Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

https://media.tenor.com/rQfYZ1S4ensA...colin-jost.gif

You betcha!

Delayed as hell, but here is the thread where I will post details and reviews of my personal movie challenge where I gather a monthly "loot" of films based on a different set of criteria, combined with updates from my podcast, The Movie Loot.

This will be the sixth or seventh year I do this type of challenge and this time, I'm throwin' a bit of a spin to it (at least to the podcast angle of it), mostly by choosing less categories but adding a guest each month to talk about the films we watch. Me and that guest will choose 5 categories, and each of us will watch one film per criteria to complete the challenge.

For anybody curious, here are the threads for previous years: 2021 and 2022. Once again, I'm sticking with 5 films per month, which gives me some space to catch up on other "freebies" without being so strict.

I will also continue to use the thread to post new episodes of my podcast, which you can find on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and any audio/podcast platform.

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

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

Links to the loots of past months

January 2023 • February 2023 • March 2023 • April 2023 • May 2023 • June 2023 • July 2023 • August 2023 • September 2023 • October 2023 • November 2023 • December 2023

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Just for kicks, here is a kinda comprehensive list of everything I saw during the year: a total of 200 films; a bit more than the 163 I saw in 2021 (thank you, short films!). Anyway, here it is...





























Rewatches are in blue, short films in red.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

For what it's worth, I already finished the January bit, and I'm about to start the February one. I just didn't have time to put out the thread properly before.

Looking forward to this :up:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

I too look forward to this

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Thanks. I will still use the previous thread for two pending December reviews, but then I'll start pouring here my January reviews.

If you, MoFo's, check this list of what I saw last year, you'll see how much MoFo has influenced my movie-watching :laugh:

Ok, so while I catch up with all my reviews, here is an example of the new spin I'm giving to this challenge as well as the podcast.

The Movie Loot: The January Assignment (with Corey from The Film Effect Podcast)

We recorded this episode of the podcast mid-January, and on it, me and my friend Corey chose a set of 5 categories to guide us on what to watch during the month.

You can also see the error-filled :laugh: live broadcast we did via YouTube

here

...or listen to it through any podcasting platform like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or any other.

Just like last year, I started with a bunch of really old short films from early in the 20th Century. It's always really interesting to trace the evolution of cinema from these to what we experiment today.

That quote is not on this short film, but it should definitely apply to this duty-driven, persistent little robot. Set in the Axiom ship, it takes place concurrently with the events of the second half of WALL•E. The short film follows the titular robot as he tries, tries again and again to repair one of the lights on the ship's hull.

Near the beginning of January, I went on a little Pixar/Disney shorts journey with my kids, and this was the first one we checked. I really enjoyed its simplicity of the story, as well as the personality that the short is able to give these little robots. The way it is weaved into the bigger story is fairly creative, and my kids had a lot of fun with it.

Something that I found interesting is that the director and co-writer, Angus MacLane, has been working with Pixar since the late 1990s; first as an animator on films like Toy Story 2 & 3, Cars, and Up, and then as part of their creative team since 2017. Just last year, he finally had the chance to direct his first feature film in Lightyear. Guess he took to that little robot in trying, trying.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

The Dancing Pig film is in amazing condition given the age.

Set in a school playground, Lou follows the titular creature, an unseen being that lives in the "lost and found" box, taking the shape of the different objects inside. When a bully starts stealing toys from other boys, Lou takes it upon itself to teach the boy a lesson, and maybe help him find his way in the process.

This is yet another Pixar short, so maybe you're wondering why I'm opening with a "philosophical" quote. I might be crazy, but I do think there's a bit of that in this short film, although obviously, adapted to a younger audience. The bully is only acting out because he's missing something, literally and figuratively, and stealing things from other kids is the only way he can feel closer to what he "lost".

Just like the bully had to dig deep in the box to find what he's missing, sometimes we can dig deep inside a short film like this, and find something that gets to us. I know it definitely seems like I'm over-analyzing this :laugh: but I really enjoyed the way the director put a message like that in a way that's simple, endearing, creative, and why not, deep.

Grade:

Yet another Pixar short I put for the kids. Set before the events of Soul, it follows 22 (Tina Fey), a character living in a heaven-like realm where pre-existing souls are sent to Earth. However, this results in 22 losing all her friends as they each are sent to the "dumb planet". This causes her to resent the planet, and therefore organize a group of rebel souls against Earth.

I haven't seen Soul, so this is one where I felt I really didn't get the full impact of it. I mean, I did enjoy 22's attitude, and the interactions with the naive "rebel" souls were funny, but I don't think it worked alone as well as other "connected" Pixar short films. So take from that what you may. I might revisit it if and when I check out Soul.

Grade:

The past is a collage of memories and events; some of them pleasant, others not so much. But more often than not, we cling to them either way, for comfort, security, or just because we fear the uncertainty of the future. Those feelings are part of what is in the background of this 1944 gothic horror film.

The Uninvited follows siblings Rick and Pamela (Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey) as they deal with the potential haunting of their new house. Things are complicated when Stella (Gail Russell), the granddaughter of the original owner, who is deeply attached to the house and what it means for her becomes the target of some of these supernatural events.

It is Stella the one who has the above conversation with Rick, as he implores her to let go of the past. The film unfolds more like a mystery "whodunit" than a proper horror film, as Rick and Pamela investigate the source of the ghostly occurrences, which might be tied to Stella's mother and her mysterious death.

The pace at which the story moves is pretty effective, even if the resolution feels a bit undercooked. However, both the direction from Allen and the cinematography by Charles Lang, Jr. are stunning. There is some really solid use of the structure of the house, the stairs, windows, etc. along with the lighting and the shadows around it.

Milland and Hussey are pretty good as the leads. Their chemistry and sibling banter is believable. Unfortunately, Russell is pretty weak and her relationship with Milland doesn't feel real. The cast is rounded out by solid supporting performances from Donald Crisp as Stella's strict grandfather, and Alan Napier as the helpful doctor that joins Rick and Pamela in their investigation.

Finally, even though the film is labeled as a "gothic horror", the truth is that it plays more like a very light mystery, with lots of "jokey" one-liners, especially from Milland. However, I take it as a sign of the past and the era. Even if I would've preferred if the film played its cards more seriously, it still plays the cards it has well.

Grade:

The above quote, often credited to Ralph Waldo Emerson, is used to describe the way children inherit traits and characteristics from their parents. Something that often puts us in an endless cycle of behaviors that we might have a hard time getting away from. However, the fact that this short is titled just "far from the tree" might mean that there are ways to distance ourselves from the source of some of these traits.

Directed by Natalie Nourigat, the short film follows a young raccoon and her father, as they search their surroundings for food. A chain of events, distractions, and carelessness lead to a face-off with danger, and then a cyclical repeat as we follow one of the characters years later repeating the same behaviors.

This is another short film I saw with my kids, and I was surprised by how emotionally profound it was. The simple way in which it presents themes of parent-child relationship, the way we discipline, and how we might find ourselves stuck in that inherited cycle, is both impressive and endearing.

Even with raccoon characters, it is something that made me look at myself and my perspective, both as a son and as a parent. How close or how far have I fallen from the tree? How close or how far should I be? and furthermore, how can I help my own children to distance themselves from things they should, and find their own way. There will be growing pains, there will be scars, but there's the hope that we can always right what needs to be.

Grade:

That's how Walt Disney himself described this surreal short film written by Salvador Dalí back in the mid-1940s. But seeing it recently, and knowing Dalí's work, it's everything but simple. Featuring animation inspired by Dalí's paintings, it's obvious that Disney knew this could be too much, which is why the project was shelved for a whopping 57 years, only to be unearthed in 2003.

Being as visual as it is, there's not much that can be written about Destino. There really isn't much of a narrative, even though it features a fluid visual story about several characters walking and dancing around desert plains, interacting with structures, bicycles, insects, clocks, marble statues, fire and God knows what else.

Nonetheless, it is a visually impressive short that manages to keep us engaged with its visual extravaganza. Even my short-attention-spanned kids seemed to be mesmerized by it, and even commented on their favorite sequence (the man bound by the glowing goo). So I guess it can be as simple as that.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

For those following and listening, here is a belated post about our Episode 77: The Opening Loot, where me and my friend Pete (from Middle Class Film Class Podcast) talk about the importance of an opening scene, and how they have to set the proper mood for the rest of the film. We also share our favorite opening scenes! Check it out!

The Movie Loot 77: The Opening Loot (with Pete from Middle Class Film Class Podcast)

You can check it out on the above link, or on any of these podcasting platforms: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or any other. Thanks for the support!

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child starts a year after the fourth part, with survivor Alice (Lisa Wilcox) trying to return to a normal life alongside his boyfriend Dan (Danny Hassel). Unfortunately, dreams of Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) start to haunt her and her friends again, so it's up to her to figure out not only how has Freddy returned, but also how to stop him for once and for all.

This is a film I hadn't seen it in a long time. For some reason, I always got it mixed up with Part 4. However, after rewatching it now, I can say they're very much different. Whereas The Dream Master was very "jokey" and silly, The Dream Child has a very different tone, more serious and darker, and I appreciated that.

The film is not completely devoid of the silliness that has plagued the franchise after the first film, but it does play its cards a bit better than Part 4. Here, the circle of friends feels more organic, and although the kills retain the same trend of using stereotypes and gimmicks to get rid of the characters, I didn't feel they were as "conveniently" telegraphed as the previous one.

The main issue with this film is the same issue that has been present in every single film of the franchise, and it is the fact that none of the writers or directors have known how to stick the landing (yes, not even Wes Craven) and finish Freddy in a way that feels like it makes sense.

The filmmakers also like to muddle up the mythology with weird stuff that wasn't mentioned before; in this case, Freddy's need for a baby to come back to life, or the many different ways they have had to kill him in the end; which leads to a flawed, but somewhat entertaining installment. It's not a curse on the whole of humanity, but they shouldn't have allowed it to happen again after this one.

Grade:

That is the title card with which this iconic silent film opens; a statement about how life doesn't really change based on where you live or what you do. The pleasures and the struggles are the same. Those that live in the farm want to be in the city, those that live in the city crave the life in the country. That is a bit of what kickstarts this romantic drama into gear.

Sunrise follows a humble farmer (George O'Brien) that becomes infatuated with a "woman of the city" (Margaret Livingston) prompting him to leave his wife (Janet Gaynor) one night. Upon meeting with this woman, she convinces him to murder her so he can sell the farm and move with her to the city.

This film was a significant blindspot I had; I didn't even know specifically what it was about, so I was surprised to find out that the premise was a bit darker than I was expecting. I thought that was interesting. Most of what makes the film works happens in the first and the last act, where I think Murnau's direction is more effective. I really liked how well it was shot, the way he moved the camera, and how he staged some scenes where the man imagines himself "doing the deed".

Unfortunately, the film spends a lot of time in the middle act, which follows the man and woman spending the day at the city, going to the games, getting a haircut, buying clothes. I think they could've trimmed all that maybe 10, even 20 minutes. Especially since it dulls the edges of what preceded it.

I also thought the two lead performances were pretty good. Gaynor successfully conveyed the contrast of fear and forgiveness necessary from her character. However, I was particularly surprised by O'Brien, who really transmitted real shame and regret at what he wanted to do. The way he used his eyes and facial expression to do that was remarkable.

Fortunately, after the overlong middle act, things pick up again in the last act as the man has to come again face to face with the "woman of the city", so they can both face the consequences of their plan. I wish that middle act was handled a bit differently, so it could match with the two bookend acts, but I guess sometimes we have to deal with the bitter and the sweet.

Grade:

Sudan's history goes back thousands of years. From the late 19th Century to 1956, the country was under British control, during which cinema was controlled by British production companies and focused mostly on documentaries. When Sudan gained independence in 1956, the Sudan Film Unit was established opening the door for national films to be made.

Released in 1977, Tajouj came at a time where the Sudanese film industry was still in development, which obviously explains most of its shortcomings. Set in 19th Century Sudan, the film follows Mohallak (Salah ibn Albadya), a young man that falls in love with his cousin Tajouje. However, he has to face not only the refusal from her father, but also the jealousy of Ohag, another suitor interested in her.

This film was a challenge to me, especially because the only print I could find was a pretty bad one on YouTube. But to make matters worse, the white subtitles often got lost in the clear background, so more often than not, I couldn't tell what was being said, who was who, or what was what :laugh:

Despite this, I thought I was able to follow the basics of the plot. The editing was massively choppy, the performances weren't that good, but I still found it interesting, maybe from an anthropologic perspective. You know, watching young people trying to make a film in a country where the industry isn't fully developed.

The direction wasn't that bad either, and the story kinda picks up in the last act, which caught me a bit off guard. I was surprised at how it took a bit of a dark turn. So even if the execution wasn't that good, and the production values weren't fully there, I still thought it was an interesting and worthy watch.

Grade:

Blue Collar follows Zeke, Jerry, and Smokey (Richard Pryor, Harvey Keitel, Yaphet Kotto), three workers at an auto factory in Detroit. Suffocated by the pressures from management, the low wages, and the inaction from the union, the trio decide to rob the union headquarters. However, they end up getting more than what they bargain for, as they end up uncovering ties from the union with organized crime, which might put their lives in danger.

This is the debut film from Paul Schrader, more known for writing Taxi Driver and recently directing First Reformed. It was recommended about a year ago by @Slentert, when we were recording an episode on debut films for my podcast. I finally was able to get to it, and I'm so glad I did, because it was pretty darn good.

Like the above quote implies, the film ends up being a critique of the struggles of "blue collar" workers, as well as union practices, and more broadly, economy itself. It achieves this with a smart and engaging script that gives the three leads the opportunity to shine. I was particularly impressed with Pryor, who I had only seen in more comedic roles, but here he gets a chance in a role that's both serious and tragic.

There are many accounts of all the issues that happened during filming; from tension between the three leads as they each fought for the spotlight, to tensions with Schrader, who had a nervous breakdown after Pryor allegedly pulled a gun on him on set. That tension might've translated to the film, since there is a constant uneasiness and tension about what will happen to the characters.

Surprisingly, it didn't translate to their performances because, as much as they apparently hated each other, as far as the film goes you really believe these three guys are best friends. Blue Collar is a remarkable debut with some surprisingly good performances that manages to be funny, engaging, and powerful, all at the same time. Definitely recommended.

Grade:

Your thoughts on Sunrise are similar to my own. I'm always a sucker for silent films which get by on the strengths of their visual and aesthetic ingenuity, but from what I've seen, this is very hard to pull off as it often results in lulls in between the more striking scenes. Man With a Movie Camera is the only silent film I've seen which accomplishes this. Faust almost did as well with its perfect first half, but then the second half killed its momentum. Bummer :(

That's what Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) tells Maggie (Lisa Zane), as he summarizes the many ways they've tried to kill him without success. This film then proceeds to unquestionably prove why they should've left him dead, instead of keeping him tickin'.

Freddy's Dead follows a group of troubled teenagers at a shelter that somehow end up being terrorized by Krueger. Led by Maggie, a therapist at the shelter, they discover various truths about Freddy's past, including the fact that he had a child. Whatever. The film is just a stupid excuse to pit a new batch of teenagers against Freddy, as he dispatches them one by one, in sillier ways.

This is a film I had seen a long time ago, and even as a teenager back then, I remembered thinking this was s-hit. It's somewhat comforting to confirm through this rewatch that I was right then, and that this is indeed s-hit. Putting aside the shortcomings of the genre or even the dubious approach to "psychology" in the story, the film is just plain bad.

From Zane's bad performance or the script's attempts to offer some sort of background to Freddy, to the awkward cameos from the likes of Roseanne & Tom Arnold, or the lame 3-D excuse and the awful CGI in the last act, the film is just a barrage of terrible, terrible decisions. Like some of the previous films, the logistics of how Freddy works doesn't make much sense, but here it is all paired with the mediocrity of everything and everyone involved.

The above picture is a perfect representation of the lengths of stupidity that the franchise has gone to as it has progressed. From a terrifying and nightmarish presence that could drag you through the walls while slicing you open, to a cackling clown using a freakin' "Power Glove" to make you endlessly go boing-boing around a room until you die. They tried fire and holy water, but they should've tried not writing this instead.

Grade:

Those are two I haven't seen, but that are high on my watchlist. Have you seen The Last Laugh, also from Murnau? That one's my favorite silent film, and I think it manages to pull both the visuals and the emotional pretty well.

The Great Ziegfeld follows the life of theatrical producer Florenz Ziegfeld (William Powell) from his humble beginnings as a "carny" and his subsequent succesful rise in Broadway, anchored by the notable Ziegfeld Follies, to his fall from grace due to financial problems and The Great Depression. It also chronicles his personal life, including his relationship with various women.

If you think that's a lot to cover on a film, it is. The 3-hour runtime is one of the main issues I have with the film; not because a film can't last 3 hours, but because this one feels massively bloated and all over the place. By trying to cover too much, it can't really focus on anything, so it basically feels like speeding through someone's highlights of life.

But length aside, the film is very well directed and crafted. It has several impressive musical numbers with some stunning choreographies and production values. If only they were shorter, there might be more of a chance to appreciate the film around them. It's funny how a film that it's made to celebrate the excesses of Old Hollywood indulges in the same excesses.

But my other main issue is in how the film presents Ziegfeld, and how it tries to lift up a man that is nothing more than a womanizing con man. Not because you can't make a film about a womanizing con man, but the film is clearly presenting him as someone noble and good, while brushing his faults under the carpet with a bit of a wink.

There are also some problematic and unnecessary instances of female objectification and grooming. There is a bit in particular with a young acquaintance of Ziegfeld that we meet as a child first, and then returns later as a young woman, that really rubbed me the wrong way. Especially because nothing is done with it other than chuckle at the "awkward" moment.

But credit where credit is due, Powell is very good in the lead role, so that might be a selling point if you're a fan of him. The supporting cast of Luise Rainer and Myrna Loy as Ziegfeld's wives, and Frank Morgan as Ziegfeld's rival, is also pretty solid. Unfortunately, there's not much in the story and beyond the spectacle for me to care about.

Grade:

Yeah, I think you recommended it to me a while back. I don't remember it too well, but I remember enjoying it quite a lot.

That's how Robert Shaye (Robert Shaye) pitches a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel to Heather Langenkamp (Heather Langenkamp). The blessing and the curse of making a successful film is that fans will always want more, and the studios – being the business enterprises that they are – more often than not will bow to that, putting business interests above creative and artistic ones in the process.

New Nightmare is a bit of an exception to that. The film is set in a fictonalized version of "reality" where Langenkamp, along with other cast and crew members of the franchise, are being terrorized by Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) who is invading the real world. It is a unique meta approach that I'm sure wasn't an easy sell back in 1994, but that somehow works.

Craven does a great job of building the tension, while letting bits and pieces of the original film fall through the cracks into this "real world". There are some nice homages to most of the deaths from the original; from a character stabbed and dragged through the walls and roof to Freddy's glove sneaking next to the crotch of another character. It works perfectly to keep that tie between the original film and the "reality" of this film.

The film also gets rid of the wise-cracking Freddy that we saw in the previous 3 or 4 films, and it's obvious that Englund is having fun with the role (he has said it's his favorite). But I think Langenkamp, not only shows a lot of improvement, but overall does a pretty good job conveying the confusion, desperation, and ultimately resilience of her character in not letting this "evil" take over her life.

Like most of the films in the franchise, the last act does feel a bit weaker than the rest. As Heather gets more and more absorbed into Freddy's world, the limitations of that world that we've seen through pretty much all films also spill into this "new nightmare". Craven still manages to pull the reins a bit, but it does feel ultimately lacking and not as clever as the first two acts.

Craven managed to successfully "kill" Freddy for almost 10 years. That is until they pit him against Jason in 2003. Then, a 2010 remake brought him back to life, receiving almost universal criticism. A second remake has been allegedly in the works for the last 10 years. Even after Craven's passing in 2015, his estate has been evaluating different projects, from a sequel to TV show. I guess evil never dies, right?

Grade:

The fight to end all fights! Freddy vs. Jason follows the two titular antagonists as they fight each other; something that had been in the minds of the studios since the 1980s. The film features a weakened and forgotten Freddy (Robert Englund), who resuscitates Jason (Ken Kirzinger) and sends him out to kill teenagers because somehow he thinks people will put the blame on him, allowing him to gain power and come back to life.

Yeah, whatever. Freddy vs. Jason, right? That's pretty much all that matters. Still, as silly as the whole premise is, I enjoyed seeing the hoops that the writers jump to join these two "universes". The fact that the end result is somewhat coherent AND fun is impressive, even if I generally feel it leans more towards the mood and style of the Nightmare on Elm Street films.

But anyway, the film is mostly fun, with some nice kills and cool setpieces thrown around. There's a scene where Jason interrupts a rave in the middle of a cornfield that is pretty cool. Then there are the two iconic fights between the two main baddies: first in Springwood and Freddy's boiler room, and finally at Crystal Lake. There is a certain amount of eye-rolling silliness, like Freddy bouncing Jason off of pipes and vents like a pinball machine, but at least it's stuff you can laugh at.

The film also suffers from some bad CGI effects, especially at one scene where Freddy takes the form of a worm to lure a stoner into death. Speaking of the stoner guy, did I even mention the "main characters" of the film? No? Well, it doesn't matter. I just know I had a lot of fun seeing these two go at each other. If you're a fan of any of these franchises, I don't see a reason why yo should skip this one.

Grade:

Late as hell, but finally! here's my summary for JANUARY 2023:

A film from the new Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time list whose ranking includes the #1 (i.e. 1, 19, 100): Sunrise (#11)
The first film from any director you like: Blue Collar (Paul Schrader)
The first Best Picture winner you haven't seen (starting forward from Wings): The Great Ziegfeld
A Friday the 13th film: Freddy vs. Jason
A film from Sudan (Independence Day, January 1): Tajouj


Other watches:

Classic silent shorts: The Big Swallow, Fantasmagorie, Electrocuting an Elephant, The Dancing Pig
Disney/Pixar shorts: BURN-E, Lou, 22 vs. Earth, Far from the Tree, Destino
Nightmare on Elm Street rewatch marathon: A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, Wes Craven's New Nightmare
Others: The Uninvited


I think Blue Collar was probably the best, but some of those short films were really good; especially Far from the Tree.

Least favorite, Freddy's Dead quite easily.

Now that I'm finally caught up with all my January reviews, here is my second "assignment" episode on this new format I'm doing for the podcast.

The Movie Loot: The February Assignment (with Frank from Silver Screeners)

In this one, my friend Frank Mandosa joins the loot as we choose a set of 5 categories to guide us on what to watch during the month.

You can also see the live broadcast we did via YouTube

here

...or listen to it through any podcasting platform like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or any other.

Here are the criteria for FEBRUARY 2023:

A film with Jack Lemmon (born February 8):
A film about an inventor (Nat'l Inventors Day, February 11):
A film with the name of a couple in its title:
A film from Masaki Kobayashi (born February 14):
A film from Kuwait (National Day, February 25):

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Carlo on video!

Will have to catch this asap...

Still have to find my groove for these live shows, but it's fun. I very much prefer the audio edited version :laugh:

This line, delivered towards the end of this bleak, post-apocalyptic drama from the Soviet Union, highlights what I think is the main line of thought of the film; the idea of transmitting hope in spite of everything against it. Set in this post-nuclear wasteland, Dead Man's Letters follows Larsen (Rolan Bykov), a professor determined to find hope somewhere, anywhere.

But how can we find hope when everything around us is in ruins? When everybody is telling us it is futile? When all our loved ones are gone? The film presents us a world that seems completely beyond hope, as people are forced to live underground, while wearing protective clothing and gas masks outside to keep them safe from the polluted air, the dirty water, and the scattered carcasses.

Although the slim hopes of most people rely on the existence of a "central bunker", Larsen is sure that there has to be more outside of that. Released towards the end of the Cold War, this seems like a very clear analogy of the centralized aspect of communism in the Soviet country; something that results in fewer resources, and therefore fewer chances to "survive" outside of this "centralized" system.

I do wish that the character of Larsen would feel more real, more relatable. The film goes for a bit of a more cold and distant approach that keeps its characters at a distance. And even though the despair and hopelessness of the situation does come through, I feel that a more emotional and character-driven approach could've been more powerful.

At several points, Larsen interacts with a group of orphaned children that have been discarded and pretty much left to die. It is in them that Larsen sees the hope of a future in this world, and it is to them that he shares the above story about "a star". Maybe he saw it, maybe not, but when darkness takes over, sometimes we have to hold on to the hope that that star is there.

Grade:

Creature with the Atom Brain follows police doctor Chet Walker (Richard Denning) as he tries to stop atom-powered creatures unleashed by Frank Buchanan (Michael Granger), a criminal on the run that wants to get revenge on his enemies. To do this, Frank has recruited ex-Nazi scientist Wilhelm Steigg (Gregory Gaye) whom he is forcing to work for him.

This is the second film from Edward L. Cahn I've seen in the last 2 months; the first one being another B-movie titled 12 Hours to Kill. There is something very pleasant and comforting about his economical approach to these two. If it has to do with skill or just the limitations of the film, I don't know. The truth is that both films work really well for what they are.

The tension in the film is well handled and Buchanan makes for a decent, moustache-twirling villain. The creatures, with their Frankenstein-like stitched heads, might seem silly but I found their mindless lumbering to be creepy enough within the setting. I also liked the way they tried to explain the logistics behind the brain implant that allows Buchanan and Steigg to control them.

Denning is also pretty effective as the lead, although he acts more like a detective than a police doctor. The 69 minute length is also a big plus, considering what the film has to work with. Some other films would've bothered with senseless exposition, or bloated backstories, but from the opening scene, Cahn knows what we're here for. We just want to see people die.

Grade:

Never heard of it.

You wouldn't get it.

Fat Girl follows the relationship of sisters, Anaïs and Elena (Anaïs Pingot and Roxanne Mesquida) as they each face their respective coming-of-age issues and sexual awakening in very different ways. The contrast between both is the central focus of this drama from Catherine Breillat.

As Elena herself says in the above quote, they are very much different. Anaïs is 12-year old, "chubby", and leaning more to the shy/introvert side albeit with a bitter cynicism to her, while Elena is 15-year old, skinny, and bolder in her approach to men, with a certain dose of wickedness. But as "daring" as Elena presents herself, she is actually waiting for the right man to lose her virginity. Anaïs, on the other hand, says she wants her first time to be "with nobody. I don't want a guy bragging he had me first."

The film extends that juxtaposition also to how supporting characters approach and treat the sisters. From Elena's new "boyfriend" (Liberto de Rienzo) to a key character in the last act, we are left to wonder on the differences and similarities between both treatments, and how much lies, deceit, and violence play into the "game".

It is the last act what might separate the film from being a masterpiece to some or a disappointment to others; the ones that love it from those that might hate it. It is most definitely one that's filled of unexpected tension, and a twist that feels completely out of left field (but is it?). Regardless of where you fall, I give Breillat heavy props for unapologetically throwing it out and just let the chips fall where they may.

Grade:

Kramer vs. Kramer follows the struggles of Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman), after his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) abandons him and their 7-year-old son, Billy (Justin Henry). As Ted copes with this, he has to learn to find some balance between his professional career, his personal life, and his duties as a parent.

Released in the late 1970s, I have to assume that this film stirred up some controversy, primarily for the way it challenges conventional gender roles. The wife and mother is the one that leaves, and the father has to learn how to take care of themselves. In that respect, the film is totally about Ted and Billy. Personally, I think I would've preferred a more balanced approach to both parents AND child, but technically, that would've been a very different film.

As it is, I really appreciated the way that the film portrayed Ted's growth as a parent, and in his relationship with Billy. Also, the moments where we see the kid trying to internalize and rationalize the abandonment and this clash between his parents were heartbreaking. There are a couple of scenes that are obviously put in there to highlight that contrast; the two breakfast scenes, or the scenes when Ted's walking Billy to school. As obvious as they are, I think they work, mostly because of the excellent performances from Hoffman and Henry.

I think that the film loses a bit once they bring Joanna back in the last act, mostly because you clearly see that the script is not on her side. Apparently Meryl Streep advocated for a more sympathetic portrayal of her character, and Hoffman fought her on it. But that is perhaps the more "benign" clash that they had. Streep has claimed that Hoffman groped her, slapped her, and harassed her, allegedly as part of his "method acting". Obviously, all of that means Hoffman is an a$$hole, but he's a talented a$$hole, and he very much shows that in here.

Streep also does a great job with what she gets, but like I said, this is Ted and Billy's story, and I was completely caught up in that. Being the son of divorced parents, but also being a "struggling new parent", I can confirm it has to do with constancy, it has to do with patience, it has to do with listening, even when you can't listen any more. But more important, it has to do with love.

Grade:

After all, what can a few land crabs do? Well, that's what Attack of the Crab Monsters wants to answer. The film follows a group of scientists sent to a remote island in the Pacific Ocean to study the effects of nuclear tests. What they eventually find is that the island is inhabited by mutated giant crabs that take over the minds of their victims.

There is an undeniable charm to these creature features that were made during the time (which I suppose is the reason why this HoF is so appealing to some of us). Part of it had to do with the fears of the moment, i.e. radiation, nuclear power; but another big part of it has to do with the "low budget" approach to these films. There's obviously a bit of both in this one.

Most of the focus falls on biologist couple Dale and Martha (Richard Garland and Pamela Duncan), and technician Hank (Russell Johnson). There are even hints at a love triangle between them, but it all ends up being pointless. Like modern slashers, the rest of the cast are more or less disposable, with the real stars of the film being the giant crabs.

The goofy design of the crabs, with the almost "googly" eyes, just adds to that, uhh, charm. However, I really don't understand the purpose for having the crabs take over the minds of their victims, as opposed to have them be just "killer giant crabs". But putting that aside, Corman does a solid job keeping a nice pace to things, especially considering that the only thing we have here is earth, water, and a few land crabs.

Grade:

The above quote anchors the life of Alan Turing, as told by The Imitation Game. The quote makes a reference as to how people that are underestimated are sometimes the ones that end up doing really great things. However, it seems that the film takes some, uhh, liberties in portraying how "underestimated" Turing was at the time, and that's just one of the many liberties the film takes.

The film follows Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) through three different times in his life: his teenage years at boarding school, his time serving the British government during World War II, and his secluded adulthood after the war, in the early 1950s. The story moves back and forth between these three timelines as we see how he was, how he is, and how he would be; at least according to screenwriter Graham Moore.

The main focus of the story is on Turing's work on cracking the Nazi's Enigma code. Turing, who is portrayed as socially awkward, somewhat egocentric, and disliked by most people, is assigned to work with a team under the strict supervision of Commander Denniston (Charles Dance). At first, Turing and his work are dismissed and rejected by everyone around him, which goes back to the above quote, and how he eventually ends up cracking the code.

Another significant focus of the story lies on Turing's sexuality, and his relationship with a young Christopher Morcom during his school years, and with Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), a cryptoanalyst that works close to his team during World War II. Him being a homosexual adds another layer to the above quote since this also added to him being dismissed by others.

Unfortunately, despite some of these broad strokes being accurate, a huge amount of what we see in the film is made up. Turing was not that socially awkward, there's no evidence he was bullied at school, he wasn't the first to crack German codes, he wasn't the sole inventor of the "cracking" machine, he had a good working relationship with his team, Denniston was supportive of him, and although there was a Russian spy at Bletchley Park, there is no evidence that they interacted. So, yeah, pretty much 80% of the film.

I know that films aren't meant to be documentaries, but even if we were to take it as a fictional account, the film follows the familiar beats of most biopics. Even Cumberbatch's portrayal seems like Oscar low-hanging fruit, considering that there is no evidence that Turing behaved like a "1940s Sheldon Cooper", but yeah, I guess that "sells". Still, the film is not awful, most of the performances are pretty good, and there are moments that work. So even if you can't imagine the film working for all the reasons above, to some extent, it does and there might be something for some people in there.

Grade:

That's the lengths to which Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William Petersen) will go to grab his man. To Live and Die in L.A. follows his attempts to arrest criminal Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe), a skilled but ruthless counterfeiter that is responsible for murdering Chance's partner. To do this, he has to reluctantly work with newly assigned partner, John Vukovich (John Pankow), a more straight-laced agent.

Released in 1985, this is as 80s as you can get. From its traditional plot of a cop set on revenge, paired with an opposite partner, to its gritty, Miami Vice-like ambience and overall feel. There is also a certain "sleaze" to its vibe, along with huge doses of ultra-violence that just makes it feel of a certain time.

Friedkin keeps the pace a bit on the restless side, so there isn't much of a chance to let your guard down. Maybe because of this, some cuts feel a bit abrupt, while also some subplots and storylines feel either underserved or end up falling by the side. One notable example is the subplot of Chance's informant/lover Ruth Lanier (Darlanne Fluegel).

My main issues, however, is with the character of Vukovich. I think Pankow was a bit miscast, but beyond that, I don't think the script gives him the depth and space that he needs; especially considering how important he becomes as the film progresses. It was halfway through the film that I kinda realized, "Oh, this is like an important guy. I thought he would be a 'red-shirt' nobody". Maybe that has to do with my expectations, or maybe with the way he was introduced and presented at first.

Chance, on the other hand, is cold and brooding. Petersen does a solid job with the character, and you believe that this guy doesn't really give a shit how he does things. Finally, Dafoe gives one of his committed performances, although I wouldn't have mind a bit more "crazy" from him. Finally, John Turturro gives a great supporting performance as one of Masters' men.

Despite some of the issues stated above, I really enjoyed this. I enjoyed the dark and gritty approach to things, and Friedkin did a solid job directing. It's worth mentioning that there's a particularly intense car chase that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The script has some issues, but a lot of the dialogue is sharp and cool, and there is a twist towards the end that's bound to make you go "what?!" Apparently, MGM executives weren't happy with it, but I guess Friedkin said "I'm gonna do it, and I don't give a shit how I do it."

Grade:

That's how filmmaker Tim Egan describes the setting of his eerie short film, Curve. Released in 2016, it follows a young woman (Laura Jane Turner) that wakes up on a ledge in a mysterious place. Injured, alone, and at the risk of falling to an abyss, the woman tries to desperately cling to life.

This is a short film I had seen a couple of years ago, and it certainly left a mark. I love the way it creates this creepy atmosphere through its minimalist visuals and the awesome sound design. Like Egan himself said, it all works to give this setting an almost antagonistic persona that is determined to make this woman give up and fall.

I had the fortune to talk with Egan for an upcoming episode of my podcast, and it was great to pick his brain about all the little details that he puts on this, and all his thought process while crafting such a cool short film. Curve is the very definition of "less is more".

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

In case anybody wants to check it out, it's definitely worth it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dD3Fawk4y0

The Follow is one of several short films commissioned by BMW to serve as "glorified car ads" at the turn of the century. They follow a nameless driver (Clive Owen) hired to perform different tasks. What's notable is that they manage to nab big names and stars like Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie, Ang Lee, Gary Oldman, Don Cheadle, and in this case, Forest Whitaker, Mickey Rourke, and Wong Kar-wai.

In this one, the driver is hired to follow the wife of a paranoid, and probably abusive actor (Rourke). As he follows her Z3 aboard his BMW 328i *wink, wink* he narrates the intricacies of his job and the proper techniques to follow. But his musings, like the above quote, may also be about his personal life, his past or his current feelings. Some would say that a publicity tool like this doesn't have any business being as "deep" and "introspective" as this, but there it is.

The only other short I've seen from the series, Beat the Devil, was directed by Tony Scott, and it was 100% him; from the adrenaline and the sheer kinetic energy of it. I'm not an expert on Wong, but one can feel this is purely his flavor. As interesting as it is to watch, it is remarkable the way in which the business/marketing aspect of the short meets the artistic angle of the crew involved, and I'm all for it.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Again, for those interested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNoYLm3a-nI

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Curve is one of the more memorable short films I've seen in the past few years. Pretty sure you were the one that brought it to my attention the first time. I'm a sucker for that sort of simple one-location set up.
Looking forward to the interview.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

I also watched Curve after Thief mentioned it a few years ago. I concur that it's very good.

Zoos are magical places, with the ability to unite people, mend differences, and heal families... or at least that's what Matt Damon taught us. Which is why Harold (Doug Herbert) wants to buy a zoo in this silly, funny short film from my good friend, Todd Sullivan.

The film follows his enthusiastic presentation to his family, and their subsequent reaction. It is a very simple short, but for the most part, successful in what it wants to do. The comedic timing from Herbert is solid, and the rest of the cast does a good work, especially Kelsey Bell as the daughter.

There is a bit of "fancy" camera movement in the opening that looks great, but might feel a bit "too much" for how simple the short is. But considering that the bulk of it is just two static shots (Dad vs. the family), I think it gives some balance. But the highlight is in the script and the performances. Nothing groundbreaking, but effective.

Grade:

For anyone interested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42VXZ90sts

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Glad you both liked it! I'm currently editing the interview and will hopefully have it out before February ends.

That is precisely what this short film offers. A Killer App was made by actor/singer and friend Keram Malicki-Sanchez as a college project more than a decade ago. He shared it with me when I told him I was doing an episode on short films, and although it has some of the warts and wrinkles of a student project, it is still pretty funny in its silliness.

Like the above quote clearly says, the film follows Greg (Sean Ridgway), a computer "nerd" who ends up killing his nagging girlfriend (Aimee-Lynn Chadwick) in a moment of rage. After hooking her up with some electronics, he codes an app to control her from his cell phone. But things don't go as planned when their neighbor (Jon Sharkey) finds out about it.

The direction feels a bit frenetic at times, but there are some good moments of blocking and framing. Also, Ridgway is pretty good as the lead with some pretty effective deadpan delivery. A Killer App might have been just "a college project"... but it works.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

For anyone interested...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2INgQO7A8E

Also, check out some of Keram's music and videos. He directs all his videos and the music is really good.

Pee Soup is yet another short film from my friend Todd Sullivan. It follows a diner (Carlo Sia) and a unique waiter (Matthew Che'z) in a... unique sidewalk cafe. Todd shared this with me a couple of weeks ago as well, and I've been laughing at it since. Maybe I'm an easy target, but I find pretty much everything in it perfect. The delivery and timing from both actors is on point, the music is perfect, and the way it subverts our expectations had me rolling. What can I say? It's a short film titled "pee soup", and that is *exactly* what it brings :D

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Enjoy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSy1Dpbi6yk

Finishing this batch of short films with two more from Todd Sullivan, both featuring an unlikely... companion.

That is how physicist Thomas Nesbitt (Paul Christian) sums up another scientist skeptical reaction to the alleged appearance of The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, a prehistoric dinosaur awakened by a nuclear bomb test. The film follows Nesbitt's attempts to alert everybody after his first encounter with the beast in the Arctic. An encounter that everybody dismisses as a moment of delirium.

And there is a good deal of that skepticism, as Nesbitt goes around from his military friends to fellow scientists. He is eventually joined by Dr. Thurgood Elson (Cecil Kellaway) and his young assistant Lee (Paula Raymond), but the film takes almost an hour to finally confirm the existence of the beast to the higher uppers, when it is already too late.

But regardless of the scientific push-and-pull from the story, this is a film about a giant lizard wreaking havoc, and in that aspect, the film delivers. The special effects and stop-motion animation of the beast are quite impressive and wonderful to look at. One notable example is the moment when the beast destroys a lighthouse, which results in a very visually striking moment (hence my inclusion of it here), but the scenes in the city halfway through, or the closing ones in Coney Island are just as good.

The toxic blood in the last act was a nice twist, but I don't think the way it was executed and eventually solved was that effective. Still, at 80 minutes, the film doesn't overstay its welcome and offers enough destruction and solid special effects for any fans of the genre.

Grade:

The Deadly Mantis follows a team of scientists and military personnel as they try to find and stop the titular creature as it starts attacking several military bases in the North Pole. The military team is led by Col. Joe Parkman (Craig Stevens) and General Mark Ford (Donald Randolph), but they are joined by paleontologist Ned Jackson (William Hopper) and journalist Marge Blaine (Alix Talton).

I read an article on praying mantises that opened with the following sentence: "From extreme camouflage to sexual cannibalism". Obviously, this unique insect has fascinated people since forever, not only because of their appearance, but also for their behavior or skills, as mentioned on this quote. Unfortunately, this creature feature resorts to a more traditional portrayal of it as a big "anything", instead of capitalizing on its uniqueness.

The Deadly Mantis follows a template, and it does so fairly well. However, its pace is a bit more clunky than, say, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms. At times, it feels like it kinda sputters often, before actually getting things going. In addition, none of the main characters are that memorable. There's also the frequent objectification of Marge, which we are meant to take in stride because she does so as well, all while dozens of soldiers ogle and leer at her.

The special effects are not as great as other similar films, but they are effective. Director Nathan Juren tries to make the most out of his limitations, while still giving us decent amounts of destruction and chaos. It's not enough to put this in the same category as other similar films, but well... it's doing the best that it can.

Grade:

Forgot to put this here yesterday, since it was "meant" to come out on the "short month", but this is the latest episode of the podcast, Episode 79: The Short Loot, where I talk with filmmaker Tim Egan. Known for directing the amazing short film, Curve, we talked about his career, his short film, and short films in general. We close sharing our favorite short films, and there is a notable presence of short films that came up during the Short Film HoF we did a while ago, so check it out!

The Movie Loot 79: The Short Loot (with Tim Egan)

You can check it out on the above link, or on any of these podcasting platforms: Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or any other. Thanks for the support!

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

I just released Special Episode 16 of The Movie Loot, where I talk about what is probably my favorite scene from The Godfather, and my second favorite from the franchise; the attempt against Vito Corleone at the hospital:

The Movie Loot - Special Episode XVI (The Godfather)

Remember you can also listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and most podcast platforms.

Today is #GrammarDay, so I had the opportunity to chat with podcaster and NY Times best-selling author Mignon Fogarty, also known as Grammar Girl on a bonus episode of The Movie Loot. We talked about grammar, podcasts, podcasts about grammar, and a little bit about films. Check it out!

Bonus Loot #3: The Grammar Loot (with Mignon Fogarty, a.k.a. Grammar Girl)

Remember you can also listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, and most podcast platforms.

Good stuff, seems like a cool guy. I was impressed with myself for having already seen so many of the films mentioned here, but I learned about a few new ones too.

And I second his rec of the Villeneuve film, if you haven't watched it yet.


https://youtu.be/t60MMJH_1ds

Thanks! I found most of the shorts he mentioned, but really haven't had time to watch them. They're on the agenda, though.

That's how supervisor Jack Godell (Jack Lemmon) tries to convince reporter Kimberly Wells (Jane Fonda) that there was no accident at the Ventana Nuclear Power Plant. But is he trying to convince Wells, or is he trying to convince himself? That is what drives the story in this tense thriller.

The China Syndrome follows Wells and his cameraman Richard Adams (Michael Douglas) as they follow up on a potential nuclear emergency. After witnessing and incident that they believe could've led to a meltdown, they start uncovering a series of coverups taken by the administrators to cut corners in the plant maintenance. However, their efforts might put them all in danger.

This is a film I had been meaning to watch for a long time, but for whatever reason I hadn't. So I was glad that this month's challenge gave me the opportunity, and I jumped right at it. The film is definitely my kind of jam. I mean, an edge-of-your-seat thriller about a nuclear cover-up? Sign me up for that!

James Bridges, who wrote and directed, delivers a smart script and taut direction that relies more on slow, tense moments and conversations, rather than big, elaborate setpieces. When I read that he was also the writer of the underseen Colossus: The Forbin Project, it made sense. Here he uses similar "control room" interactions that put in the spotlight human's fallibility and our reliance on "machines" to do the job for us.

In addition to the script and direction, the film is helped by a hell of a cast. Fonda and Lemmon easily steal the spotlight, and their scenes together are among the best from the film. The cast is rounded up by solid supporting performances from Douglas, Wilford Brimley, James Hampton, and James Karen, among others.

My two main gripes happen in the last act. First, they insert an antagonist in one of the plant executives that feels a bit one-dimensional as a representation of the "corporate bad guys", and he does lean a bit into "moustache twirling". The second has to do with the very end, where a certain line of dialogue feels forced to assure the audiences that justice will be served and that these corporate "bad guys" will somehow pay.

But those are really minor gripes. The film does a great job of questioning the risks in the use of nuclear power and the lengths that some will go to keep things the way they are, all while delivering great performances in an all-around well-crafted film. Even with a last minute, one-dimensional antagonist or a forced closing line... it works.

Grade:

Since the moment we're born, life is a constant barrage of trial-and-error decisions. What to play, who to play with, what to eat, who to hang out with, where to study, what to study, where to live, who to marry... it's all an endless cycle of decisions to which, more often than not, we feel ill-prepared. And yet, we choose, and go ahead with the next stage.

Al Maht (or All Eyes on Him) is a Kuwaiti animated film that follows Tawfeeq (Sayood), a young man stuck on that cycle of decisions. The film starts with him as he's about to graduate high school, and follows his life as he tries to navigate some of the above questions of life.

This was certainly an interesting watch, especially because of how it tries to juggle different tones. On one hand, the film features some hit-and-miss comedy beats that are thrown at a frenetic, non-stop pace; but on the other hand, some of the themes that are explored regarding life choices and the effects they have for ourselves and those around us are relatively well presented.

Tawfeeq is an artistic young man that likes to draw. However, life takes him away from that path for different reasons, and he ends up sacrificing what he loves for what is considered a more regular life. But then again, life has ways to try to put you back on track, but only as new and different questions and choices arise.

I really appreciated the film's efforts to dive into these profound topics, but although I enjoyed a lot of the more fast-paced, juvenile humor, I wish the film would've "sat down" for a while at moments to allow some of these life ponderings sink a bit more, while also giving some of its subplots and storyline detours more space to breathe.

Grade:

That's one of the ways that Danny Costanzo (Billy Crystal) tries to rationalize to his partner his decision to retire from the force. Of course, you wanna think of yourself as being "smart", rather than "scared"; especially when you're a Chicago police officer. But can they follow through on their decision? That is the basis for this 1986 buddy cop film.

Running Scared follows Costanzo and his partner, Ray (Gregory Hines) as they try to track down dangerous drug lord, Julio Gonzales (Jimmy Smits). However, after the cops survive a shootout during a raid on a gun shipment for Gonzales, the two start to question their careers and start thinking about retiring early and opening a bar in Florida.

This is a film I'm baffled I had barely heard about, considering it came up in the 1980s, around the time I was watching stuff like Beverly Hills Cop and Lethal Weapon. But for some reason, this one seemed to get lost in the mix. The film follows more or less a similar vibe to those that I mentioned above, with the two partners usually going against the grain to capture the bad guys, while cracking one-liners in the process.

The thing that works about this film is that Hines and Crystal have an undeniable chemistry. Their banter is funny, cool, and infectious. You can also feel there's a dose of Crystal's ad-libbing, but it works perfectly. The film has a good dose of solid one-liners, and the supporting cast (that includes Joe Pantoliano and Dan Hedaya, among others) is pretty good.

What didn't work as well for me was the overall tone. There is a bit of a tonal dissonance to the plot that I just can't quite grasp. For starters, the two cops are shown to be pretty bold and fearless, often to the point of recklessness, during the first act, so their choice to "run scared" after a dangerous situation doesn't necessarily jive with the kind of cops we've seen them to be or the kind of film this is.

The thing is that the original idea for the script called for two "older cops" about to retire, which I think would've made more sense to the story. There is also a montage towards the middle of the film as they hang out in Miami during their forced vacation that feels weird and dated. Finally, a couple of romantic subplots between both cops feel underserved and, yes, weird (both of which involve woman that are married, or about to get married). But as far as a fun, light, buddy cop comedy with two wise-cracking cops with great chemistry, I guess it delivers.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

If you have 30 minutes before the Oscars start, then check out the FIRST HALF of the latest episode of The Movie Loot, where me and @ApexPredator talk about the Oscars and our predictions for tonight's ceremony!

The Movie Loot 81: The Oscars Loot

Look for it also on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, etc.

Later this week, I will spam you again with the SECOND HALF, but I was running against the clock, and this was the part that was relevant for today, so :shrug: :D

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Checking out this latest loot with Apex right now!

Set in the years after World War II, The Thick-Walled Room follows a group of Japanese soldiers imprisoned for crimes against humanity committed during the war. Throughout the film, they go from coping with the real guilt and regret of their actions to struggling and questioning the reasons for their imprisonment. Part of their resentment is reflected in the above line, which one of them quotes in the last act. I don't know where the quote comes from, but it seems to capture the way that these prisoners are being used as scapegoats for the decisions of higher-ranking officers and leaders, who they were following orders from.

This film was the first notable film directed by Masaki Kobayashi, who later in his career directed Harakiri, which I love so I really wanted to dive into something, anything else from him. The main group of prisoners we follow is comprised of mostly six soldiers, all from different backgrounds and different approaches to their situation. However, most of the focus falls on Yokota (Kô Mishima) and Yamashita (Torahiko Hamada), both of which are struggling with family situations back in their homes that are directly or indirectly tied to them being imprisoned. These include financial difficulties for lack of a provider, the social stigma of their situation, serious illnesses, or the continuing clash against the current government.

Overall, the film has an interesting and thought-provoking premise. Most of these subplots are quite serious and profound, especially coming from Kobayashi, who was a war prisoner himself. Unfortunately, his decision to spread the narrative among so many characters results in the plot feeling somewhat scattered and without focus. There are also a few expository sequences that feel clunkily written, and the pace of the film is not as tight as it should have. There are some solid performances, though, and Kobayashi does craft some powerful images and moments. There's a scene in particular that stuck with me, where a character is being haunted by visions and images of the crimes he committed as the walls around him break down in a hallucinatory sequence.

Overall, I was pleased with this film. There is a powerful message on how society perceives this people and the way guilt is put upon them as a burden they can't carry, even if they're not the ones directly responsible for it. Kobayashi shows promise as a director with some neatly constructed sequences and visuals. I just wish that the script and the overall execution was better, because I believe that deep down there's a really great film here; perhaps behind a thick-wall.

Grade:

I plan to upload the second half some time today, so if you do check it out, make sure you come back later to listen to the second half.

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Again, late as hell posting this, but here's my summary for FEBRUARY 2023:

A film with Jack Lemmon (born February 8): The China Syndrome
A film about an inventor (Nat'l Inventors Day, February 11): The Imitation Game
A film with the name of a couple in its title: Kramer vs. Kramer
A film from Masaki Kobayashi (born February 14): The Thick-Walled Room
A film from Kuwait (National Day, February 25): All Eyes on Him


Other films seen, not for the challenge

30th Hall of Fame: Dead Man's Letters, Fat Girl, To Live and Die in L.A.
1950s Creature/B-movies: Creature with the Atom Brain, Attack of the Crab Monsters, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, The Deadly Mantis
Short films: Curve, The Follow, (What the F*ck Do You Mean) We Bought a Zoo?, A Killer App, Pee Soup, Tomato, Tomatoes
Others: Running Scared (1986)



Not counting rewatches, I think the one I enjoyed the most was probably The China Syndrome, but a case can be made for Kramer vs. Kramer, Fat Girl, or Dead Man's Letters. All very solid films.

As for the weakest, ehhh, probably The Imitation Game or The Deadly Mantis. None really awful, though.

If anybody listened to this latest episode of The Movie Loot, then make sure you dive back in for the second half. After our Oscars talk, me and @ApexPredator play a little "speech" game, and then share our Top 5 Best Picture nominees that DIDN'T win through history. Check it out!

The Movie Loot 81: The Oscars Loot

As usual, you can also check it out on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or any other podcast/audio streaming service.

Caught up with part 2 this morning. Great episode!

Thanks for checking it out!

I already had this up on the first page, I think, but here is my third "assignment" episode of the new format I'm doing for the podcast.

The Movie Loot: The March Assignment (with Stew from SWO Productions)

In this one, my friend Stew joins the loot as we choose a set of 5 categories to guide us on what to watch during the month.

You can also see the live broadcast we did via YouTube

here

...or listen to it through any podcasting platform like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or any other.

Here are the criteria for MARCH 2023:

A film from South Korea (March 1st Movement):
A film with the number 3 (Three, Third, etc.) in its title:
A film from Akira Kurosawa (born March 23):
A film from Spike Lee (born March 20):
A film with the word "Time" in its title (Daylight Savings Time, March 12):

The above is part of the actual statement of Charlie Mayers, the sailor that is subject of this mesmerizing short film. Inspired by the events of the disastrous Halifax Explosion of 1917, the film follows the titular sailor, as he is witnesses the explosion caused by the collision of two boats, which eventually sent him "flying" through the air and into a hill 2 kilometers away; an event he somehow survived.

There really isn't much else to the short in terms of story, but it is indeed a visually captivating journey through what might've been a near-death experience. As the sailor is sent through the air, he's stripped of his clothes, and we see him flying through actual debris, as well as imaginary debris, all while reliving past events of his life. It is interesting how the directors intercalate live footage of nature, along with the fluid animation. The latter takes an almost choreographic, dance-like approach to the sailor's "journey", which ends up being quite beautiful.

The Halifax explosion ended up being one of the most significant disasters of the time, with almost two thousand deaths and almost 10,000 injured. Whole communities were destroyed, thousands of people were displaced, and communications and commerce were badly affected by the explosion. Mayers himself was treated by some as "delusional". But even though not much is known of Mayers after this, and the short takes considerable artistic license about his perceptions, I think it's safe to say that this must've been a life-changing experience.

Grade:

That's the demand that an abusive a$$hole screams at Ebba (Sigrid Kandal Husjord) as he's in the middle of assaulting a passenger. The demand is based on the aggressor's perceptions of who Ebba is and what her role is, which as far as he's concerned, are to drive the tram and not get in his "assaulting" business. That is part of the basis of this Academy Award nominated short film.

Night Ride follows Ebba, a curious passenger that doesn't want to wait outside in the cold before the tram leaves and unwittingly ends up at the wheel. But this night ride is not meant to be a smooth one as a rude passenger has an awkward exchange with Ariel (Ola Hoemsnes Sandum) that quickly escalates into something worse. Can Ebba do something to stop it? Is it up to her?

That is the premise of this short film, which seems to be an exploration of what others perceive to be our duties and what they actually are. Ebba is not supposed to be driving the tram, but people see her at the wheel and expect her to do so. In a similar line, Ebba shouldn't be the one stopping an assault, or at least not the only one, but then again, she might be.

With a 15 minute runtime, the short plays it a bit more on the lighter side, but not without diminishing the seriousness of the events. The incredibly earnest performance from Husjord adds to that as she manages to transmit both her unwillingness to be where she is, but also her resolve to do what needs to be done for being where she is; whether it is driving the tram or stopping an a$$hole from assaulting someone else.

Grade:

Corporate life, and regular life overall, is not easy. I think it's safe to say that many of us, especially when reaching a certain age, have questioned "the purpose of it all"; what are we doing here? what's the point? What most of us probably haven't experienced is having an ostrich confront us with that thought... or who knows, maybe you have. Anyway, that's the main premise of this clever short film.

However, the short takes an interesting approach to it. Set almost in its entirety in a miniature office set for stop-motion animation, the film makes a constant effort to remind us that this is a film, that it is all fake (or "a sham", as the ostrich would say). The short focuses on Neil (Lachlan Pendragon), a salesperson at this office struggling with his dwindling toaster sales as well as a sudden existential dread; something that is heightened by the overnight visit of an ostrich.

This was certainly a clever twist on the "everything is fake" trope. The ways in which director, writer, and animator Pendragon transmits that feeling of "artificiality" are really inventive and well thought-out. By showing most of the action through the actively recording director's monitor or having the figures mouthpieces fall off unexpectedly, it all helps to put forth that theme of how everything is made up because it's a film, but also juxtaposing it with Neil's role within this artificial set.

All of this are just immensely creative ways to invite us to question our surroundings, but also to question those that incite that questioning and their purposes. Like the ostrich says, question *everything*, which includes questioning the ostrich itself. After all, the world is not quite what it seems.

Grade:

Set in a hot summer day in New York, Dog Day Afternoon follows Sonny (Al Pacino) as he tries to rob a bank along with his friend Sal (John Cazale). However, what is supposed to be a simple robbery goes all wrong, and ends up putting the spotlight on the two amateur robbers, as it all becomes a media spectacle.

We've all been there; glued to the TV and the news as some event unfolds, usually a tragic one. The adrenaline of everyone involved – the perpetrators doing the deed, the media recording it, and us watching it – makes everything feel tangible and close, but at the same time surreal and incredible.

That might be part of what prompts Sonny to ask the above question. He knows the spotlight is on them, and he feels like he has some sort of upper-hand. His frequent references to the Attica prison riot in 1971, where innocent people were killed by the police along with the guilty, hints that he's afraid his fate might be the same, so having cameras on him gives him a certain amount of security.

Despite the spectacle around them, the film doesn't treat these characters like "superstars", but rather makes an effort to showcase their humanity. Sonny and Sal are not robbers, that much is evident. They're humans, they're lovers, husbands, friends; just ordinary people that are driven to incredible events because of the circumstances around them.

By focusing on that humanity and those circumstances, which can be economic disparity or social differences (all things that Lumet smartly highlights in the opening credits scene which focuses on various New York settings and landmarks where regular people work and mingle), we can feel closer and identify with those characters. They're on TV, but at the same time tangible and close.

In the midst of its spectacle, Dog Day Afternoon manages to put a spotlight not in the event, but in the characters and the circumstances that drive them. It is a wildly effective mixture of drama, humor, social commentary, and thrills, with a clever script and some great performances. I mean, that's entertainment, right?

Grade:

Saw this last week, fun. I love high concept stuff and, if that wasn't enough, and on top of being pretty funny, it did a few technical things that made me genuinely wonder how they accomplished them. Great stuff.

Yeah, I also suppose that people with actual filming experience will get a kick out of it.

That is how filmmaker João Gonzalez described his short film for a New Yorker interview. At 14 minutes, this silent short film certainly has to let the images and the music carry the burden of those themes, but it does so pretty well.

Set in a steep cliff where a house is perched, Ice Merchants follows a father-and-son duo as they continuously go through their routine of picking ice, jumping down, selling ice, going back up. It's all shown beautifully through the minimalist animation of Gonzalez.

But beyond the rigors of that routine, there are indeed some moments where the images show you there was a loss, and consequently, how that ever-present connection between the family can keep us alive, and help us to carry on. Ice Merchants might feel like a simple story, but it does have a lot of heart.

Grade:

Puberty and adolescence can be a stressful and confusing time for any teenager. Everything is out of control; the body, hormones, emotions, feelings. Not to mention the pressures of friends and society, paired with the moral inhibitions about love and sex. Our body wants certain things, our peers say we should do certain things, but our parents and society tells us we shouldn't, which makes this acclaimed short an interesting snapshot of one teenage girl's journey.

My Year of Dicks is a semi-autobiographical short written by Pamela Ribon, based on her experiences as a teenager. Directed by Sara Gunnarsdóttir, it is separated in five chapters chronicling a year in the life of Pam (Brie Tilton), as she is determined to lose her virginity. Each chapter follows a different attempt from Pam to "succeed", while featuring different tones and animation styles, culminating with her father giving her the "sex talk" (see an excerpt above).

There have been countless of films about male teenagers determined to lose their virginity, but not nearly as much about female teenagers in the same situation. From that angle, it is refreshing to see Ribon's experiences and perspective brought to life. The story, though, doesn't stray that far from the typical tropes of the genre, and you can probably guess where things will go in the end, but that doesn't make the journey less endearing.

In addition, Gunnarsdótir's decision to distinguish every chapter with a specific tone and animation style makes things feel more alive. The main animation style, which I think is roto-scoping, can be a bit crude but it adds a certain level of unpolishness that I think fits the overall theme. After all, that's how love and sex are usually at first, unpolished and not necessarily as "perfect" as we would expect, but still unique and worth experiencing and remembering.

Grade:

I hated this film, but I have a theory that "dicks" means literal penises (ones she hadn't got for a long time, though wanted to) but also (and predominantly) the men she wanted to lose virginity with who turned out to be just that in her mind: dicks. Just imagine a guy directing the movie: "My Year of Cants". And of course, there's that

I mean, The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse wasn't good either, and the inspirational quotes pilfered straight from a self-help book sure irked me. But at least it looked good and the characters were adorable. The Boy, The Mole... was substantially more valuable than My Year of Dicks in nearly every way.

Interesting. Now that I think of it, I never really went through that adolescent part. I was a child and then, BAM! I became an adult. I never had that infamous rebellious phase either. I never wanted to do certain things, and I always frowned upon those who did. I was always calm and composed. I never did anything that was against my beliefs or moral system and I never really wanted to.

So, I never understood movies like My Year of Dicks. I never understood any of the teen comedies. I did understand, say, Japanese teen dramas. But never American teen comedies. It's such an abstract concept to me, to desperately want to lose your virginity. With whoever is first. But just to lose it, as if it was a rite of passage that gives you superpowers.

Have there? Probably those teen comedies I avoid like fire. Because I sure can't remember anything like that at the moment. Oh, there's the American Pie series. One of the worst series in the world, I guess.

Here I can at least say Lady Bird - another sorry excuse for a movie.

I think it's not just because some people's expectations are too high. But also because some people unknowingly do things that make their initial relationships unpolished, and ultimately fail. Like, I don't know, getting involved with a dick, or something.

The title is obviously a wordplay on literal dicks and metaphorical "dicks", like you said. Since you brought it up, The Boy, the Mole.. is the only Oscar-nominated animated short from last year I haven't gotten to, and it's the one who won. Of the others I've seen, I enjoyed The Ostrich... more, but I had no issues with this one.

Everybody has different experiences and perspectives, and this short certainly isn't the first time that I hear/read of experiences like this. My perspective from a Christian-raised male from Puerto Rico won't necessarily equate to the ones from Ribon or Gunnarsdóttir, but I can appreciate them sharing their views.

Aside of American Pie, some of the ones that come to mind that are about "losing virginity" or touch on that on a significant "subplot" level are...

Porky's
Can't Hardly Wait
Sixteen Candles
Risky Business
Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Out of those, the one I can certainly take away as genuinely good is probably Fast Times. The other ones I either think they're dumb fun, haven't seen in a very long time, or don't like that much.

I think both things go hand-in-hand. Because of all those reasons I brought up about peer pressure or sheer hormonal drive, a lot of teens jump into sexual encounters without the right maturity, caution, expectations, etc. which result in not so pleasant experiences. Then again, there is that unnecessary pressure of that "first time" being "special" when at the end of the day, it really shouldn't matter, but well.

That's the entertainment business they're talking about in the above quote. A business that one can say is equally plagued by the "highs" of success and the glory of fame, as well as the bitterness, the jealousy, the resentment, the backstabbings, and the overall pressures of keeping a certain status. Those are waters that a lot of wannabe artists crave, but not everybody can navigate, which serves as the backdrop of these 1960s titillating drama.

Valley of the Dolls follows three young women that find themselves dipping their toes in these waters and then end up being washed away by it. Most of the plot follows Anne Welles (Barbara Parkins), a recent graduate that starts as a secretary at a theatrical agency but ends up unwittingly sucked deeper into the business. She is joined by Neely O'Hara (Patty Duke), a rising star in Broadway, and Jennifer North (Sharon Tate), a chorus girl with low self-esteem.

The film chronicles the rise and fall of the three friends as they struggle with newfound fame, failing relationships, and addiction to alcohol and barbiturates (i.e. the titular "dolls") in the midst of this "rotten business". Generally speaking, I feel like there is a strong story here about the burdens and pressures of fame. Unfortunately, it is buried under mediocre craftmanship and bad acting.

The film has some serious issues with its pacing, and the way the events unfold. Maybe it's the editing or the direction, or a mixture of both, but there is an unnevenness in how the film moves from one sequence to the other. Certain relationships, interactions, and plot developments feel like coming out of nowhere, as if there was a scene or two missing in between.

Some of these plot developments either "half work" or should work, but it's all so shoddily assembled that it ends up hindering the overall effect. Add to that the poor performances and the excessive melodrama, and you end up with all the ingredients for a disaster... and still, just like the "rotten business" the characters are sucked into, there is something captivating about it. Not enough for me to "love it", but enough to not turn it off.

Grade:

What are friends for? That's a question that's often asked rhetorically when acknowledging something done among friends. But seriously, what are friends for? Are they people you feel comfortable with and want to hang out with, people to aimlessly chat with, or is there a deeper value to be attributed to friendship; something you feel the need to get something from?

The Banshees of Inisherin seems to ask that question as it follows longtime friends Colm (Brendan Gleeson) and Padraic (Colin Farrell) reach a crossroad in their relationship. Colm seems to be going through an existential crisis that makes him see little value in his relationship with Padraic, especially as he approaches a certain age, whereas Padraic just can't believe his old mate doesn't wanna hang out with him anymore.

The thing is that Colm seems to be more interested in the future, his "legacy" as a musician, rather than his friendship with Padraic. McDonagh uses this conundrum to explore what is our place and purpose in the world – to create and leave "something" behind – or just to be nice to people, but also what it means to be a friend in the face of despair, maturity, growth, and even death.

Are friendships supposed to be this "transactional" relationship where you're supposed to "get something" out of the other? Are we meant to be friends with everybody forever and ever, regardless of how much we change and grow, or is Colm behaving like a 12-year old? It's interesting how, upon Colm's rejection, Padraic latches onto Dominic (Barry Keoghan), the friendly but dim-witted son of the local policeman, as if establishing a new "friend hierarchy" with him at the top.

But that dilemma is just the beginning. McDonagh ends up taking the story into really unexpected ways, anchored by four amazing performances in Gleeson, Farrell, Keoghan, and Kerry Condon as Padraic's sister, perhaps the most level-headed resident of Inisherin. They are all blessed with a script that's smart, clever, funny, witty, deep, and evoking equal doses of despair and hope, in an amazing mixture of tragedy and comedy.

Grade:

That's how one of the main characters of Everything Everywhere All at Once (or rather her "evil" counterpart) describes this "tortured" multiverse reality they're living, but it could also be used to describe the plot of the film. I mean, a Chinese-American immigrant (Michelle Yeoh) is being audited by the IRS when she discovers her connection with multiple universes, including one where people have hot-dog fingers; a connection she has to use to save these universes from being destroyed by her alternate father and daughter, and a floating bagel. Whoosh!

Really, it's not that its complex, just that it is too many silly and absurd things thrown at once. The overload from the story and the fights and the frenetic rhythm of the film, all screaming for your attention might not be for everyone. Fractured moments, contradictions, and confusion, one might say; with only a few specks of time where anything actually makes any sense, and I'm not necessarily saying it in a bad way. I discovered this film was written and directed by the same guys that did Swiss Army Man shortly after watching it, and I went like "yeah, it figures".

So if you're into fast-paced absurdism, then this might be for you. But as far as I'm concerned, what kept this film afloat was the emotional anchor provided by the characters, especially Ke Huy Quan and Stephanie Hsu, who play Yeoh's husband and daughter respectively. KHQ gives an incredibly endearing and charismatic performance, but Hsu really digs deep into the heart and emotion of this "fractured" character to which nothing actually makes any sense. As fun as Jamie Lee Curtis was as a relentless IRS agent, I see no universe in which her performance was better than Hsu's.

I commend the Daniels for staying true to their quirky ideas, but to be honest, I think that the emotional weight of the film was sometimes drowned by all the things that they throw at the audience screaming for our attention. Now that they won every single Oscar, I suppose they'll swing even harder, but I think a bit of restraint wouldn't have been a bad thing here. Even though I was never fully there, I cherished those specks of time where something, anything, made any sense for me.

Grade:

That's the exchange between two characters during a climatic conversation in this film. It goes to the core of every passenger, each of which is coping with different shades and levels of unhappiness. And yet, most of them pretend things are not what they seem as they try to "avoid being fools". Knowing where the ship, and their lives, are headed, we know things aren't getting any easier.

Set in 1933, Ship of Fools follows a group of passengers on a ship headed to pre-World War II Germany. The passengers include a "flirty" divorced woman, a young couple that can't stop fighting and making up, a disgraced former baseball player, an opiate addict, a troupe of flamenco musicians and dancers, a dwarf, Nazi sympathizers, Jewish people, and hundreds of poor Spanish workers sent back to their country. Through their interactions, the film addresses themes like classism, racism, xenophobia, regrets, love, infatuation, happiness, and the lack of it.

The film boasts an impressive ensemble cast that includes Vivien Leigh, Oskar Werner, Simone Signoret, Lee Marvin, José Ferrer, and George Segal, among many others. Most of the performances are solid, with Werner probably being my favorite. His role as the ship's medical officer, Dr. Schumann, is the closest that comes to a protagonist and his complex relationship with La Condesa (Signoret) provides a lot of the emotional baggage of the film.

Ferrer also seems to be having a lot of fun with his performance as a loud anti-Semite while Marvin, although not as effective, still has a particularly solid scene as he drunkenly reminisces on his career. Michael Dunn also has an excellent performance as Glocken, the dwarf that seems to be on the sidelines most of the time, observing everything and even breaking the fourth wall to comment on what he sees in this "ship of fools".

Like it often happens with ensemble films, the attempt to juggle so many characters results in some of the subplots falling by the wayside. For example, even though Leigh is pretty good, her subplot was one that I didn't particularly care about. The film also relies often in the use of dramatic irony, which sometimes ends up feeling like forced attempts of the film elbowing us and going like "get it?".

Despite those few flaws, I still find this film to be quite effective. Even though it's not as subtle as one would want, I appreciated how it showed the many ways that these passengers try to find happiness; whether it is in sex or love, a dance or a drink, a seat at the table or a moment alone, or maybe even a spray from a water hose in a hot day. They might not end up finding happiness, but they'll be happy... at least for a moment.

Grade:

That was largely my impression as well, and I think I might've given the film too high of a rating. I understand why many people really like it, but I was just too worn down throughout so much of it to feel the emotional resonance much.

Some SPOILERS might follow

Time travel films vary in style, purpose, and quality. From the wacky shenanigans of Back to the Future to the horror-like thrills of The Terminator. However, one thing is always constant in them: Don't interfere, because the slightest meddling in past events can have tragic or maybe even catastrophic consequences.

Timecrimes takes that premise and brings it down into more personal stakes. The film follows Héctor (Karra Elejalde), a man who unknowingly walks into a time machine that takes him an hour into the past. This puts him in a time loop where he is attacked by a masked man, forcing him to protect his wife from him or others.

It is impossible to talk about this film without spoiling it in some way, so I won't try. I appreciate how economical the film is in how it handles its premise. With a low budget, and a cast of only four people, the script is clever enough to keep the focus, not necessarily in the sci-fi/time travel aspect, but rather in the choices this man makes as he explores this new reality. Like I said above, the stakes are not "world destruction", but rather to protect his wife at all costs.

There are some aspects of the story that might be predictable, especially if you've seen a film like Triangle, with which it has a lot of parallels. However, the twists and turns keep things interesting. I'm a sucker for time travel films, so I always enjoy how they spin their paradoxes in a way that can still surprise me to some extent. Plus, I really appreciated how the film behaves more like a slasher instead of a sci-fi film.

There is a bit of a stretch in how the main character goes from a bumbling, middle aged man that doesn't realize the consequences of his actions into a more ruthless sociopath that doesn't care about them. However, the positives in the film outweigh the logistical issues it might have. Overall, it's a fun ride, so I choose not to interfere with it.

Grade:

Tragedy can take many forms and shapes. It can come in the form of an unexpected illness or the murder of a loved one. The above is the faint hope that Sheriff Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) can give Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) after the murder of her daughter has been unsolved for months. But Mildred is not one to wait 5 years for some random barroom gossip or someone's stupidity to wrap things up.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri follows the efforts of Mildred to spark Willoughby and the local police into action in order to bring justice, but also for her to have some sort of closure. Her strategy is to rent three billboards on an isolated road in town asking the sheriff for results. Unfortunately, this puts her at odds not only with many supporters of the sheriff, but especially with Dixon (Sam Rockwell), a loyal but racist deputy that's determined to stop Mildred.

This was the second McDonagh film I saw in the month. It's interesting to see the parallels in terms of tone as the writer and director skillfully juggles both tragedy and comedy. It kinda reminds me of Bong Joon-ho, who does so in the middle of serious dramatic films about murder, serial killers, or classism. McDonagh's script is clever enough to weave in and out of these tragic situations with effective humor, but without losing the dramatic weight of what has happened or what will happen.

I do think he goes a bit overboard from time to time, and some subplots are underserved, but overall, the character of Mildred keeps things grounded pretty well. McDormand adds yet another stellar performance to her resume, but it is Rockwell who steals the show with his performance as a loud-mouthed, alcoholic, racist, and abusive a$$hole. It is impressive how, despite boasting the traits of a despicable man, you end up caring for him.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is one of those films that dares to take the story into some unexpected places. Regardless of how some of these detours work or not, I respect McDonagh's swings. Much like Mildred's strategy, it's still worth trying; even if it doesn't work, even if it ends up enraging others, even if it refuses to wrap things up as neatly as you would expect.

Grade:

There is a special bond formed between a child and their pet. It is usually one of mutual love, care, and protection. Unfortunately, it's not a bond that everybody understands or values, and that is sometimes dismissed without realizing the consequences. That is some of the backdrop of Bong Joon-ho's US/Korean co-production, Okja.

The film follows the titular "super-pig", one of many that was genetically modified and bred with one goal in mind: to become shoulder blade, loin, spare rib, hock! That is Okja's fate, according to Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) and the people at Mirando Corporation. But Mija (Ahn Seo-hyun), the young girl that has been taking care of Okja for ten years, sees beyond the superficial purpose of her "super-pig".

The thing is that Mija doesn't know about Okja's "fate". She's under the impression that the pig belongs to them, so when a Mirando team comes to their house to take Okja, she ain't having none of that. Determined to rescue her pig, Mija goes from Seoul to New York. In her journey, she is helped by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) led by Jay (Paul Dano), who seemed to have their own goals in mind regarding Okja.

Like most of Bong's films, Okja walks a fine line between drama and humor. Most of the characters are larger-than-life caricatures, sometimes in both ends of the spectrum. From the emotionally detached corporate executives to the emotionally invested environmentalists. Most of these, work pretty well within the film. However, I think Jake Gyllenhaal's performance as a wacky zoologist and TV host was a bit too far. It's maybe the only character that felt out of place for me.

On the other hand, Ahn Seo-hyun's performance as Mija is a true delight. She succeeds in transmitting the innocence and charm of a child, but also Mija's steadfast determination to do whatever she needs to rescue Okja. I would've loved to see a bit more done with the relationship with her grandfather (Byun Hee-bong). It seems to me that there was a bit more there than what we ended up with, and considering the way their paths clashed, I would've liked to see something more out of it.

In addition to the performances, Bong's direction and Darius Khondji's cinematography are fantastic. The film's criticism of the meat industry is nothing but subtle, which might rub some people the wrong way, but given the overall film's tone, I think it is warranted and ultimately effective. I'm as far from a vegetarian as anyone could be, but I think there's something for all of us to think and ponder about whenever we're having shoulder blade, loin, spare rib, hock.

Grade:

Race relations in the United States (and probably elsewhere) have always been... complicated, to say the least. From the British and the Native Americans, to the white man/black man struggles, and everything in between. With more than 200 years of established, there isn't a time in American history that is not defined in some way by racial tension. The idea of a "melting pot" where people from different cultures can come and meld together to become stronger is constantly put to the test.

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing gives us a microcosm of that in one little street. Set during a hot summer day in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, the film is mostly focused on the interactions of Mookie (Lee), a pizza delivery boy, with the residents of this street personifying that microcosm. We have the Italian-owned pizzeria and the Korean-owned convenience store anchored in a predominantly black neighborhood, with some Puerto Ricans sprinkled around.

This is the second time I see this film, with the first time being probably more than 20-25 years ago. Needless to say, my appreciation and perception of the film now was way deeper than it was back then, when I was 17 or 18 years old. It is amazing the way that Lee challenges the audience through a carefully crafted script that is not designed for us to root for anyone, but rather to show us the way things are, and maybe make us wonder what can we do for things to change.

To fully analyze this film and what it means, you can't just look at the main events that occur, but also at those that preceded it. There are catalysts and consequences to everything, and the way the film presents us "big picture" themes of cultural appropriation, displacement, gentrification, and racial tensions through seemingly "little" events in one day is masterful. It is the kind of film that the more I think about, the more things I find out that enrage me, but also make me fall in love with it more.

The main thesis of the film is presented through the above quote from Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn), a colorful character that carries around a loud boom-box and wears two brass knuckles with the words "LOVE" and "HATE". His little monologue highlights the duality that is in all of us, which we see all through the film, most notably in the constant references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X as representatives of African-Americans, but also in Mookie and his boss, Sal (Danny Aiello). There is "love" and "hate" in all of us, and sometimes they get mixed up with each other.

The last act features a murder at the hands of the police, and a business burned down in the middle of a riot, and then another day begins. The cycle repeats. The film then closes with two contrasting quotes from King and Malcolm X, both of which show their differing ideologies: "Love" and "Hate". The fact that both were assassinated within three years of each other during the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights movement, is a sad reminder of the "options" that people have to demand equality.

These quotes are followed by a dedication to a handful of victims of racial violence during the 1980s. 30 years later, we're still seeing people dying at the hands of the police, businesses burned down in the middle of riots, and the cycle keeps repeating itself. And yet, another day begins, with another chance for every one of us to "do the right thing". That's it.

Grade:

Re: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition
 

Timecrimes is excellent, as is Triangle, which you also mentioned. Do the Right Thing is a classic.

I give a slight edge to Triangle, but maybe that's because I saw it first? But anyway, yeah. Two really cool films.

There is a tragic irony in me writing about movies while sitting on my desk at a job I don't particularly enjoy. For numerous reasons, we often end up trapped in dead-end jobs or thankless careers; sometimes reasons we cannot or won't change, so we just wait as time to pass by, so we can go home, sleep, and wake up to do the same again. Sometimes it takes bravado to change things around, and sometimes it takes a terminal illness for us to realize how much time we've wasted in the wrong things.

Ikiru follows Kanji Watanabe (Takashi Shimura), a man that is stuck in that cycle. After 30 years working a monotonous, bureaucratic job, he gets diagnosed with cancer, which prompts him to start making some changes in his life. He goes from a night of drinking with a novelist he meets at a bar, to spending whole days with a former co-worker half his age because he says he's "jealous" of her energy.

There is a very strong and ever-present critique of bureaucratic systems throughout the film. It is shown as something that stifles the efforts of the government to ultimately serve the public, as well as stifling those like Watanabe that work under that system. But the film is ultimately about his quest for purpose in the last stage of his life. It is a reminder that we can still make a difference regardless of how late we think it might be.

This is the first non-period film from Kurosawa that I see and you can notice a bit of a shift to a more "personal" approach to his direction, especially when compared to epics like Ran or Seven Samurai. There are a lot of close-ups, especially of Watanabe's face, where you can literally see his despair and anguish as he tries to figure out what to do with what's left of his life. His exchanges with the novelist (Yūnosuke Itō) and the female co-worker (Miki Odagiri) are two effective ways in which the film anchors the first two acts of the film.

However, there is a storytelling device used in the last act that I didn't find as effective. I felt it muddled the overall impact, but not by much. Overall, the film is a poignant and heart-warming look at life and the choices we can still make while there's still time. There are two instances when Watanabe sings a song called "Gondola no Uta", which are probably the emotional peaks of the film. A song whose lyrics reminds us that "life is brief" and that we should do the things we want, "for there is no such thing as tomorrow, after all". Maybe I should learn from that.

Grade:

Finally, here's my summary for MARCH 2023:

A film from South Korea (March 1st Movement): Okja
A film with the number 3 (Three, Third, etc.) in its title: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
A film from Akira Kurosawa (born March 23): Ikiru
A film from Spike Lee (born March 20): Do the Right Thing
A film with the word "Time" in its title (Daylight Savings Time, March 12): Timecrimes


Other films seen, not for the challenge

30th Hall of Fame: Dog Day Afternoon, Valley of the Dolls, Ship of Fools
Oscar-nominated shorts: The Flying Sailor, Night Ride, An Ostrich Told Me the World Is Fake and I Think I Believe It, Ice Merchants, My Year of Dicks
Best Picture nominees: The Banshees of Inisherin, Everything Everywhere All at Once



Not counting rewatches, I think my favorites were The Banshees of Inisherin and Ikiru. Beyond that, there were a lot of really good ones like Okja, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and Ship of Fools.

My least favorite was probably Valley of the Dolls, but I have to admit there's something alluring about it :laugh:

That is part of the explanation that a character gives when explaining the course of the Scre- I mean, Stab franchise, as they try to understand why another Ghostface is stalking them 25 years after the first Woodsboro murders. But of course, it's all part of the constant wink, wink, nudge, nudge to the audience that this film is pulling, as this new, umm, sequel in the Scream franchise unfolds.

This time, we're following estranged sisters: Tara and Sam (Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera). When Tara is attacked by Ghostface and left in the hospital, Sam returns to Woodsboro with her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid) where she reunites with Tara, and meets her circle of friends, most of which will probably die soon. Of course, as is the case with the franchise, one (or two?) of them are likely the ones doing the murdering. But who?

Ever since the first Scream was released in 1996, the franchise has become known for its notable meta-commentary on the state of the horror genre. Unfortunately, as more sequels came around, the franchise devolved into some of the same trends and problems it was criticizing in the first place. Scream 4 was a bit of fresh air as it managed to subvert some of the expectations about the story, while still being fun.

Now, 11 years after the last installment, the franchise is trying exactly what one of Tara's friends, Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown) is saying in the above quote. Scream (this Scream, not the original) is "something new, but not too new". It has a new creative team behind, and is headed by "new main characters, yes, but supported by, and related to, legacy characters. Not quite a reboot, not quite a sequel."

Aside from the above cast, the film sees the return of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette, as they are determined to stop this trend of Ghostface murders. The integration of the "new main characters" and the "legacy characters" works for the most part. Campbell looks more comfortable than ever in the role, while allowing Ortega and Barrera the space to shine. Arquette was also the best I've seen him in the whole franchise.

But like I said above, the beauty of the franchise is in two things: its clever meta-commentary and how well it manages to handle the "whodunit" aspect. I felt it succeeded for the most part in both. Although the commentary on sequels/prequels/reboots and the rise of so-called "elevated horror" was sometimes a bit too "in your face", I still felt it was funny and witty. Meanwhile, the intrigue about who the killer (or killers?) is was well executed. I could say there's some predictability to it, but that's the thing with these films; we're always looking and guessing, so it's hard not to put our money and guesses on the right one(s).

Unfortunately, the pace was a bit off at times. There were some lulls between solid moments that didn't work as well, and there's a bit of a stretch in believability in how these events are connected to the original films. Regardless of that, I think my experience was positive, the characters were mostly likabel, the thrills were there, the kills were good, so I'm open to see where this new team takes the franchise, instead of going "bug-f-ucking nuts".

Grade:

Traditional wedding vows usually include the promise from both parts to love and be with the other "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." This sounds so charming and moving during the wedding, but not so much when the actual "worse" comes around five, ten, twenty years down the road; and sometimes one or both parts can't hold out any longer.

Avatar is a short film from Spanish filmmaker Lluis Quilez that presents us a couple in that situation. It follows a wheelchair-bound husband (Sebastián Haro) as he is subjected to a tense bath from his wife (Rosana Pastor). From the get-go, you can see there's distance between the two, and this is proven as the short progresses. Evidently, the "worse" and the "sickness" came, and there was no room to love and cherish.

This short film was recommended by filmmaker Tim Egan, when I interviewed him earlier this year. He cited it as an inspiration for him while calling it both beautiful and heart-breaking. I suppose that the same can be said about marriage. Anybody that has been married long enough knows that the time you spend together with this other person is bound to have both beautiful and heart-breaking moments, so it's just a thing to try to navigate those moments together.

From a technical standpoint, the short is great. Direction, cinematography, editing, everything is in the right place. But what makes it for me is the performances from Haro and Pastor, both of which make so much with just facial expressions and looks. There's hardly any dialogue and yet you get all you need to know from their body language, and it's impressive.

There is a tragic beauty in how Quílez slowly unfolds what's happening. Like with any family and personal situation, there are a hundred things we don't know about others, and when it hits you towards the end, you can't help but feel sorry for them. For better, for richer, and in health is easy; for worse, for poorer, and in sickness might require us to hold out longer for things to change... or just to let go.

Grade:

That was God's command to mankind on the sixth day, at least according to the Bible. Putting men and women in a position of power over everything else, asking them to "subdue" the earth, and "rule" over every "living creature". Some of that might or might not be at the core of this short from Denis Villeneuve.

Next Floor follows a group of guests being offered an opulent banquet of various foods: from beef, sausages, chicken, fish and oysters, to antelope or rhinoceros. All being constantly carted into the table as the guests chow down relentlessly and voraciously. The contrast between the elegance of the setting and the grotesque of the menu, as well as their behavior, is evident.

The short film is fairly enigmatic and surreal, as we see the crowded table, guests and all, plummet down onto the "next floor". Something that doesn't seem to faze the guests that much. Even though it keeps on happening, they just keep on eating and eating, as the caravan of waiters follow them down the stairs.

It isn't that hard to find meaning in it. It can be a critique of the senseless slaughter of animals, it can be a metaphor for capitalism and the ruthless use of power by those in position, or it can be a reference to the ironies of the Bible and religion as "careless men" are asked to "rule" over every "living creature".

As I saw it, I got strong echoes of 2019's The Platform, which I think is more blunt in its symbolism. Regardless of what Villeneuve had in mind or the meaning different people might get from it, it's a gorgeously shot short film and it nonetheless offers something for us to chew on.

Grade: