Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

#51 - Play Misty for Me
Clint Eastwood, 1971



A late-night radio DJ (Eastwood) has a one-night stand with one of his fans (Jessica Walter) but soon comes to regret it as she becomes more and more unstable.

It figures that, while trying to decide on my next film to watch after American Sniper, I settle on Eastwood's very first directorial effort. At its heart a pretty simple little potboiler, it is definitely an engaging watch but frequently struggles to maintain its momentum even across the course of 100 minutes. Eastwood showcases his usual laconic yet charismatic demeanour even though he's not being a badass, but as far as acting goes the film definitely belongs to Walter. I mainly know her as sardonic matriarch Lucille Bluth from Arrested Development, but here she manages to give a surprisingly convincing performance as Evelyn, who starts off as a fairly naive young woman but eventually covers a considerable range of emotions and personalities to fit in with her role as a delusional stalker. The rest of the acting varies - offsiders such as Eastwood's co-worker or cleaning lady make the most of their minor roles, while his main love interest is ultimately rather flat in terms of ability.

The premise, while initially interesting, does have trouble staying engaging for the length of a feature flm. The main plot doesn't take up all that much of the film, while some of the twists and turns are more than a little predictable for a sufficiently experienced viewer. Eastwood pads it out with various sequences that have some appeal to him, such as an entertaining but not particularly plot-relevant detour into the Monterey Jazz Festival or a slightly graphic sex scene involving his character. Though he is a fairly competent first-time director, the film does have its share of technical flaws, the most noticeable of which have to do with the editing. The choppy cutting makes some sense when used as part of the film's more violent moments, but it becomes extremely distracting during the film's quieter moments. At one point, Eastwood's character begins saying a line while walking along a busy street yet the scene cuts to him finishing the line while standing on an empty beach. Even establishing shots of crashing waves have noticeable cuts in them. At least the soundtrack full of smooth jazz is a plus in this film's favour.

Play Misty for Me is fairly decent as far as debuts go, especially in the early 1970s, but it's debatable as to whether or not it's aged all that well. Walter makes for a decent enough antagonist, but she's anchored to an all-too-familiar suspense narrative. There are definitely flaws, but for the most part it stays intermittently interesting. Eastwood would definitely go on to make better films, but that doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad one.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

And people say I watch bad films....

You seem to be on a roll here with what *you* deem, terrible movies.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Like you wouldn't believe.

#52 - Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller, 2014



Another anthology based on stories from the noir-style comic book series set in the titular city.

When the first Sin City came out back in 2005, I liked it enough to jam it straight into my Top 100 that same year. Rodriguez was one of my favourite directors at the time and the heavily stylised filmmaking on offer here naturally appelaed to my adolescent sensibilities. The lurid, pulpy world of the film felt like it could have sprung forth at least one more reasonably entertaining instalment, but as the years went by my interest in both a new Sin City film and Rodriguez's output in general waned severely until I finally only got around to watching A Dame to Kill For because someone else had rented it out. Now, almost a decade after watching the first one, it'll be interesting to see how this latest instalment holds up.

Despite focusing on three separate storylines like the first film did, A Dame to Kill For doesn't approach them one at a time but instead goes with the unorthodox pattern of introducing two separate storylines, both involving the corrupt senator (Powers Boothe) from the first film - Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears as a supernaturally lucky gambler who wants to beat Boothe at poker while Jessica Alba returns as Nancy the stripper who, after playing the victm in the first film, intends to get revenge on Boothe for all the trouble he's caused. After the first half of both those plotlines play out, the film delves into its main plot about Dwight (Clive Owen's character from the first film, here being played by Josh Brolin) and his being roped into a fairly standard femme fatale narrative courtesy of an old fame (Eva Green). The lack of balance between the stories only serves to undo the film as a whole, as the resolutions to the two sub-plots do feel like anticlimatic epilogues more so than satisfying resolutions.

With such a long-awaited sequel to a major hit, it can be hard to recapture the magic that made the original so great (or at least just fun). There are some parts of the film that feel like transparent attempts to remind viewers what they enjoyed about the first film, such as the return of Marv (Mickey Rourke), who gets the prologue to himself and proceeds to float in and out of all the "main" storylines regardless of how well he fits in with them. Likewise, the slick mostly-monochrome style still looks as good as it ever did - unfortunately, the action itself doesn't feel especially enthralling. It doesn't help that the storylines aren't much chop - having the Dwight storyline occupy at least half the film only serves to show how thin it really is, especially when the Nancy storyline seems like it could have had some serious potential. After a while, the constant maiming and murdering (especially when it involves Marv - we get it, he can effortlessly take down just about every character that tries to fight him) becomes too monotonous to distract from the paper-thin pulp stereotypes.

I've heard nothing but bad things for this one, which is a shame because I love the original.


Will still give it a chance though.

I'm always slightly surprised that people are suprised they didn't care much for Sin City 2. How was it ever going to work? That said, I feel the same way about most sequels. But I stand by it.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

#53 - Coffy
Jack Hill, 1973



After her kid sister gets addicted to drugs, a nurse decides to take justice into her own hands and dismantle the local drug trade from within.

So far most of the blaxploitation films I've seen haven't done much for me - the only real exception being Dolemite and that was because it was genuinely so-bad-it's-good. Coffy ended up being a lot more promising. It's a pretty bare-bones revenge narrative that takes a while to get going (though it does open with Pam Grier's titular character seducing then murdering both a dealer and an addict, letting you know just what kind of movie you're in for). As befitting the genre, there's a considerable amount of violence and sexual content (occasionally both, as seen in one instance there's a scene where Coffy gets into a fight with a handful of call-girls that naturally results in almost everyone involved getting their tops pulled off). There's some decent enough twists and turns over the course of the film, and it's still pretty sad that some of the points made by the film (such as how the drug trade is deliberately designed to destabilise black communities) still come across as relevant, if not prescient. Throughout it all, Grier makes for a great protagonist - she's tough and resilient, but that doesn't mean she doesn't show a surprising range of emotions over the course of Coffy's journey. The supporting cast are all solid, especially the incredibly hammy white villains. An appropriately funky soundtrack also helps to overcome some slightly ridiculous effects work, but otherwise this is a taut film right up until its final minutes.

As you know, I love Coffy, so I'm pleased to see you enjoyed it.

#54 - Lemmy
Greg Olliver and Wes Orshorski, 2010



A documentary about Ian "Lemmy" Kilmister, the frontman of legendary hard rock group Motörhead.

As far as music documentaries go, Lemmy is not a particular in-depth one. It seems to mainly consist of its directors following Lemmy around with cameras as he goes about his day-to-day business complete with interviews covering all the usual subjects - origins, music career, influences, and so forth. Pretty standard, really. There are some more interesting questions aimed at Lemmy - such as how the notoriously hard-partying Lemmy has managed to survive this long, to say nothing of his fondness for World War II memorabilia leading to accusations of Nazism - but Lemmy's responses are a bit too concise. In addition to the documenting of Lemmy's life, whether at home in his cluttered Los Angeles apartment or during his life as part of Motörhead, there is also a cavalcade of famous talking heads ready to sing Lemmy's praises, though they don't offer much in the way of insight.

The superficial nature of the film does make sense given Lemmy and Motörhead's uncomplicated approach to making music - the band has gone for almost 40 years on the basis of a very simple but effective brand of hard rock, and nobody in the film is complaining about it. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean the film drags for a considerable amount of time. Sequences such as Lemmy getting to drive a tank (and fire its cannon, no less) or making a guest appearance during a Metallica concert are entertaining enough, but the film feels very loose and amateur-ish. Not even the considerable charisma of its central subject guarantees that the film will be a great one - as it is, the result is ultimately rather average.

#55 - Ghostbusters
Ivan Reitman, 1984



A trio of disgraced professors who specialise in studying paranormal activity decide to use their expertise to open up their own ghost-catching service.

With the recent news of there being a Ghostbusters reboot, I figured it was good a time as any to revisit the original films. I used to like them, but even back in the day I didn't think they were that great and repeated viewings have not been kind to them. I know that Ghostbusters is a surprisingly sacred cow when it comes to movies and, if I'm going to actually go against the grain and say I don't actually like it, then I'd better be prepared to offer some very, very good reasons.

First, the concessions. The premise is great and has excellent potential both in terms of comedy and soft sci-fi but for the most part the actual film never really reaches that potential. The special effects are still solid thirty years onwards - the film's infamous climax is certainly a testament to that. Hell, there's even at least one or two decent songs on the soundtrack that haven't been played to death like the theme song has been.

Unfortunately, I just struggle to find it funny. A lot of the comedic draw for this film supposedly comes from Bill Murray as the incredibly sarcastic Venkman, who serves as a more relatable foil to the comically serious Spengler (Harold Ramis) or the intelligent yet bumbling Stantz (Dan Aykroyd). Despite this being constantly celebrated as one of his best roles, this is probably the most irritating character I've ever seen him play (and I've seen Garfield). He's supposed to be charming and cocky, but more often than not he just comes across as an obnoxious creeper, especially with his persistent lecherous advances towards prospective client Dana (Sigourney Weaver). The other characters aren't much better - Ramis and Aykroyd seem to exist mainly as po-faced exposition machines for Murray to react against, Weaver is a beleagured victim who ends up being possessed, Rick Moranis serves as an awkward and talkative loser who drags down an already flatlining film and the addition of Ernie Hudson as Winston, the fourth and most down-to-earth Ghostbuster, doesn't pay off as much as it should.

The jokes don't do anything for me either. Whether it's the goonish physical comedy involving the team's encounters with ghosts or the rapid-fire verbal wordplay, nothing about this film even makes me chuckle anymore. Not even the very well-timed crack Murray makes at an obstructive bureaucrat works (and, if you haven't already started writing me a message telling me why I'm wrong about everything, then you can probably tell which one I mean). At the very least, the story had some potential but the execution just leaves me cold. A lot of people are acting like the Ghostbusters reboot will ruin the franchise, but I don't think it can get much worse than this.

#56 - The King's Speech
Tom Hooper, 2010



In the 1930s, Prince Albert is suffering from a severe speech impediment and has to employ the services of an unconventional therapist in order to overcome it.

As awards season ramps up I'm finding myself catching up on various Best Picture Oscar winners that I haven't seen. Unfortunately, the last few I've seen tend to settle into the safe, predictable types of Oscar winner that, while not necessarily bad films, do tend to feel very middle-of-the-road when all is said and done. The King's Speech regrettably falls into this category, but that doesn't mean it's not without a certain charm. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush have great chemistry even as they go through some very familiar motions as the reluctant student gradually opens up and befriends his troubled but optimistic mentor. There's a collection of solid character actors to fill out the rest of the film, and the production design is great (though I question some of the cinematography choices - what's with Hooper's tendency to frame close-ups so they're noticeably off-centre? I noticed it in Les Misérables and even now I still can't decide whether or not it works as a stylistic choice). So yeah, it's decent enough Oscar bait that hits all the right notes but damned if I'm ever going to watch it a second time.

#57 - Ghostbusters II
Ivan Reitman, 1989



After their actions in the first film are denounced as an elaborate hoax, the Ghostbusters are forced to team up in the face of yet another dangerous threat.

Whoo, boy, well, if you've already seen the review I gave to this film's extremely beloved predecessor then you can probably tell I'm not going to give this much of a shot. I think there needs to be some sort of shorthand term for sequels that have good ideas that would've been great in the context of their source films but they just end up being disappointingly executed in a sequel of generally lesser quality. The whole concept of the "mood slime", nebulous and inconsistent though it was, seemed like it could've been a bit more interesting than the fairly basic combination of haunted architecture and arbiter of doom kind of deal that the first film had. If nothing else, at least they got the visual of the Statue of Liberty stomping through the streets of New York as a result.

Beyond that, it's business as usual. The recurring characters haven't had much of a personality change in the intervening years. It's pretty telling how the main villain has more screen time than the villain from the first movie but still struggles to be a tenth as interesting, even with the assistance of a brainwashed thrall that talks in a supposedly amusing European accent. The Ghostbusters get back on the street, bust some ghosts then eventually face a major challenge thanks to the main villain. In short, it's a bust.

#58 - Foxy Brown
Jack Hill, 1974



After her undercover cop boyfriend is murdered by a local crime syndicate, a woman decides to infiltrate the group's operation and take revenge.

If that sounds a bit too familiar to the plot of Coffy, I imagine that it's by design. Originally set up to be a direct sequel to Coffy, it ultimately ended up being a standalone film.Seeing as I watched both films relatively close together, I figured it would be tolerable, but it also makes it hard to tolerate the film's flaws. Foxy Brown is a little slow to get started on its plot - in an exploitation film that doesn't even reach 90 minutes, the fact that it takes at least 30 minutes before the plot is truly kicked off by the murder of Foxy's boyfriend is a strike against the film. Even so, after that point it throws in enough good parts to maintain one's attention. Grier plays Foxy with the exact same level of self-assurance that made Coffy a good character, while the supporting cast get in enough memorable moments. The fact that the lead villain in this film ends up being a white woman who is jealous of Foxy for daring to draw her enforcer boyfriend's eye is a well-done touch, for instance. Granted, it follows a familiar narrative and does go to some dark places as part of its third act, but it all resolves itself in a satisfactory manner. Not great by any means but even so, it's still solid enough.

#59 - Mean Girls
Mark Waters, 2004



A homeschooled teenager is enrolled in public school for the first time and is soon overwhelmed by the chaos of high-school life, especially when she becomes involved with the school's most popular students.

If you've been following my reviews then you might be wondering what the kind of person who would seriously trash Ghostbusters would make of a relatively recent high school comedy starring the lowest-hanging fruit on the celebrity-mocking tree and being predominantly focused on how teenage girls would relate to each other. It'd be a righteous piece of hatred, yeah? Well, if you've been expecting something like that then I have one little word for you...

...psych.

Because at the end of the day, I actually do like Mean Girls. Sure, it took a while to grow on me, but then again, so did The Big Lebowski. Lindsay Lohan makes a decent enough protagonist whose journey you are relatively invested in, but what really makes this film is the eccentric cast of characters that populate the school. Everyone from the titular girls through the bitter misfits and the beleagured teachers to the various bit parts that recur at just the right moments throughout the film is well-cast and more often than not get in at least one good line. The script, though it is ultimately hampered by a combination of sentimentality and the need to keep things down to a PG-13 rating, is actually pretty tight and very quotable. The direction is competent enough, as are the music choices, but that is almost besides the point in a movie like this. I know this isn't the best movie or anything, but it supports its fairly simple narrative with some well-written characters and dialogue and it's a testament to the quality of that work that I actually do feel like defending this supposedly saccharine piece of fluff.

Jackie Brown next?

Nah, I re-watched Jackie Brown at some point last year. I rate it a - it's good, but I think I can go a while before re-watching it again.

I rate it the same. I like Mean Girls as well.

#60 - Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Quentin Tarantino, 2004



The second part of the duology about the legendary assassin "The Bride" taking revenge against her former teammates and their leader, the titular Bill.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've watched Vol. 2 in about a decade (on a related note, I watched Vol. 1 last year - it was still solid) but I've since learned to think of this as a superior film to its predecessor. Sure, that film had the infamous confrontation with O-Ren and the Crazy 88, thus resulting in all sorts of bloody carnage. Vol. 2 can get a bit of a bad rap in the wake of that, but I don't think it's that warranted. It helps that the genres that get homages this time around are old-school kung-fu films and spaghetti Westerns. Bringing back the legendary Gordon Liu to play the ridiculously strict kung-fu master Pai Mei was a touch that I've learned to appreciate a lot more after familiarising myself with the Shaw Brothers' output.

Of course, the film still feels fairly padded. There are plenty of scenes that, while I can understand their relevance to the film as a whole (the opening scene depicting the lead-up to the chapel massacre, for instance), still feel like a bit of a chore to watch and don't quite have the right level of Tarantino's charm to them. Others, such as the scene where Budd visits his workplace, feel extremely irrelevant. It helps that, for all the padding, the best parts of this film manage to be really good. Whether it's the frantic fight between the Bride and Elle Driver inside a cramped trailer or Bill's Superman monologue (which is definitely a contender for the best Tarantino monologue ever written), the film definitely feels like a good one. I definitely consider this in the top half of Tarantino's filmography.

#61 - City of God
Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund, 2002



Centres on the criminal history of the titular Brazilian slum, from the bandits of the 1960s through to the drug trade of the 1970s and 1980s, as seen through the eyes of a pair of young boys - one is an amateur photographer on the edge of the underworld while the other is at the very heart of it.

Another film that ended up on my first Top 100 but I have somehow managed to not re-watch for about a decade - and even then this re-watch was of a version being shown on free-to-air television that cut out some of the most graphic acts of violence (most notably, the infamous "hand or foot" scene gets cut). Fortunately, the film remains strong in spite of that. The vivid and grainy cinematography combines with documentarian editing to craft a fast-paced depiction of the narrative that balances a variety of characters with their own distinct sub-plots that all explore various themes (Li'l Ze's childlike viciousness, Knockout Ned's well-intentioned venture into crime, Bene's attempt to leave the life, Rocket's being caught up in the life due to fate and circumstance, etc.), all played by amateurs to successfully enhance the film's realistic vibe. In spite of its strengths, I ultimately don't think City of God is that amazing a piece of cinema. I remember it fondly, but re-watching it now makes me think it's merely a great film that covers a lot of the usual crime tropes but aids them through the vibrant and colourful depiction of uncompromisingly harsh events. It's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it before, though. At the very least, I think I owe it to myself to actually acquire a copy of my own.

I've had Mean Girls on dvd for almost 10 years now.... Still not watched it. I've always thought that vol 2 was the better of the Kill Bill halves, mainly because it sounds and feels much more like a Tarantino film to me. Or, it did when I saw them. I've not seen them since they were released. The script is much better in the second half, IMO but, like you, I felt as if it was padded out. Vol 1 was the first time I wished someone had sat Tarantino down in the editing room and made him release one film while I was watching the film. It took a couple of viewings of Jackie Brown before it felt indulgent to me but Kill Bill has always been Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now.

I've not seen The King's Speech, though I have had that for a few years, too, but I've always thought it'd be like a good BBC drama. As with The Imitation Game, I've never understood why anyone would want to go to the cinema to see it when, I'm sure, it'd work just as well on tv.