Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2022 Edition

Wow, that is really cool! Thanks for sharing.

__________________

Hey gang, as a proof of my love to all of you, here's the latest episode of The Movie Loot - Episode 55. In this one, me and film critic Rachel (of the Hallmarkies Podcast) talk about romcoms and romantic films in general.

The Movie Loot 55: The Romcom Loot (with Rachel of the Hallmarkies Podcast)

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

Whiplash follows the struggles of Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) to become a legendary drummer. To achieve this, he is enrolled as a first-year student at Shaffer Conservatory, listens obsessively to Buddy Rich's album, and practices incessantly until his hands bleed while craving to make it into the school's Studio Band, led by the ruthlessly strict Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons).

One of the most iconic pieces of music that Neiman practices under Fletcher's fist is Hank Levy's "Whiplash". The song is notable for its unusual time signature and sudden changes, which makes it more excruciating to play for a drummer, especially a young one like Neiman. But Fletcher won't take anything less, which is why he hovers over Neiman, with a metaphorical whip in his hand, lashing out every time he misses a beat *crack* "Not quite my tempo".

The film spends its duration exploring this toxic relationship between Neiman and Fletcher as they both feed each other. There's no denying that Neiman respects and idolizes Fletcher, just like there's no denying that Fletcher admires Neiman's talent and skills. But the way they demonstrate that to each other is like a relentless back-and-forth, as they each go from flattering adoration and gentlemanly acknowledgement to incessant bickering and cutthroat insults.

This was truly a masterful showcase of great performances, script, direction, and editing. The way Chazelle allows us to see the motivations of each character, while also not allowing for us to be entirely sure of how to feel about each of them was excellent. Is Fletcher a ruthless, egotistical bastard? Most definitely. Is Neiman a self-righteous prick? I'd say yes. Is there reasoning behind their respective passion for finding "the next Charlie Parker" and "being the next Charlie Parker"? Of course.

Which brings into perspective the question that Neiman asks Fletcher at one point in the film; is there a line? How far can we push to get what we want? and is it worth it in the end? Chazelle doesn't necessarily gives us the answer, but he sure shake us up to try to figure it on our own.

Grade:

(some mild SPOILERS?)

Cure follows Detective Takabe (Kōji Yakusho) as he investigates a series of murders where victims end up with an X carved on their necks and chests. The weird thing is that in each case, the murderer is found close to the victim, with no recollection of what happened and sometimes no clear remorse. "He was someone I didn't like... I couldn't stand it anymore", says one of them after killing his partner.

There really is no mystery as to who's causing these murders, since we find out fairly early that a mysterious man called Mamiya (Masato Hagiwara) is behind it all. The man, who seems to be suffering from severe memory loss while aimlessly wandering around, seems to have some sort of mental influence in people, forcing them to let their emotions and anger out.

So the film unfolds in two halves, the first of which plays in a more or less straightforward, procedural way, as we see Takabe and his psychologist partner Sakuma (Tsuyoshi Ujiki) play a cat-and-mouse game to find whoever's causing the murders. After Mamiya is captured halfway through the film, the cat-and-mouse game is transferred to their minds as we see Takabe become increasingly more frustrated with the man, which leads him to often let his emotions and anger out.

I thought this was a really interesting watch. I really liked the way the film unfolded, first with the thrill and mystery of what's happening, only to become a more psychological and nuanced look at how we process our frustrations and how we handle our angers; whether it comes from being unable to close a criminal case or dealing with a mentally ill relative. I liked how director Kiyoshi Kurosawa handled those themes, while keeping an almost clinical and distanced direction.

The performances were mostly solid, with Hagiwara probably having the best one as the ambiguously cold Mamiya. His performance and the way the story handles him defies most of the conventions of these kind of thrillers, but it works really well. As far as that is concerned, I really liked that ambiguity, but I think the film could've benefitted from letting a few more things out towards its conclusion, especially regarding the subplot of Takabe's wife. Still, this was a very effective psychological thriller.

Grade:

Whiplash was very watchable and certainly had some solid performances from the leads but have to admit I wasn't blown away by it as I struggled to believe it in places - + for me. Sadly though all I seem to have actually noted on it was "Why kick out Metz yet keep the other one who didn't fess up either?" but then I also have 'the other one' noted as "Ericson/Ericsson/Erickson (sp?)" and there doesn't even seem to be anybody with that name in the cast on IMDb so perhaps I merely dreamt I watched it after all

It is Ericson/Ericsson/Erickson indeed, but since the guy doesn't have lines, he's probably not credited.

Anyway, Fletcher's logic works two ways. First, if you don't even "know you're out of tune", do you "deserve" to be in his band? Second, his style is to relentlessly push you into being your very best to find "the next Charlie Parker". If I believe his conversation with Neiman in that jazz club, then he thinks that it's his duty to be this strict and push this musicians to the limit, until the best ones come out. I was in a music school when I was a pre-teen/teen, and although there wasn't anyone like Fletcher, there were a few that were really close to him, so I didn't find it that hard to believe.

This short follows the "Boss Baby" as he tries to fend off three villains set out to get rid of him one way or the other. This is one of Netflix Interactive programs where, much like those "Choose Your Own Adventure" series, you choose which paths to follow until the ending.

I'm kinda just putting this in here for fun, but I did give this a try the other day at the request of my youngest. This is my first proper experience with the "Boss Baby" franchise, other than a few glances here and there when my kids have been watching the series or the film.

Truth is that I just don't get the appeal, either for adults or kids. Seems like the "adult baby in a corporate-like world" angle is more geared towards adults and would be lost on a kid, while the opposite would happen with the more juvenile angles of the babies physical comedy. Even my kids aren't that much into the whole franchise, as it's not one of their regular picks (right now, they're on a DuckTales or T-Rex Ranch phase).

I used to be a fan of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" series, so I've always kinda liked the interactive aspect of these shorts, and so does my kids (they really love one that Bear Grylls does, You vs. Wild, and see it often). But still, my youngest one didn't seem to be that invested into this one (we only did two runs of it), and neither did I.

Grade:

There's a common phrase that says "love is like a plant" or "a flower". The "punchline" may vary slightly, though; "You've got to let it grow", "you've got to care for it", "it needs constant feeding"... but it all boils down to the same principle. You can't just sit and hope for "the plant" (i.e. love) to survive without care and attention. That's part of the background to this Puerto Rican short film.

400 Petals follows the relationship of René and Sol (Esteban Ruiz and Anna Malavé). The short opens with René buying a marigold for Sol's birthday, early in their relationship. The florist tells him that some people believe that its petals "retain the warmth of the sun" which she calls a "nice coincidence". As time passes, we see René and Sol's relationship go through ups and downs, and with every "down", a petal of the flower drops. What will happen when the last one falls?

My wife found this short a couple of weeks ago, and I was pleasantly surprised by it. It really shines through its simplicity, thanks to a nice script and a solid performance by Ruiz. Malavé is solid, but Ruiz is the one that has the focus. And that might be one of the flaws of the short. Although it does try its best to keep a balanced perspective, it can't help but favor René's point of view and perspective, while leaving Sol on the sidelines.

However, I have to give props to writer and director Angelie García for avoiding some of the typical tropes of other romcoms and actually surprising me in the end. In the end, we get to see that it's up to us to put all the necessary care in our relationships, even if all the petals seem to fall from it.

Grade:

For anyone interested...

When I was a little kid, we used to have a handful of Disney LP's which had narrated versions of several Disney films; The Aristocats, The Rescuers, but especially The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. We used to sit and listen to them all day long, singing the songs and reciting the quotes, so going back to it is going back to my childhood.

The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh follows Pooh (Sterling Holloway) and his friends as they go through, well, many adventures. Released during the so-called "Disney Dark Age", it is comprised of several short featurettes that are tied together by themes of weather, accepting your friends, and the passage of time.

This rewatch was in preparation for a future guest spot I will have on some friend's podcast, and we were live-tweeting along with their listeners. It was a lot of fun to share with others the joy of this rather innocent and charming look at childhood. It is interesting how, unlike others animated films, this one is significantly more "childish" and features no typical "villains" or story arcs. This makes for a rather refreshing watch.

The film does lose a bit of momentum for me once Tigger (Paul Winchell) is introduced. I've never been a fan of him, but also one of the first sequences where he appears feels more like a lull, instead of the more lively and energetic others.

Despite that, the film manages to close beautifully with a bittersweet and melancholic epilogue between Pooh and Christopher Robin; a reminder that time undoubtedly passes, and that sometimes we can't just go back to page one, but have to say goodbye instead.

Grade:

Set 50 years after the original, Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young entrepreneurs planning to create a trendy, tourist spot in the now abandoned town of Harlow, Texas. Leading the group are sisters Mel and Lila (Sarah Yarkin and Elsie Fisher), the latter of which is still coping with the aftermath of a school shooting. When they inadvertently "reawaken" Leatherface, the group must decide whether to run or fight for their lives.

The notion of "not running", but rather doing something, is very much present in the film as it also brings us the sole survivor of the original film, Sally (Olwen Fouéré), who famously managed to flee the scene of the crime. However, she is still haunted by the past and is determined not to run anymore, but to finish Leatherface once and for all.

The film is directed by David Blue Garcia, a relative newcomer that was brought up into the film after the original directors were fired for creative differences. I'm not sure if it is my knowledge of this, but the film does give out the sense that there might've been too many cooks in the kitchen at some points. There is an infamous scene (seen in the trailer) that feels very much awkward and jarring in terms of tone with the rest of the film.

Not only that, but the script by Chris Thomas Devlin seems to spit topics and themes out, not because they want to do something with them, but just because they're trendy it seems. Oh, let's take jabs at racism, gentrification, gun control and school shootings, social media, cancel culture... but none of those really matter much in the end or even work out in the context that they're presented.

The character of Sally also seems somewhat mishandled, and although like I said, the theme of "not running" is very much present, her overall arc didn't even feel necessary, but more like a plot device for other characters. Despite all these flaws, the film is not a complete miss. The tension for most of the film is well executed, and the gore and kills are on point.

The final act had a couple of cringey moments, some of which were predictable and telegraphed from the beginning, and others that made me roll my eyes to the back of my head, reminding me of what dumb slasher films typically do. However, there is something that happens in the very end that really caught me off guard, and left me with a wide, stupid grin on my face.

Grade:

After thinking on this, I've decided that, aside from the excellent gore, this is my favorite element in the film. As moder horror has become increasingly didactic in its politics and uses them as a sales point, rather than subtext, this felt refreshingly irreverent. It sets ALL these "elevated horror" talking points up only to passively toss them aside in favor of chainsaw mayhem.

Folks keep bringing up the "you're cancelled, bro" scene but don't seem to recognize the darkly comedic brilliance of that immediately preceding that bus sequence. As if the filmmakers are saying "NONE of that matters if someone is chasing you with a chainsaw."

And ya know what... They just may be brilliantly, stupidly right about that

I might agree, if there had been any more similar comedic winks, winks throughout. But that specific sequence felt like an odd duck in what I thought was a fairly grounded horror film up to that point. As a matter of fact, I think that's the only bit that seems to play tongue-in-cheek, unless I might've missed something in the process.

I just heard an interview with the director where he brought up that scene and said it was his idea to add the cellphone angle, and although I kinda agree with his reasoning, I don't think the execution was that effective.

That is the statement of Alonzo (Lon Chaney) as he feels his love for his circus partner, Nanon (Joan Crawford), being threatened by someone. His obsession will lead him to do anything, he says. But will he own up to that?

The Unknown follows Alonzo, a fugitive that poses as an armless circus freak to hide his identity. He is secretly smitten with Nanon, the daughter of the ringmaster. The thing is that Nanon has a fear of men and their arms, which makes her shun the advances of Malabar (Norman Kerry), the circus strongman.

After killing someone at the circus in a fit of rage, and with Malabar insisting on Nanon, Alonzo sees himself forced to fulfill his vow of doing anything to "own" her. Unfortunately, obsession can lead someone to do crazy things, which is exactly what happens to Alonzo.

This film had been recommended to me by a few people, but I hadn't been able to check it out. I was pleasantly surprised by how good and raw it was. The lead cast is pretty solid, and the sense of dread is successfully built through all the film. Also, unlike other romantic films of the time, this one feels more real and organic, probably because it takes time to develop.

Chaney once again proves why he was one of the biggest stars of the silent era. His facial expressions are key and he does such a great job of transmitting a wide array of emotions in the character. In addition, the ending really managed to keep me on the edge, so kudos to Browning, whose career I'm starting to become more curious about.

Grade:

I do overall like this film. But there are two moments that just make me laugh, and the first is when Nanon is like "UGH! MEN and their ARMS!!!!" LOL.

The second is the blunt, on-the-nose writing in the sequence where (MAJOR SPOILERS)

Yeah, I kinda made a mini-picture in my mind that her fear of "arms" was a result of some abuse she was subjected to, which kinda made those moments to *not feel* that silly,

I think it's nearly impossible to believe that she hasn't been the victim of physical or sexual abuse (or both) from a man or men in her life. I think that the idea of her having this phobia about being touched---despite working a job that puts her on display in a skimpy costume---is a powerful and interesting one.

But I do find some aspects of the final act a little silly, mostly because I find it really unrealistic that she would do such a dramatic 180 just because she met a nice guy.

Like I said, I like the film overall. But some of the writing is so on-the-nose as to be a little hard to take with a straight face for me.

I understand, but at least the film leads us to believe that the 180 takes time; all the time it takes Alonzo to have his surgery, recover, and return.

That's true. I liked it a lot more on my second viewing. The finale is awesomely nuts.

That's the exchange between Lt. Bishop (Austin Stoker) and his superior, upon receiving his assignment of supervising a soon-to-be-abandoned police precinct. The job doesn't seem that appealing to him, but you gotta follow orders. No "wannabe hero" shenanigans for him, right? That is unless some gang members get any crazy ideas in their heads.

Assault on Precinct 13 follows the newly promoted officer as he takes over the abandoned precinct, along with a skeleton crew. When a grieving father shoots a gang leader and then seeks refuge in the precinct, a horde of gang members siege the building, forcing Bishop to join forces with a prisoner called Wilson (Darwin Joston) in order to survive.

This was John Carpenter's second film and I was surprised it was my first time watching it. The premise is simple, and Carpenter doesn't muddy it with overt exposition or unnecessary subplots. It's just a group of people, trapped inside a building, trying to stay alive. The comparisons with Night of the Living Dead, which was an inspiration for Carpenter, are more accurate than I would've thought.

The director successfully builds up tension, starting with a shocking and bold shooting that sparks the events of the film, continuing down to the very last face-off between the survivors and the endless horde of criminals. Like any zombie film, Carpenter treats the enemies as just faceless, nameless thugs trying to pour into the precinct.

The chemistry and dynamic between the trapped characters, most notably Bishop and Wilson, is great. There is an attempt to build some sort of vague relationship between Wilson and Leigh (Laurie Zimmer), one of the office workers at the precinct, but it is ultimately unnecessary. Other than that, the film absolutely complies with what it sets out to do.

Grade: