Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2022 Edition

Had some computer and scheduling issues, but finally dropped Episode 56 of The Movie Loot, in which I share my thoughts on all the films I saw during February.

The Movie Loot 56 - Hail, Caesar! / February Loot

In this episode, I focus on one of my favorite first watches from last month, the Coen Brothers' Hail, Caesar! After that, I go on with my quick thoughts on everything else I saw during the month. Hope you can check it out!

Remember that you can also listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and most podcasting platforms.

__________________

Set in the early 20th Century, The Power of the Dog follows brothers and ranchers Phil and George Burbank (Benedict Cumberbatch and Jesse Plemons). When George meets and marries Rose (Kirsten Dunst), the dynamics between the three of them, as well as with her teenage son, Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee) bring turmoil to the family.

The thing is that Phil and George are as different as they can be, with George being apparently more kinder and "sophisticated", while Phil is more "rough" and dedicated to the ranch life. This attitude clashes also with Peter, who Phil sees as effeminate, as he ruthlessly mocks him and demeans him.

Jane Campion delivers both a beautiful and mournful direction to this story, evoking the tragic nature of the characters. All of the performances deliver, especially Smit-McPhee, who plays Peter as someone you just can't pin down, and someone to whom the above quote might apply way more than we might think. However, it is Cumberbatch who has the focus most of the time, and he handles all the layers in Phil's persona very well.

But Phil's behavior hides more than what we initially see. This is progressively revealed as the film goes on, anchored by the idolization of his late mentor, Bronco Henry. It was him who taught Phil everything about the ranch life and then some, including the above quote. What is it that makes a "man"? Is it being married? Is it taking care of your loved ones? Is it that patience in light of the odds that Bronco Henry told him about?

Whatever it is, that is something that Phil constantly questions of several people around him; especially of Peter, but also of his brother, and maybe even himself. The Power of the Dog challenges those notions as we see the ways that Phil interacts with other people, and even the way he thinks of himself.

There is a notion that Phil deems himself unworthy, whether it is of being inside the house or sitting at the table with others. Maybe that's why he feels the need to put down others, most notably Rose and Peter. But the relationship he develops with Peter in the second half is what makes things more interesting, as we see how those odds and that patience play out.

Grade:

I would've gone up another half a bucket for this one, but I'm still glad you liked it at all; one thing I really liked about it is how it was structured by shifting perspectives to Phil and his relationships to the people around him one-by-one, whether it be him and George at first, him and Rose in the middle, or him and Peter towards the end, taking good time to focus on and explore the effects his persona has on them individually (and the effects they have on him) as each act of the film proceeds, rather than choosing to rush that all along like an inferior director may have done. Good, good stuff.

I agree. It's a really well structured film.

What would you be willing to do for power? How far would you go? Would you kill someone? That seems to be on the mind of Macbeth (Denzel Washington) after he receives a prophecy that he would be king. And at that moment, everything else around him fades. The horrible things that surround you now, in the wake of war, are nothing compared to the horrible places your mind is willing to go at the prospect of power.

The Tragedy of Macbeth follows Shakespeare's tragedy with Washington and Frances McDormand taking the lead roles. Corey Hawkins takes the role of Macduff, who sets out to take revenge against Macbeth, as he walks down the path of horrible imaginings as they turn them into reality. They are joined by an ensemble cast composed mostly of theater actors.

Much has been said about this being the first film written and directed by one of the Coen brothers, without the others involvement. Not only that, but he also takes on the task of taking a super-popular and iconic source material, where there's little surprise to what will happen. So what does Joel do? He builds a visually captivating film with some perfect performances to counter anything else.

The main highlight of the film seems to be its visuals. Coen and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel chose to shoot in a striking black and white style that makes the most of lights and shadows. In addition, they filmed everything in closed studios, which gives the film an surreal and eerie vibe.

But aside from the visuals and the production values, the performances are stellar. Washington and McDormand own the screen every time they're in. To see them scheme and decay is to see those horrible imaginings take shape. But the supporting cast shouldn't be ignored; most notably Alex Hassell, who is devilishly good as Ross and Kathryn Hunter who is mesmerizingly hypnotic as the Three Witches. Hawkins is effective, but he can't really take control of the screen from Washington.

Nobody knows if Joel and Ethan will work together again. He seems to be focused on his theatrical career, but a future where they won't work together again surely seems horrible to imagine. However, if what we got here in the present, is evidence of what can become, then come what come may.

Grade:

Nightmare Alley follows Stan Carlisle (Bradley Cooper), an ambitious drifter with a mysterious past who starts working as an assistant for a carnival clairvoyant act. After learning the tricks of the trade from Madame Zeena (Toni Collette) and her alcoholic husband, he leaves with Molly (Rooney Mara) to start his own psychic act for the wealthy. But how many lines will he cross in the process?

The story is based on a 1946 novel that was turned into a film the next year. Del Toro, however, wasn't familiar with the film and based his version on the book, which was given to him by Ron Perlman himself back in the 90s. The result is an interesting mix of horror and noir that seems right up his alley, despite lacking his usual supernatural angle.

As its expected from Del Toro, the film is a visual spectacle. His direction is impeccable, and the cinematography by Dan Laustsen is gorgeous. The performances are pretty much great all across, with Cooper and Cate Blanchett being the standouts, but others like Mara, Collette, and Richard Jenkins are great as well. It was also great to see Mindhunter's Holt McCallany in a supporting, but somewhat significant role in the second half.

The film does seem a bit on the long side, and there are little surprises to how the plot unfolds. I love and admire Del Toro's meticulousness and visual flare, but despite all the excellence in the craft, it ended up being a somewhat cold and distant experience for me.

Grade:

When Steven Spielberg announced his intentions to remake this iconic musical, one could've asked "why?". Doesn't matter if you were a fan or not, the question works both ways. Turns out that Spielberg had a fixation on it since he was a kid, while also expressing interest in making a musical for years now. This all sorta answers the question of "why", but should he?

Just like its predecessor, West Side Story follows the Jets and the Sharks, two gangs of white and Puerto Rican members respectively that are fighting for control of their neighborhood. Meanwhile, Tony (Ansel Elgort), a former Jet on parole, falls in love with Maria (Rachel Zegler), the sister of the leader of the Sharks, further sparking the conflict between both groups.

I recently revisited the 1961 version, a film I wasn't a fan of to begin with, and I could literally copy/paste that review here. Because as much polish as Spielberg could try to put to this, the bottom line is that this is a bad story. And I'm not talking about the racial misrepresentations, but just the plain fact that the central story between Tony and Maria is not good. Beymer and Wood couldn't inject life into it back then, and neither can Elgort and Zegler.

Ironically, just like with the original, it is the side characters the ones that end up being more interesting, and the ones that steal the show. David Alvarez and Ariana DeBose are electric as Bernardo and Anita, but it is Mike Faist the one that stands out for me as Riff, the leader of the Jets. He brings a tragic pathos to the character that no one has; something that is exemplified by the above quote.

But this also happens to put in perspective my other issue with the film (something that's present in the original as well), and that's the fact that as much as the filmmakers try to bring balance to the story, it can't help but lean towards the Jets. The film starts with the Jets, the focus stays mostly on the Jets, the characters that are most fleshed out are Jets, and the one that gets the "tragic coda", at the hands of a Latino, is a former Jet.

To be fair, Spielberg's direction is masterful and the cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is almost flawless. But a pretty facade doesn't make the underlying structure any less broken. I haven't seen the original play, but the fact that all this issues that were present in the 1961 version are just transposed to this one, brings me back to my initial question: why?

Grade:

That's how Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) tries to convince brother Sonny (James Caan) about carrying out an attempt against those that tried to kill their father, and it's a line that's frequently repeated throughout the film: it's not personal. It's business. But the statement couldn't be further from the truth, especially when we're talking about an attempt on your father for leading what's even described as "the family business".

The Godfather follows that family business, led by Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando), as he tries to transfer control to one of his sons. But rising tension between the reigning families of the city threaten their grasp on power, and puts the reluctant Michael in the middle of the crossfire to handle the business.

For something that's "strictly business", there sure seems to be a lot of it around family gatherings and events. From the opening wedding scene to the closing baptism. Memorable family events that unwind as the Don carries out business. Even when it's under the guise of friendly meetings, everything is a "business transaction". Every seemingly friendly interaction is done with the expectation that the time to pay will come someday.

And that is one of the genius of Coppola's work. Every piece of the puzzle is so carefully placed and builds up to so much more; things that get their payoff here, and things that will flow seamlessly into the sequel. Just like every person has a purpose within the film, as far as the Don is concerned, every character serves a carefully planned purpose for Coppola, and pretty much every actor delivers flawlessly.

In a climatic confrontation in the second half of the film, Michael is trying to "buy out" casino owner Moe Greene, as he schemes to move the business to Las Vegas; something that has ripple effects in the sequel. When Greene refuses, Michael says "is that why you slapped my brother around in public?" Once again, is it personal, or strictly business?

Grade:

Never heard of it.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Great movie. Great couple of movies in fact.

For anyone interested, I got back again with my friend Brian Skutle to talk about The Godfather on his podcast, Sonic Cinema. If anyone wants to listen, here's the link:

Sonic Cinema, Episode 104 - Discussing The Godfather

Hope you enjoy the discussion and my ramblings!

While I've always understood why so many people love The Godfather (because of course I do), it's still my top pick for movies I'm "supposed" to love, but just don't, as you can see here. Like Peter Griffin once said, it feels like a movie that "insists" upon its greatness, which is something I went into more detail about in this old post I made about the Statue Of Liberty shot:

Ooof, I really think that shot is a perfect example of a director using simple visuals to present its "thesis". I don't think it's that in-your-face, or at least not as much as if Paulie was shot at the foot of the Statue and the camera tilted upwards, or as if a rat was seen walking across a window sill That said, I remember not really paying attention to the Statue the first one or two times I saw the film. Of course, I wasn't that deep into films as I am now, but it's a shot I've seen being analyzed *a lot* since for those very same reasons, which makes me wonder if it is more an issue with the over-analysis of the shot than it is with the shot itself.

Baby Face follows Lily Powers (Barbara Stanwyck), a young woman determined to "get anything she wants in the world". The film follows her journey from her father's speakeasy in Pennsylvania to the upper echelons of the Gotham Trust bank; a journey she achieves specifically by sleeping with different men. From the hiring employee at the bank to the vice-president, and others in between.

Released during the Pre-Code era, Baby Face is one of the most notable examples of what the Hays Code fought against, like "inference of sex perversion". The above is the advice given to her by a friend, after seeing her grow up being pimped by her own father, and constantly harassed by his clients. This sets her eventual move to New York City, where we see the lengths she's willing to go to achieve her goals.

From a historical and contextual point of view, it's really interesting to see a film's attempt to push the boundaries set by the system, and Stanwyck revels in the role. She manages to build a compelling character that even if you don't condone her actions, you understand where she's coming from and the reasons for what she's doing what she does. The supporting cast is effective, but this is Stanwyck's show all the way.

I still think they wrapped things in too neat a bow in the end. The whole last act felt too conveniently played for Lily. In the version I saw, things ended a bit too well for Lily, and I think I would've preferred a bleaker ending. As much as I like to see a woman flip the tables on the male-centric manipulation of the times, that doesn't make her actions any better and I feel like the way things unfolded, there was little to no consequence to it all.

Grade:

Hey babes, in case you all need something to prepare for tomorrow's Oscar night, here's the latest episode of The Movie Loot - Episode 57. In this one, I'm joined by Samuel and Rance, hosts of The Envelope Please, a podcast dedicated to the Oscars. We talked a bit about Oscar history, the ceremony, as well as predictions for this year. We close the interview sharing our Top 5 Oscar-winning performances!

The Movie Loot 57: The Oscars Loot (with Samuel and Rance from The Envelope Please)

Remember you can also check it out on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and all the main podcast platforms. Thanks for the support!

That's the way Julieta (Angie Cepeda) tries to comfort her daughter, Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz), and reassure her that she's just as valuable as anyone else in the family. But how can she feel that way when everybody around her is lifting boulders, shape-shifting, talking with animals, or controlling the weather?

Encanto follows the Madrigal, a Colombian family led by matriarch Alma (María Cecilia Botero) and settled in the rural titular town. What sets them apart is that at some point in their lives, each member of the family receives a magical gift in a ritual led by Alma; except for Mirabel. This creates disillusionment and resentment in Alma and low self-esteem in Mirabel, because why shouldn't he receive a gift?

Just like with the Madrigal family, there are a lot of strengths and a lot of weakening flaws in it. The main flaw is that the story is a bit of a mess, and the way everything unfolds, sending Mirabel into a quest to find the problem with the house and the family just doesn't make a lot of sense. But at least it's set to some banging music.

And that's probably the main strength of the film. Written by Lin-Manuel Miranda, pretty much every song in it is a catchy banger. From the opening beats of "The Family Madrigal" to the mournful sentiment of "Dos Oruguitas", with the song about Bruno in between (shhh!) Anyway, despite the flaws in the story, it's still a fun ride. The voice cast is also pretty solid and the animation is amazing.

Grade:

That's the "letter of presentation" of Joe Buck (Jon Voight), a Texan dishwasher that leaves everything behind and moves to New York City with illusions of becoming a male prostitute. But success on any field requires more than illusions and a change of scenery.

Midnight Cowboy follows Buck's journey as he struggles to make ends meet. We don't get a lot of background on him and why he decided to follow this path, but coming from a rural town, you get the idea that he probably was a "big fish in a small pond". However, moving to the biggest city in the US certainly puts him in a much bigger pond; one that he has trouble navigating in.

At some point, he meets "Ratso" (Dustin Hoffman), a street con man, and despite a shaky start, they quickly become friends as they both struggle to survive in the harsh environment of the Big Apple. Buck is naïve and perhaps not that clever, while Ratso's health is quickly deteriorating, and both performances successfully convey the sadness beneath their exterior surfaces.

I have to say that this film was absolutely nothing like I was expecting. Based on its reputation because of its rating and the few promotional pictures I had seen, I was expecting something more... aggressive and cold. But what I got was a tragic and heartfelt look at the unlikely friendship between these two men looking for literal and figurative warmth.

Grade:

CODA follows Ruby (Emilia Jones), the only hearing member of her family of fishermen in Gloucester, Massachusetts. An outcast at school, Ruby enlists in the school choir so she can be close to her crush, but this in turn sparks her love for music and her desire to audition for Berklee. But how will that affect her family? will she be willing to leave them to follow her passion?

I saw this film about two weeks ago, but it's interesting to write this days after it won Best Picture, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor Oscars. A small budget film, with no "big stars" and no "big bangs" to it, ended up winning three of the biggest film awards, including the top prize. Take from that what you may.

Through most of its course, I was more or less unimpressed by the film, even though I was enjoying it. Even though the aspect of a child growing up in a deaf family was interesting and refreshing, the coming of age angle was more or less formulaic and cliché. But once I settled in what it was going for, and I focused on the emotions, it got to me. Towards the last act, I was bawling my eyes out, especially with one scene between Ruby and her dad, Frank (Troy Kotsur).

Praise has to be given to the director and producers, but most notably to actress Marlee Matlin, who insisted in the casting of actual deaf actors. Not only does it do a great job of pushing forward representation for the deaf community in film, but it also gives an authenticity to the performances and what is happening. Kotsur won a well-deserved Oscar, but everyone else does a great job; from Matlin to Daniel Durant as Leo, Ruby's brother.

There is a moment towards the end where Ruby is struggling with the decision of leaving her family. During a moment of anger, Leo lashes out at her with the above quote. They don't need "help" to handle themselves; but everybody else that needs to figure out how to deal with them. Hopefully, this can be a message to Hollywood and audiences everywhere.

Grade:

Set in 1969 Ireland, Belfast follows Buddy (Jude Hill), a 9-year old kid growing up during the beginning of "The Troubles". With tensions rising in the country, the kid has to deal with the usual hardships of growing up as well as the threats of violence in the streets, and the possibility of having to leave the country.

The film was written by Kenneth Branagh, and is a semi-autobiographical film, since he had to grow up in the same situation as Buddy. Branagh and his parents left Belfast and settled in England. Despite this, he still considers himself "Irish". One of the main struggles of the film's character is their reluctance to leave their country, Because of this, the film feels cathartic in its attempts to reconcile himself with this decision.

The film follows Buddy's point of view, so there's a certain childlike and sometimes surreal vibe to the events of the film. For the most part it works, but there are certain points where it falls flat. There's a certain conflict with a local agitator that becomes a focal point towards the end, but ultimately feels forced and tacked on to try to add some tension.

What does work is the family dynamics, especially between Buddy, his mom (Caitriona Balfe), and his grandparents (Ciáran Hinds and Judi Dench). I thought Balfe and Hinds were pretty good in their roles, especially Balfe. She did a great job conveying a certain strength mixed with despair in the middle of this chaos; a despair that she tries hard to restrain for the sake of the family. Jamie Dornan, who plays Buddy's dad, was serviceable, but still managed to pull some solid moments.

I thought the cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos and the direction by Branagh were a highlight. I loved the way certain shots were framed and composed, and there were certain moments when the camera movement was pretty cool. Branagh also decides to bookend the film with modern shots of the city of Belfast, which add to that feeling of love and happiness from the director for his city.

Grade:

Halloween II picks up right after the original, as Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) is taken to the hospital while Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance) tries to find Michael Myers. What he finds out is that Myers is, of course, headed to the hospital determined to kill Laurie, who we learn here is his sister.

Myers is, after all unstoppable, just like this and other slasher franchises that keep lumbering along against all reason and logic. In an attempt to lend some base for the stretch, this film introduces the fact that Michael and Laurie are siblings, that were separated since childhood in order to protect her. This bit of mythology would serve as the foundation of pretty much every Halloween between the standalone third one and the new DGG trilogy.

But aside from that, the film also attempts to introduce some elements of the occult and Druid cults that might or might not have anything to do with how or why Michael is the way he is. Not that it's ever explained here, but it's just tossed around to try to add some creepy atmosphere, I guess.

But even despite those plot devices the film traps itself into, the film still manages to be a somewhat effective sequel. The setting of the dark desolate hospital, as illogical as it might be, adds a lot of atmosphere and mood to everything, and there are some pretty neat kills here and there.

Laurie doesn't get much to do until the end, and most of the new characters are inconsequential, with the exception of Deputy Gary Hunt (Hunter von Leer), who seems to be one of the few with common sense around town. But it is Loomis the one that's at the forefront most of the time, and Pleasance does a pretty good job walking that fine line between obsession and genuine care for Laurie and others.

Halloween would go on to become one of the most prolific and popular slasher franchises out there, with almost every new film being worse than the previous one. This one is indeed, worse than the original, thanks to its more formulaic execution and needless contrivances; but as far as unnecessary sequels go, it's probably as good as it will get for the franchise.

Grade: