, try Cookie's Fortune (1999)

Haven't seen those. None of those are available streaming, though, but I'll keep an eye on them. Thanks.

A comedy film: :blart: (Netflix)
A film featuring the name of a couple in its title: Bonnie and Clyde (Netflix); Julie & Julia (Netflix); Celine and Julie Go Boating (Criterion); Fanny and Alexander (Criterion)
A film with an African-American cast (Black History Month): Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (Netflix); Sorry to Bother You (Hulu)

If Bonnie and Clyde is on Netflix, then I think that's a sure shot. I've been meaning to watch that one for a long, long time. Fanny and Alexander will also be a good option. I've seen Julie & Julia.

I've seen Sorry to Bother You (crazy film), but I'm not that drawn to Ma Rainey's Black Bottom. I'll read a bit more about it and I'll consider it, though.

:blart:?? You got it!!

Thanks! :D

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Saw my first film of February last night, Monty Python's Life of Brian, and oh boy, that was funny as hell :laugh:

The second episode of the year of Thief's Monthly Movie Loot is out! In this episode, I talk about the films I saw in January; pretty much what I've been posting here, but check it out, if anything so you can hear me trying to hold my laughter while trying to talk about a scene from Vampire's Kiss...

Thief's Monthly Movie Loot 30 - The January Loot

Just published it a while ago, so Spotify link isn't ready yet, but if you follow the podcast there, you'll see it soon.

Also, I just finished recording my third episode of the year which will feature a great guest, so keep your eyes and ears open.

Christianity — and religion overall — have always been a touchy subject to discuss in regular conversations, to the point that some locals, bars, and restaurants put up signs that read "No religion and no politics" to avoid scuffles and fights, while most people will advise you to avoid the topic on, say, a family or business diner, or even a first date. Touchy subject to discuss, let alone, mock and parody in a feature film; unless you're the Monty Python comedy troupe, of course.

Set in 33 AD, Life of Brian follows the, well, life of Brian (Graham Chapman), a young, regular Jewish guy that is somehow mistaken for the Messiah. Despite his reluctance, he ends up being followed both by people who want to praise him as well as soldiers that want to silence and imprison him.

In typical Monty Python fashion, the film features its ensemble cast playing numerous roles, while taking jabs at organized religion and institutions, among many other things. The group manages a great mix of silly and clever jokes, with doses of absurdity all through. To that effect, I was really surprised at how many of the jokes really land. The peak for me was the whole sequence when the crowd harasses and pursues Brian to the mountain, resulting in some great exchanges that highlight the somewhat contradictory nature of religion.

As was expected, the film was condemned, censored, and banned by some religious groups and countries, while also becoming a critically acclaimed box-office hit that's often considered one of the best comedies made. So I suppose you can always look at the bright side of life.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

It's good that your categories give you a nice cross-section of cinema during the month :up:

I rated Grand Hotel a little higher than you but wouldn't disagree with any of your remarks about it. Grave Of The Fireflies is a very effective watch, I did find the score intruded a little at times and my viewing quite possibly suffered a little from watching a dubbed version rather than subtitled, but no matter how one watched it someone would have to have a heart of stone not to find it quite emotional I think. Life Of Brian is a riot at times, a very close second to their Holy Grail for me.

Yeah, that's one of the goals, more or less. It gives me some flexibility to move around categories depending on my mood, while also exploring things I might not otherwise.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

For the Altman experts, these are the only ones available streaming...

• The Delinquents (1957) - His debut, is on VUDU
• Images (1972) - Prime, Roku Channel, Criterion Channel, Tubi
• California Split (1974) - Prime Tubi
• Streamers (1983) - Prime, Tubi
• Secret Honor (1984) - Criterion Channel
• Fool for Love (1985) - Tubi
• Vincent & Theo (1990) - Roku Channel
• Dr. T & the Women (2000) - Tubi

Any recommendation out of those? I've already seen The Player, Gosford Park, and The Gingerbread Man.

I've only seen California Split (1974) and Dr. T & the Women (2000) from that list. California Split is very good, and is worth watching. Dr. T & the Women is better than it's (low) IMDB rating, but it's not great, so I wouldn't recommend wasting your time on it.

I enjoyed Streamers, but it’s a slow crawl. Images was disappointing, but interesting. See them both.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Thanks to both of you!

I think that Images is legit a great movie. Highly recommended.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

For the Criterion category, here are a couple that interest me...

#24 - High and Low
#182 - Straw Dogs
#221 - Ikiru
#226 - Onibaba
#248 - Videodrome
#249 - The Battle of Algiers
#253 - A Woman Under the Influence
#260 - Eyes Without a Face
#265 - Short Cuts (also for the Altman category)
#281 - Jules and Jim
#288 - F for Fake
#325 - Kind Hearts and Coronets
#422 - The Last Emperor
#542 - Antichrist
#712 - Scanners
#842 - Dreams
#1024 - Destry Rides Again

The ones in bold are the only ones available streaming for free in the services I have. I'm a bit more drawn towards The Battle of Algiers, or maybe Antichrist, but if there's any nudge to any other direction, let me know.

I'm pretty sure you've seen several of these, but . . . (Most of these are on Amazon)

A film with the number 2 (Two, Second, etc.) in its title: Kubo and the Two Strings, Tale of Two Sisters, Man with Two Brains, 2 Nights Till Morning, Dig Two Graves, The Two of Us, Two Step
A film with a title that starts with the letters C or D: Capote, Catch Me Daddy, DOA, Deat Watch, Django Kill If You Live Shoot!, Eve's Bayou
A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #2 (i.e. 12, 82, 912): High and Low, Playtime
A film from the 1920s: The Extra Girl, The Kid, The Thief of Bagdad
A sequel: Maniac Cop 2
A film featuring the name of a couple in its title: David and Lisa
A film with an African-American cast (Black History Month): JDs Revenge, Eve's Bayou
A film from Robert Altman (born January 20): Images

When I read the synopsis, it's the one I felt more drawn to.

Seen the ones in red, although it's been 20+ years since I saw Eve's Bayou. I wouldn't mind a rewatch.

Thanks!

The Battle of Algiers is fantastic, but I also think very highly of Ikiru, Eyes Without a Face, Jules and Jim, and F for Fake. You can’t go wrong with any of those.

There are many notable aspects to the life of Joan of Arc. She was a peasant turned war heroine that led many French victories over the English during the Hundred Years War, and she did all that while being a teenage girl. But as notable as her life was, she is also notable for the way she died, which is what this film is about.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is based on the actual trial record for Joan (Renée Jeanne Falconetti) after being captured by England, and features her interrogation and subsequent execution at the hands of the clerical court.

Directed by Carl Theodore Dreyer and released in 1928, the film is itself notable for various reasons. From its production and minimalist set design to Dreyer's direction; but most notably for Falconetti's iconic performance. Originally a stage actress, she delivers an emotionally charged performance, which is impressive for the silent film era. But instead of being limited by that, Falconetti makes the most out of her expressions and her glassy, teary eyes, to the point that you can't help but feel her pain and suffering.

But aside from that, Dreyer's direction is just as impressive. The way he uses the camera is something that feels unlike anything that was done at the time, and maybe even that has been done since. His constant close-ups of the faces of the judges and the court, accompanied by the gorgeous cinematography makes these old, wrinkled men feel grotesque and evil in both their physique and soul.

Finally, Dreyer uses a minimalist set design to create dread and build tension. From the way he shoots the torture chamber they use to intimidate Joan, or the way he shoots the angry mob in the final act. That, along with Falconetti's performance, make of this one of the most beautiful films I've seen.

Grade:

Yeah, it's so good.

The first time I watched it the angles and the intensity of the torture sequence actually made me feel a little sick.

I think that the movie shows a great mix of strength and vulnerability.

And what's impressive is that you don't really see anything. It's all just her eyes and the way he cuts to the shadows of the torture devices.

That, and the scene near the end where he keeps swinging the camera as we see people dropping ball and chains from the window. Loved that shot.

Algeria was invaded by France in 1830. The invasion effectively ended the slave trade and piracy in the country. However, during colonial rule, the indigenous Algerian population declined as a result of violence and epidemics while French immigrants took control of the economy by confiscating arable lands from tribal people. This left the native Muslim population without political or economical status, which led to dissatisfaction, tensions, and eventually, more violence.

The Battle of Algiers follows the near culmination of that violence, as it chronicles the efforts of Algerian rebels (the FLN) against the French during the late 1950s. The film follows a quasi-documentary style, while focusing on revolutionary fighter Ali La Pointe (Brahim Haggiag), who rose the ranks of the revolution until he pretty much became a right-hand man to the FLN leaders, and hence, a nuisance to the French government.

The documentary-style gives the film a gritty and realistic vibe. Without leaning heavily into any side, it helps to get a better understanding of how this war unfolded. There are no good guys or bad guys; just people fighting for their place and what they think is right. The portrayals of urban and guerrilla warfare, torture, and the extents to which each side would go to "win" is well handled.

On the other hand, this approach limits the emotional connection we can have with any character. Not that it was the goal of the film or that it *needed* it, but I felt it could've been good to have someone more tangible to hold onto. La Pointe is an enigmatic and probably interesting character, but we never get to really explore his way of thinking, or of any character actually. He's more of a blank slate than an open book.

Regardless of that, Pontecorvo's direction is tight, and he knows how to handle tension. The scenes where the rebels perform concealed attacks on the French are neatly staged and directed. Also, despite the filmmaker's restrain in regards to the situation, I think the film succeeds in showing the unwanted effects of "Western colonization" in other cultures, and how the violence of the process (invasions, confiscations, eradication) will only breed more violence; but also that the hardest job of all comes once the dust has settled.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

That's an all-time favorite of mine. It barely missed out on my top 25. With that being said, I didn't mind the lack of character development as I think it was sacrificed in service of representing the events of the film on a much wider scale. The scope of the film made up for the lack of an emotional connection I felt towards anyone, in my opinion. To be fair though, when I first saw it, my opinion was more or less the same as yours and I didn't care much for it either. In time though, it grew on me to the point it's one of my top 5 war films.

Yeah, I really can't hold that against the film cause, like I said on my review, I don't think it was the film's goal. But still, as good as it was, in regards to the impact it had in me or how it hit me, I didn't think I could go higher than 3.5... which is still pretty good.

Crying, burning, trapped, hurt, dying, trying... those are some of the words that the titular character uses to describe his situation in this film. Antwone Fisher grew up with no parents, rejected by every level of society, including the ones that took him in. He came "from under a rock", he claims at one point. A retort used as much as a defense but also as a cry for help. Because as much of a front as these kids-turned-teens-turned-adults try to put up, they're ultimately alone and helpless.

This film follows the events that surround Fisher (Derek Luke), a Navy sailor that is sent for a psychiatric evaluation with Dr. Jerome Davenport (Denzel Washington) after yet another violent outburst against another sailor. But Fisher says there's nothing wrong with him, or at least that's the front he tries to put up with Davenport when we all know he's just a boy trapped inside a man. The film follows the typical motions of other similar films, with Davenport standing strong beside Fisher, as he eventually opens up to reveal his troubled past; a past that involves abuse of all kinds.

When my wife and I started the process to take in and eventually adopt our two sons, we were allowed to bring them home for a weekend; a weekend that went surprisingly well given the circumstances. Upon returning them to the foster home, this 6-year-old kid clung to my wife as we were about to leave as if there was no tomorrow. This kid, who barely knew us, who we had only met on 3 or 4 previous meetings was bawling, crying uncontrollably begging us not to leave him and his brother. I probably will never be able to get that image out of my mind because it perfectly captured how much absence of love and care, how much need is in this kids.

Fast-forward 2 years and we obviously have them with us, adopted and safe. I can listen to them playing, happily screaming and hollering in the room next door as I cry writing this. Has it been an easy road? Hell, no. I've seen them both crying, "burning", "trapped", hurt, "dying", trying... Much like Antwone, our older kid is prone to violent outbursts and there have been days where things have gotten... rough. Things that sometimes we haven't even shared with our families. But I like to think we've been able to join them in their pain, help them with their scars, and cry with them. I like to think that, unlike Antwone's real and foster family, they can count on us being there.

I struggled with writing this because the film obviously hit close to home. I tried to write from outside, but there's no escaping it. As is expected, Fisher and Davenport develop a bond, and they both help each other overcome their own issues. There are some script issues as far as Davenport's personal struggles go, but Fisher is able to find closure by reuniting with his real family. It's inspirational. It's uplifting. But the scars are there. I know. I've seen them and felt them. And for every Antwone that manages to find his Davenport, and find closure, there are hundreds, thousands of others that don't. For every I.J. and I.J. that finds us, there are many others that are still out there looking for someone to cling to, someone to love them. Who will cry for them?

Grade:

Simple. There's no time, only the need to survive. That's the warning that Dave Keller (Barry Pepper) gives his daughter Haley (Kaya Scodelario) as they are hounded by alligators while hiding under their house in the midst of a hurricane. Simple as that. Simple is also the premise of this mixture of disaster and horror directed by Alexandre Aja, and it works pretty darn well.

The film starts setting up the stage establishing the estranged relationship between Haley, an aspiring swimmer, and her father and former coach. There is tension, regret, guilt over past events, marriage and divorce... but the film doesn't waste too much time before throwing us into the eye of the hurricane, literally and figuratively. Less than 20 minutes in, we're already deep in the crawl space, with danger staring us in the face. The above warning comes at the 45 minute mark, on a film that literally lasts 1 hour and 45 minutes. So we have less than an hour to see if they survive or not. Whether it's drowned or eaten by alligators. Simple.

Director Aja has always had a talent for handling both dread and scares in an effective way. From Haute Tension to The Hills Have Eyes, he has often succeeded in making us wince and cringe and fidget as terror floods the screen. Crawl is no exception. For a film with such a simple premise set in such a limited space, Aja manages to deliver with the jumpscares and the tension, while building a solid empathy for the lead characters.

If anything, there are some incongruencies as far as the amount of pain and injury that the two lead characters can endure, as opposed to others not-so-lucky characters, but I guess that's expected. We want them to feel real and vulnerable, but we want them to survive as well. Simple as that. As it is, that simplicity might also work against the film. I mean, there really isn't much to bite at, but at the end of the day, it accomplishes what it sets out to achieve. Simple.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

The Passion Of Joan Of Arc is brilliant imo, one of those rare 10/10s and #1 on my pre-1930 ballot. I gave Crawl a pretty similar rating to you, a decent offering of its type that was an enjoyable enough watch in the main.

I feel like I've probably seen Antwone Fisher but if I have it was so long ago now I'd have to regard it as unseen. I've definitely not seen The Battle Of Algiers, herself expressed an interest in watching it so like so many I own it's a matter of when the time is convenient for the both of us.

I'm excited to share this episode of Thief's Monthly Movie Loot where I chat with stand-up comedian, author, and Emmy Award winning writer Steve Mazan! Check it out.

Thief's Monthly Movie Loot 31 - The Comedy Loot

Spotify users, click here

I had a lot of fun with this one. Steve was a great guest. We talked about his life and career, his film podcast, and comedy in general. We also shared our Top 5 Comedy Films.

Bonnie and Clyde were a criminal couple that became notorious for their robbing and killing sprees during the Great Depression. But aside from their criminal exploits, the couple and their gang became known for the glamorization of their lifestyle by the press and the public.

Arthur Penn's 1967 film follows the couple (Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway) from their initial meeting to their ultimate demise at the hands of the police. In between, we get to see their love and struggles, the gang they assemble, and how they "perfected their craft" (for lack of a better phrase) from stealing gas stations and convenience stores to robbing banks and murdering cops.

Overall, the film is engaging. The pace is good, and the performances are pretty solid; especially Beatty and Dunaway. Unfortunately, there are some misses in the execution, particularly in how Clyde's brother, Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wife are integrated into the group and the plot, and how Frank Hamer (Denver Pyle), the policeman that relentlessly pursues them, is used.

The other issue I had with the film was with the editing, which I found to be distractingly bad at times. Despite being pretty well directed, the cuts between shots from time to time seemed to be frenetic and unnecessary. I'm surprised to read that the editing was praised and awarded because there were times when it took me out of the film, instead of dragging me in.

Despite those flaws, I really enjoyed the film. Did it glamorize the characters of Bonnie and Clyde over their victims and pursuers? Yes, but I think you can see that it is ultimately a story of loneliness and desperation more than it is one of "glamour". Maybe that's what people will remember.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

My main beef with B+C was that the anit-establishment/old vs young thing was a bit heavy-handed. I'm aware that element is precisely why it struck such a chord in '67 but as a non-hippie youngster watching it in 2000-whatever I was just kinda like "Yeah, yeah, we get it..."

Still liked the film a lot, though.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition
 

Yeah, I read that this film was one of the ones that started the "New Hollywood" generation, so maybe they were making a point with it. But like you said, maybe it hasn't aged that well. Like I said, there is that glamorization of the "new generation", but I think those that dig into it can really see it's more complicated than just "fast cars", "cool guns", and "bad-ass shots".

PS-- haven't had a chance to get to the latest Loot yet, but congrats on booking a famous person! 🙂

:laugh: Thanks! Really cool guy, and I think our interaction was very natural and funny. Look forward to your thoughts on the episode.