Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2024 Edition

That's more or less the extent of dialogue you will get from Hundreds of Beavers, but also my speechless, baffled reaction as I saw it. The film is a low budget curiosity directed by Mike Cheslik and written by Cheslik and Ryland Brickson Cole Tews, who also stars in the lead role. He plays Jean Kayak, an applejack salesman whose farm is destroyed by a group of beavers, leaving him homeless in the cold of winter. So he does what every sane applejack salesman who has been shafted by beavers would do, which is to set out to get rid of them; all hundreds of them, while also trying to win the hand of a storeowner's daughter... Yeah.

This film came to my attention thanks to the glory of social media "marketing". Not necessarily the official marketing, but the word of mouth on Twitter was all over, so I decided to give it a shot. The film is described as a slapstick comedy, but in reality, it's more of a crazy mixture of classic silent film and Looney Tunes slapstick, with a dose of video game mechanics. All in all, a zany and funny hodgepodge of comedy with a unique and clear style, but the best thing is that it works!

The film has a lot of pros. First, the physical comedy from the cast, but specially Cole, is on point while most of the running jokes and visual gags work. Second, the overall aesthetics of the film, as far as set direction and props elevates the film by fully acknowledging what it is, instead of trying to hide it. Third, the whole visual style and the efforts to transmit that "silent film" vibe also contributes to a general vibe from the film that is consistent from start to finish.

That's not to say the film is perfect. First of all, not all jokes land, though most do, but second and most important, I think that the film does goes on for too long. Considering what they were going for, I think that 108 minutes was too long. I do admire the efforts of Cheslik and Cole Tews to try to gradually change things up as the plot progresses, but I think that an 80 minutes (or less) runtime would've worked better for the film. Still, that really doesn't take much from what was ultimately a very creative, very unique experience. I don't know if you'll be left speechless, but I'm sure you'll be laughing.

Grade:

__________________

Set during World War II, Ivan's Childhood follows the titular child (Nikolai Burlyayev), a young orphan who is left wandering around his war-torn country after losing his parents. Fueled by revenge, he insists in working with the military, whether it is as a scout, an informant, or a bona fide soldier. Meanwhile, several officers try to figure out what to do with the child as they can't deny he's useful, while also acknowledging that "war's no place for children".

Tarkovsky has been a major blind spot for me as a cinephile. Up until this point, I had only seen Stalker, and even that one is due for a rewatch, which is why I was looking forward to tackling this category. I chose Ivan's Childhood because it's his shortest film, but that doesn't stop it from being a great film and an impressive achievement, considering it's Tarkovsky's debut.

The first thing that hit me was how well shot the film is. This is something that I had already witnessed in Stalker, but that you can see Tarkovsky was already on top of here. The camera movement, blocking, and framing is excellent making you feel the isolation of the character in the midst of war, as well as his entrapment as a result of the conflict, heightened by his desire to do "something" against the enemy, but also to just be a child.

Tarkovsky uses some scattered flashbacks to moments that Ivan spent with his mother to remind us all of what is lost as a result of war. That notion of lost innocence and childhood, and the toll that war takes on everybody is powerfully portrayed. As we see Ivan's journey, we are constantly reminded of the above warning; that war's no place for children. But what choice do they have?

Grade:

Should've posted this a long time ago, but I'm a mess this year in pretty much every aspect and I just put up the audio for this, so here is the April "assignment" episode of the podcast that applies to all those previous films I just reviewed.

The Movie Loot: The April Assignment (with Seth Vargas from Movie Friends Podcast)

In this one, my friend Seth Vargas (from Movie Friends Podcast) joined the loot as we chose a set of 5 categories to guide us on what to watch during April.

You can also see the live broadcast we did via YouTube



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

Here are the criteria for APRIL 2024:

A film with a budget of less than $500,000 (One Cent Day, April 1):
A film with Lon Chaney (born April 1):
A film from Andrei Tarkovsky (born April 4):
A film from Thailand (Thai New Year/Songkran, April 13):
A film with a title that starts with the letters G or H:

Still catching up, now with my summary for APRIL 2024:

A film with a budget of less than $500,000 (One Cent Day, April 1): Hundreds of Beavers
A film with Lon Chaney (born April 1): West of Zanzibar, The Monster
A film from Andrei Tarkovsky (born April 4): Ivan's Childhood
A film from Thailand (Thai New Year/Songkran, April 13): Death Whisperer
A film with a title that starts with the letters G or H: Host (2020)


Other films seen, not for the challenge:

Child's Play franchise: Child's Play (1988), Child's Play 2, Child's Play 3, Bride of Chucky, Seed of Chucky, Curse of Chucky
Pre-Code films: Kongo, Three on a Match
Other films: AINBO: Spirit of the Amazon, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, A Panicky Picnic


My favorite first-time watch of April was probably Ivan's Childhood, but Host, Three on a Match, and even A Panicky Picnic come close. Really enjoyed those three.

Least favorite first-time watch was probably AINBO: The Spirit of the Amazon, but also some of these Chucky films, like Seed of Chucky and Child's Play 3 are close to the bottom as well. Nothing truly awful, though.

Cult of Chucky follows the events of Curse of Chucky as Nica (Fiona Dourif), now committed to a psychiatric hospital for the murders of the previous film, still has to deal with her own mental state, but also the inevitable return of Chucky (Brad Dourif). The killer doll has also learned a few tricks himself, which add some spice to the film. To make things more interesting, the film also brings Andy (Alex Vincent), the main character of the first three films, back into the mix as he is also coping with the trauma of his encounters with Chucky.

This one, like its predecessor, features a darker and somber tone. Granted, there is a lot of humor in it, which you can infer from the above quote, but it never reaches the levels of Bride or Seed. My main issue with this one is that it feels and looks cheap as hell. Chucky effects aside, most of the set design and production values are distractingly poor, plus the way that we see the psychiatric hospital and its staff operate lets you know that they were all working on a limited budget.

What the film has in its favor is in its cast. As I was venturing through this franchise, someone told me how Jennifer Tilly is probably the best thing to happen to it. But if that is true, then Fiona Dourif isn't far behind. She's so good in the lead role, and although it's nice to have Andy back (and Vincent does a pretty good job in the role), there's no question that this is Fiona's show from start to finish.

I also think the idea of Chucky being able to transfer himself into multiple bodies makes for an interesting twist, and the film tries to make the most out of it. However, the film still lacks a certain something, and feels a bit unfinished or unpolished; something that not even Vincent, Tilly, or two Dourif's can fix. Still, a mostly fun watch, especially if you're a fan of the franchise.

Grade:

Mirror of Holland is a 9 minute short comprised of a collection of images from the city. The catch is that director Bert Haanstra filmed it all using the reflections in the water. It has no dialogue, and it's only accompanied by a score from Max Vredenburg. It sounds like a simple concept and, technically, it is; but much like its blurred and rippled images, it can lend itself to many interpretations.

The short opens on the countryside as we see a kid that much like us is looking at the reflections in the water. We see windmills, cows, farmers, swans, and boats. As it progresses, it seems to move closer to the city. With that, the images become a bit more blurry and the music gets slightly more frenetic, challenging both our literal and metaphorical perception.

I decided to check this out after @SpelingError included it in his list of favorite short films. In the surface, there doesn't seem to be much more to the short than that. But much like Thoreau said, it's not necessarily in what we're looking at, but rather in what we see and what we get out of it. That sometimes we should try to look at things from a new perspective, and maybe we might see something different.

Grade:

Glad you enjoyed it! I'm a huge sucker for reflection photography and Mirror of Holland might just have the best I've ever seen. I'm pretty sure I cried when I first saw it.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Hair-Raising Hare follows Bugs Bunny, as he is lured into the lair of an evil scientist. His goal? To feed Bugs to his hairy, red monster. Of course, when Bugs Bunny realizes what's up, he tries to flee while also doing his best to get the upper hand against the two baddies.

This is a short I've seen a hundred times since I was a kid. I always found the design of the monster to be quite effective, but this time, I was more amused by the design of the scientist, who is drawn to look like Peter Lorre. I didn't like that they dropped him without reason for the second half of the short.

Other than that, it's a typical Bugs Bunny short. I didn't find it as funny as I probably did when I was a kid, but I still think it has some fun moments between Bugs and the Monster, and some good physical comedy.

Grade:

That's how H.A. Downey described this short back in 1909, and he's not wrong. Directed by D.W. Griffith, The Golden Louie follows a "well-intentioned" gambler (Charles Inslee) that takes a coin from a beggar child (Adele DeGarde). His plan is to use the coin for a "sure bet" and to return the money after he wins. Unfortunately, things don't work the way he planned.

From a technical standpoint, there's not much to the short. It features mostly static cameras and little "flair". As is usual in these early shorts, the acting and the whole production is very stage-y and theatrical. In terms of the story, it is a hell of a downer. The film mostly follows the perspective of the gambler, which makes things feel a bit awkward since his actions are, for lack of a better word, sh!tty.

At almost 7 minutes, it is not that much of a chore to check it out, but there really isn't that much to get out of it. I'm not sure what Griffith's intentions were, but the repentance of the gambler in the end feels like "too little, too late", which kinda leaves you with a sour taste afterwards.

Grade:

Parent Teacher is a 17 minute short from Jim Cummings and Dustin Hahn. It follows a parent/teacher meeting at a school classroom led by Mr. Zahn (Hahn). As he tries to go through the different topics of the meeting, he realizes that the parents aren't really much different than their kids.

"Growing up is not easy", says Mr. Zahn at one point. But then, again, neither is parenting or being a teacher; and if neither of the three are working together, the work can't be done. The short beautifully illustrates the struggle of teachers in trying to create "critical thinkers", as opposed to "memorizers", as Zahn puts it at one point.

Cummings and Hahn do a great job transmitting the seriousness of the situation in a way that feels real, without losing the funny edge. But as great as the dialogue, script, and performances are, the quality of the short is elevated by their decision of doing it all in one continuous shot, something that has become some sort of a trademark from Cummings. 18 takes, Cummings told me via Twitter. It is quite an impressive feat.

I worked as a teacher for close to 15 years, but I'm also a parent, so I know it's not an easy task on either side. It's up to both sides to really talk, collaborate, and make this work... and not ask stupid questions, check the cell phones, bully the teacher, or steal mugs from him.

Grade:

Big Trouble in Little China follows trucker Jack Burton (Jack Russell) as he tries to help his friend Wang Chi (Dennis Dun) rescue his fiancée from an underworld gang led by an evil sorcerer named Lo Pan (James Hong). Joining them in this journey full of unreasonable things is an assorted group of allies, which include Wang's businessman friend, a friend of Wang's fiancée, and an old magician.

This is a film I'm pretty sure I saw a couple of times when I was a teen. However, for some reason, it had been easily 25-30 years since I last saw it; which is a shame cause the film is a ton of fun. Even if things doesn't make much sense and seem "unreasonable", like Lo Pan himself said, we are "not brought upon this world to get it!". Especially since the film is carried by Russell's charisma and the great chemistry between the cast, as well as the fantastic setpieces and colorful villains.

For all of Jack's projected "macho" attitude, I also love how the film pushes back against the stereotypical "white savior" trope by letting him be sorta in the sidelines. More often than not it is Wang, his friend Eddie, and the Chang Sing gang the ones that take the spotlight. Carpenter even plays with the trope and our expectations a couple of times in pretty funny ways.

I'm a reasonable guy, but going back to this film after such a long time seems like a very unreasonable thing. Big Trouble in Little China is full of great action, solid comedy, and overall a ton of fun. I should've gone back to it sooner, but everybody relax: I'm here.

Grade:

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes follows the growing tension between the surviving humans and the increasing and evolving ape community led by Caesar (Andy Serkis). Set 10 years after the events of Rise, it follows a new group of humans led by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) and Malcolm (Jason Clarke), both of which have differing views about how to handle the apes pushing them to decide between conflict and war, or a tense truce with the "animals". Meanwhile, Caesar also has to deal with unrest within his own group.

This is probably the third or fourth time I watch this, and I've always held it up as the best of the trilogy. A recent rewatch of Rise closed the gap, but this one remains the superior one. Even though we have to acclimate ourselves to new human characters, Clarke, Keri Russell, and especially Oldman do a great job. However, it is the wonderful job of Serkis and the VFX team what keeps pushing that through line of apes being much more than "animals". The "humanity", for lack of a better word, with which they imbue these apes is stellar.

Also, it's good to see that the conflict isn't necessarily one-dimensional. With the exception of a couple of close-minded humans, the struggle within Dreyfus to save humanity feels real (even if there's a desire for revenge buried beneath it all). But Oldman is a master and he plays it all too well. He's probably my favorite character of the film, and maybe the trilogy. Clarke does a solid job as the straight man, and his family does what's necessary to draw our empathy.

As is usual with many big CGI-heavy films, I might have some slight issues with the climatic fight, but I think this is one of the best examples of the bunch. Although there's a good dose of big explosions and big stuff falling, it doesn't overshadow the main storyline about the duality between humans and apes, and what each of them are and want. Even if they're animals, they don't look or feel like it. Unfortunately, even if they don't want a war, they will get it.

Grade:

At least that's what this Norwegian animated film for kids promises to deliver. This is actually the third film in a series set in the titular town, featuring anthropomorphic farm animals, but the focus is mostly on Clara, a very resourceful calf. This one borrows some elements from Agatha Christie's novels as Clara and his friend Gavin set out to investigate the theft of a special "super-seed" that was supposed to help with their crops.

The clearest inspiration is Murder on the Orient Express, down to the title, as the film is set mostly on a train where some of the Cattle Hill residents were to meet Albert, a pig that developed the aforementioned "super-seed". So when the seed is stolen, all of the passengers become suspects. Enter Agatha Christensen, a rabbit detective hired by Albert to solve the case.

Obviously this was something I put up for the kids and just sat down to watch with them. They enjoyed it, although probably not as much as other films they've seen. It doesn't seem to be one of those that sticks with them, but it was good enough to pass the time for them. As for me, I would say it was mildly entertaining. The animation is good, and the whodunit angle is effective for most of the run.

I do think that, even at 70 minutes, the film seems to be pushing to get there. I feel like they could've cut 20 minutes and it would've worked better. There are also a couple of twists in that last act, but one or two of them didn't work that well for me. Still, there is enough mystery and enough action to keep the kids entertained. Whether that amounts to a "wonderful time", I don't think so.

Grade:

Piñero follows the life of Nuyorican playwright, poet, and actor Miguel Piñero (Benjamin Bratt). Piñero was a very controversial figure whose talent was rivaled by his own inner demons of addiction and criminal life. After a stint in Sing-Sing, he wrote a play called Short Eyes, which ended up being nominated for several Tony Awards and was eventually adapted into a film version.

This is a film that was introduced to me by my wife. Back when we started dating, she had a poster of this film in her room. At the time, I hadn't seen it, but saw it with her and, even though it has its flaws, it's still a pretty good biopic with a fiery performance from Bratt. It is the kind of story about a "tortured soul" that just can't help but do bad "to keep the writing good".

The film's direction by Leon Ichaso is very loose and maybe even a bit erratic, perhaps mirroring Piñero's own loose and erratic lifestyle. But what keeps everything afloat is Bratt's energetic performance. He owns the role through and through, peaking with a sizzling presentation in a New York rooftop halfway through the film. It is the kind of moment where you wish the whole package was just as good.

The film also brushes over some significant issues like Piñero's sexuality. It almost feels as if Ichaso was trying to hide these facts by elevating his relationship with Sugar (Talisa Soto) to levels of soap opera, and failed. However, if you like biopics and are curious about who Piñero was, then check it out. Much like Piñero himself, it's flawed, sometimes erratic and frenetic, but still honest and true.

Grade:

Thor and Jane, gods and science, love and thunder. This fourth installment in the Thor franchise is very much a story of two sides that not always make sense, with the "god-like" Thor being burdened by human situations as he waltzes from battle to battle, while Jane (Natalie Portman) looks for "divine" solutions to more human issues. When the self-proclaimed God-butcher, Gorr (Christian Bale) threatens New Asgard, Thor and Jane have to find a way to make sense of each other to save the world.

Director and co-writer Taika Waititi brings the same level of absurd humor he brought to Ragnarok and then some. Unfortunately, not all of it makes sense. There seems to be a tonal dissonance between the often non-sensical flow of his direction and script, and the sometimes serious undertones of Gorr and his quest to eliminate all gods. I thought Bale did a pretty good job, but the seriousness of his character and his threat level sometimes felt suffocated by the barrage of absurd jokes and visual gags that Waititi throws at us.

Some of the humor does land and some of the moments work. I kinda liked Russell Crowe as the hedonist Zeus, and there are some jokes and moments that did make me laugh. But when you try to pair jokes about naked men and endlessly screaming goats, with the more serious themes of "killing our gods" or a character dying of cancer, the match is not always as harmonious as Thor and Jane's love is supposed to be.

I'm a big fan of Ragnarok, but I think there was a need for Waititi to tone down things a bit here. Instead, he seems to be loose while throwing everything but the kitchen sink. When it lands, it's fun; but when it doesn't, it just ends up feeling odd and in disfavor of the more serious tones of the script. I don't think it's a bad film at all, but the clash is evident. Different worlds, but somehow, it didn't always make sense.

Grade:

The 80s was such a fertile ground for action films. The peak of Schwarzenegger and Stallone, the rise of Van Damme and Seagal. Indestructible men that could toss you across the room with a flick of their fingers into a drum of instantly exploding gasoline while throwing a witty one-liner, and walk away with barely a scratch. Any of their films started and there was no doubt that they would kick all of the bad guy's collective asses. It was all about the ass-kicking journey.

Commando is probably one of the prime examples of this, featuring Schwarzenegger at the top of his game, doing pretty much just that. He plays John Matrix, a former Special Forces colonel who sets out to rescue his daughter (Alyssa Milano) who was kidnapped to force him to assassinate a South American political leader. Despite these stakes, I don't think there's any doubt in anybody that watches this as to who will walk away victorious.

This is one of those films I used to see often when I was a kid. Growing up in the 80s, I caught the brunt of that action film wave. However, it had been probably 25-30 years since I had last seen it, and it is probably that lack of stakes that had kept it at a distance for me. I mean, it is fun and laughable to see Arnold plow his way through an endless army of thugs with bad aim, as bodies fall left and right of him, but it is not necessarily something that sticks with me.

But again, it *is* fun. Vernon Wells does a lot of scenery chewing, which makes for a fun bad guy, it's always fun to see Dan Hedaya in anything, and Rae Dawn Chong makes for an interesting and competent sidekick instead of just a damsel-in-distress; and much like her character, you're enjoyment of this will depend on how much you can believe this macho bullshit.

Grade:

Wladyslaw Szpilman was a Polish-Jewish pianist and composer. He studied in some of the best musical schools in Berlin and Warsaw before settling in his hometown, where he was renowned as a celebrated musician and perhaps "the greatest pianist in Poland, maybe the whole world". But all those praises and recognitions become meaningless in the face of abject xenophobia and blind hatred.

The Pianist tackles just that, as we follow Szpilman's struggle to survive in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust. Starting with the occupation of Poland in September 1939, through the forced movement of Polish Jews into the Warsaw Ghetto, and then into full deportation into concentration camps. We see Szpilman, separated from his family, trying to survive mostly thanks to the help of various friends.

This is a film I've seen several times, since it is one of my wife's favorite films. It is a harrowing portrayal of the horrors of the Holocaust, as we see the treatment and conditions that Polish Jews were living through devolving from mockery and disrespect to sheer terror, murder, and genocide. To think of being separated from your family, with no hope or chance of helping them is terrible. Actually, the scene at the train station where the family shares a piece of caramel has got to be my favorite. So simple and yet so heartbreaking.

Mixed with those horrors and terrors, there is certainly a message of hope. After all, Szpilman survives thanks to the kindness of others, but he survives also because he was "the greatest pianist in Poland, maybe the whole world". His story of survival is impressive and, sure, inspirational, but it's also a reminder of the 3 million Polish Jews that didn't survive. Pianists and non-pianists that didn't get the same chance to be the greatest "anything" in Poland, or the whole world.

Grade:

I'm also a big fan of that one.

This is probably my fourth time watching it, and I still found myself blown away by the horrific images.

This scene gives me chills just thinking about it:



While its horrors aren't quite as expressive as those in Come and See, which is still the gold standard for portraying the horrors of war, it still depicts a disturbingly effective hellscape.