My 2024 Watchlist Obsession!

The Changeling is a very decent film, that was terribly under appreciated when it was first released.

The Changeling was pretty well-received among my people when I was young. All my friends liked it a lot and it was a movie my mother and I could both get into, which was nice.
Too bad there's no such thing as ghosts.

Deep End's very first shots is are of something that's unidentifiable and blood red, evocative of something less innocent than the bicycle it's revealed to be - and as Cat Stevens belts out "But I Might Die Tonight" while Mike (John Moulder-Brown) rides this bicycle to his first day on the job at an East London public bath there's an undercurrent of psychological danger I'm picking up on. It's a bold way to put a stamp on a narrative that will now take it's time to develop, but it's fitting all the same. Mike is only 15-years-old, but it's old enough for him to develop an obsessive infatuation with workmate Susan (Jane Asher). Susan is engaged to marry Chris (Christopher Sandford), a wealthy but thoroughly unlikeable Londoner, but is otherwise sexually involved with other men - something that drives Mike mad. As Mike's behaviour becomes more unhinged, he starts to behave more like a stalker than Susan's friend, and Deep End shifts away from workaday antics towards much more emotionally painful, sharp and dangerous waters. It's a shame that some young people don't give themselves more time to develop wisdom before letting their fragile, immature minds get the better of them.

I thought Deep End an extremely well made and powerful film which develops it's narrative at just the right pace, giving us time to really get to know Mike and Susan before gradually turning them towards their fates in this movie. Mike's boyish good looks cause many of the older ladies who visit the public baths to go a bit ga-ga over him, and Susan encourages the shy and inexperienced boy to take advantage of that for the extra tips he's sure to make. At the same time she teases him, and the two develop a kind of playful repartee - something that's probably a first for Mike, and invariably he falls for her. He's open and painfully honest, while Susan is much more hard to read but also a lot more worldly. Throwing Mike into the deep end like this is a recipe for disaster, at least for him, but I think it was a lot more common for 15-year-olds to drop out of school and start their working lives back then. By the time I was in high school, most of us were hanging on because prospects would be dim for those who drop out so early. Mike is so ill-equipped for adult life you kind of think he shouldn't be there to begin with, and the "he shouldn't be"s only increase as this film's running time advances.

Young love can completely consume a young mind, and it will certainly make a young person do the craziest of things. Deep End uses this to take us into a plethora of places that range from the fun, to the hilariously humorous to the tragic, dangerous and horrific. It's exquisite in the way it mines so much from these two characters in it's exploration of the younger/inexperienced and older/experienced dynamic. Ordinarily, if he were older, what Mike does in this film would be extremely creepy, but since he's basically a child it's more a case of him not at all understanding adulthood, and instead I simply saw a kind of childishness and immaturity that at the same time is alarmingly dangerous because now he's interacting in the adult world. That dangerous element develops to a greater and greater degree until the film's fraught climax leaves us breathless. For some reason, the film's very first shots reminded me of George A. Romero's 1977 film Martin, and that comparison might be apt for the film as a whole as well. At least as far as the character's age is concerned, and how dangerous severe psychological aberrations in very young men/boys can be. This was a fine British film, and I can't believe the BFI included Carry on Up the Khyber in it's top 100, but not this movie.

Glad to catch this one - it's in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die, but hasn't been released on Criterion (yet.) It was Jerzy Skolimowski's first English language film after writing Roman Polanski's Knife in the Water (a movie I love.)




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Deep End.

__________________

Love Deep End. Skolimowski's EO is also very good.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Watching Badlands was a long time coming, and I have to really wonder what to say about it to avoid simply repeating what's always said - at least when it comes to celebrity and mid-20th Century American malaise. Just a trigger-happy, talkative, charismatic young man, Kit (Martin Sheen) and his 15-year-old girlfriend, Holly (Sissy Spacek), whom he absconds with after killing her father, played by Warren Oates. I've been seeing stuff like this all my life, with Natural Born Killers and True Romance being heavily influenced by this Terrence Malick classic - but the story seems purer and more pared down to it's essentials here. Kit seems to be the most likeable murderer in cinematic history, no matter how abhorrent his crimes are - and they are pretty bad. Many films have their flawed protagonist kill people who are clearly more despicable than they are, but in Badlands Kit kills nice people whose only crime happens to be inadvertently being in Kit's way. Still, Kit approaches life without the hateful misanthropy you'd normally see in a killer. He's no angry young man - he simply doesn't think twice about ending someone's life, like a normal person would. He seems to revel both in the fame this brings him, and the excitement of the chase his killing spree instigates.

Holly may have been lost in Kit's glare a little if it wasn't for her narrating this tale. Although Kit doesn't lose her affections after he kills her father, her feelings towards him are complicated. She's in love, and wants to be with Kit, but life on the run irks her. The killings are rather understated in her mind - she's neither shocked nor infuriated by them, but rather philosophical about her beau's homicidal tendencies. At times I got the impression that Kit was doing all of this because he had an audience in Holly, and was conscious of making an unforgettable impression with regards to her. The craziness she sees in him is an endearing one, and I have to admit that I can understand where she's coming from - it's a rapturous madness that propels him forward to meet his destiny. Although he never says much of real substance, he's a lot of fun to listen to all the same. Kit has all the makings of an American celebrity, and I'd expect that if he'd been born in today's age he'd have become internet famous, and have had a ready waiting audience online. As it is, the two characters are based on two famous killers : Charles Starkweather and his teenage girlfriend Caril Ann Fugate, the former of whom was eventually executed for his crimes.

This was an extremely nice looking, well acted and very well directed first feature from Terrence Malick, whose signature style wouldn't really take shape until his next film, Days of Heaven was made five years after this. If I'd just come across it without knowing who made it, or anything else, I'd probably have been blown away by Badlands - but as it stands I was full well expecting something this good, and as such wasn't all that surprised by it's quality. Not only did it announce the arrival of a great filmmaker in Malick, it was also a huge breakthrough for Martin Sheen, and it was fun seeing him so young and energetic in such a boyish way. You can see he's really giving this his all, and I don't think it was the easiest of roles to get right. He had talent. The exact same goes for Sissy Spacek, who is every bit Sheen's equal and has gone on to continue being his equal throughout her career. I can't be sure, but I think this is probably the only Malick film with only two main characters in it (three if you count Holly's father.) It was really nice seeing the director himself make a cameo as well - the only time he's ever done that. Great movie - enjoyed it a whole lot.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #651, and it's in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Films You Must See Before You Die. Also selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Badlands.

I should revisit Badlands. Coincidentally, I rewatched Days of Heaven earlier this year and it still held up really well.

Never heard of it, but it’s in my watchlist now.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

A Royal Affair has a bit of a dip into the enlightenment period in Denmark during the late 18th Century, and more specifically King Christian VII (Mikkel Følsgaard), his wife Caroline Matilda (Alicia Vikander) and his doctor, most trusted advisor and friend Johann Friedrich Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen) - a champion of the progressive freedoms, reforms and ideas advanced by enlightenment thinking. That's where all the trouble starts, because those at court who are only interested in maintaining the status quo are some powerful enemies to have, and when Struensee starts giving Caroline some of what she's not getting from the king, they have the perfect excuse to go after him. By this time, Struensee had basically become de facto ruler of Denmark because of the influence he had with Christian VII. Love knows no boundaries, but it was such a silly thing to do - start making the beast with two backs with the Queen of all people. Anybody else but her. The movie seems even more relevant now than it was when released, considering the way progressivism is clashing with right wing regressive policy trends today. The clashes in this film feel all too familiar in today's political climate.

This film was interesting and informative, if a little too cold and clinical without any moments of levity to help ease the tension and dour 18th Century social landscape. Mikkel Følsgaard is excellent as the "mad King" with a penchant for prostitutes and playing like a literal child. Mads Mikkelsen is his usual dependable self - understanding why Christian VII is why he is, and being the only one who can reach him without causing some kind of tantrum from the recalcitrant monarch. Alicia Vikander reminded me a little of Natalie Portman, and a model of noble restraint, in spite of the King's cruelty. David Dencik and Trine Dyrholm are delightfully hateable as the religious, regressive statesman Ove Høegh-Guldberg and former Queen Juliana Maria respectively. If there's any complaint to make with those two, it's the way their villainy makes them a little one-dimensional. As you'd pretty much expect, the costumes are amazing and must have cost a fortune. The period elements are very satisfactory, and include a torture device called the wooden horse that I'd never seen before, and early inoculations for smallpox (which, to the religious skeptics, was rumoured to turn those who dare use it into cows! Vaccine skepticism and bizarre idiocy is nothing new.)

So, I was quite pleased to skim through this period in Danish history and see so much of it actually lining up with what's in this film. It gives the narrative some extra power - which it really needs in order to justify it's very straight and grounded mood. Apparently the locations used were mainly in the Czech Republic, and I can't for the life of me understand why it wasn't actually filmed in Denmark (other than the fact that this was partly a Czech Republic production.) Perhaps the old palaces and locations no longer exist in Denmark, or are too hard to get permission to film in and around. Anyway, I absolutely love mad Kings and Emperors - my favourite being John Hurt's take on Caligula in that classic series I Claudius (one of the greatest things I've ever watched.) I really liked how there was a complexity to Christian VII and why he was the way he was. Stunted and child-like, it was advantageous to keep him that way for the powerbrokers who could ride roughshod over him, and the King's frustration would make him lash out in unpredictable and strange ways. If you like historical period films, this is probably essential watching - a tragic tale about the dangerous path reformers sometimes must tread, and how what we're going through at this moment in history has it's echoes in the past.

Glad to catch this one - nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2013, and a Golden Globe in the same category. Also winner of two Silver Bears at the 62nd Berlin International Film Festival.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch A Royal Affair

Well, that sure was spicy. There's a lot to unpack regarding The Handmaiden, but I have to say that the most unforgettable impression it leaves is due to it's erotic love scenes between Japanese heiress Izumi Hideko (Kim Min-hee) and thief/pickpocket/fake maid Nam Sook-hee (Kim Tae-ri). They're so well conceptualized - for example, one takes place while Sook-hee has her finger in Hideko's mouth and is lovingly filing down a sharp tooth she has. There is a lot of intimacy shared between a maid and her mistress as per the job description - but when there is desire between them, the sparks will no doubt cause a mighty conflagration. The story this takes place in, though, is one where forger and con-man "Count" Fujiwara (Ha Jung-woo) is using Sook-hee to help lure Hideko into marriage so he can have her committed to a mad-house and steal her inheritance. Is everything that straight-forward? Of course not, but to say anything else would ruin the many surprises a first-time watcher will get. Rounding out the cast of characters is naughty book collector Uncle Kouzuki (Cho Jin-woong), who plans to marry Hideko himself, despite being related to her.

Thirteen years on from his breakout masterpiece Oldboy, it seems like Park Chan-wook is smashing the old ten-year rule as per filmmakers being at their peak, and delivers a majestic, beautiful and at times painful and shocking film in The Handmaiden. Obviously he has a lot to work with here, but considering the fact that he co-wrote the screenplay as well, it's quite a feat. He also backed that up once again in '22 with Decision to Leave - not to mention leaving a great impression on me with Joint Security Area, his first big cinematic venture which came out in 2000. South Korean cinema at it's finest. The only problem I had with this film (and it's a tiny problem, hardly worth mentioning) is that it races through it's set-up (I had the same problem with Ari Aster's Midsommar.) The whole story is set in motion via a single flashback monologue by Fujiwara, and I remember debating with myself whether I should go back and listen to it a second time to make sure I have what's going on straight in my mind. In the end I could follow the story well enough regardless, so it's a really minor quibble. This is an excellent movie, and I'm agreeable enough with us not wasting too much time setting everything up.

So, The Handmaiden is definitely one to watch multiple times (I confess to starting the film all over again after I finished watching it, both because I liked it so much and to see what it was like to experience it while knowing how the story plays out.) It had been in my peripheral vision ever since it came out, but now that I'm knuckling down on actually watching all the films on my watchlist I've finally caught up with it, and I was not at all disappointed. The cinematography and art direction are first-class, and the production design also wonderful - but what's best is that they play support to a great story (based on British crime novel 'Fingersmith' by Sarah Waters, which has been transposed to 1930s Japanese occupied Korea.) I don't know how Park Chan-wook arrived at the conclusion "I must direct an adaptation of Fingersmith," but I'm glad he got there somehow. Ably assisted by four great South Korean thespians, and a dab hand at directing lesbian erotica, he's given us film lovers another great addition to our libraries and put himself on the map as another Kubrick, Hitchcock or Spielberg - ie, a filmmaker whose quality career output extends beyond that of your average, everyday movie-maker.

Glad to catch this one - in Steven Jay Schneider's 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, and competed for the Palme d'Or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival. It also won the BAFTA for Best Foreign Language Film in 2018.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Handmaiden

While undeniably sexy, I also thought that The Handmaiden was very funny at times.

In what ways?

Deep End is very much on my list of greatest overlooked films of all time.

The Handmaiden is a pretty great film, but if you really want to enjoy it to the max, you should watch the more explicit uncensored version, which runs 169 minutes. Most people end up watching the edited theatrical release version (144 minutes).

I would agree.

The totally overwraught

But it's also been many years since I watched the movie, so I'd have to give it another spin to see if the tone and content were the way I'm remembering them.

Boy, am I glad that you’re back here! I went through a split second of, Dare I Google ‘the bells’? and am now laughing. I… do not even recall a suicide attempt in that film, which sounds terrible? But yeah, I saw it maybe three times when it came out, my entire family loved it (which has its own hilarity to it), but I don’t remember a suicide attempt. I do remember the sex scene everyone was talking about. I mean, I don’t know how much self-awareness you can expect from something that’s pure male gaze. I think for me, I don’t tend to like most lesbian films for a large host of reasons, but I did like that one. It was kind of appropriately outlandish and thrillery and ‘cute’ (odd as that sounds) all at once.

So unless I'm confusing this with another film, there's a part where

I also think that the film does capture some real erotic fire (like the frequently cited scene in the bathtub), but I also definitely feel like there were some moments that just scream "we didn't actually talk to any lesbians about this." Like, I'm just picturing some guy trying to come up with a sexy idea for lesbian sex and going "What if they put bells in their vaginas and just, like, smashed them together?!" and all the men in the room clapping. (Various internet trivia assures me that they consulted at least one queer woman about "lesbian sensibilities", but that does not change the logistical absurdity of the act, nor the performance-over-pleasure implications of it). And to be very clear: I find the ridiculous elements of this film endearing, sexual acts that are "performance" can be a mental turn-on even if the physical element is lacking, etc.

The sent me cackling again into the closing credits.

Ah, yes. Right you are. That scene was so absurd (and out of place!) that it seems to have been wiped from my mind altogether. That being said, I would have also maybe called it (aiming at, if not quite succeeding at) ‘cute’?

Oh, I fully agree with you. That’s what I meant by saying it’s very male gaze.

Yes, there's a moment during that scene when...



You probably can't hear me from wherever you are, but right at this moment I'm screaming profanities at not having watched the longer version (not knowing beforehand it existed.) At least it gives me an excuse to watch the film again, which it looks like I'll be doing in the not too distant future. Thanks for alerting me.

Yes! LOL.