Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2021 Edition

Hey, if it's not for you, it's not for you I think it's one of the best action franchises, and one of the most consistent.

I've just started diving into Kurosawa during the last few years. Like I wrote in my review, this is only my fifth film of his. I can even say that I feel sorta like you but about Seven Samurai (liked it, but it really didn't grab me). Need to give it a rewatch. What others would you put above Ran?

The Omen is so ingrained in my mind after having watched it endlessly during my childhood/teenage years. I also love the sequel, but I haven't seen it in decades. Not sure how it would fare now.

Definitely worth a watch!

__________________

From what I've seen of Kurosawa's films, I like Throne of Blood the most. I didn't give it enough credit when I first saw it, but I've warmed up to it over time. My jaw dropped a number of times out of pure amazement of all the visuals Kurosawa was able to put together for it. Watch that one next if you haven't already done so, Thief.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Personally I prefer Ikiru, Seven Samurai, The Bad Sleep Well, Yojimbo, Sanjuro and High And Low from him over Ran but that's just me and there's plenty think otherwise.

Out of the 5 I've seen, Throne of Blood is my #2. It was my #1, until I saw Ran. But I agree. The visuals are impressive, and there's a lot of what I mentioned in my Ran review about great shot composition and use of symmetry. I love it.

Ikiru is on my short list for "soon", and so is High and Low. Those are the ones I'm more curious about from the ones I haven't seen.

Look forward to reading your thoughts on both.

The above line is uttered by an artist, almost inadvertently, during a party showcased during the middle "episode" of Federico Fellini's La Dolce Vita. But the relevance of that line and that philosophy is central to the film, which follows journalist and womanizer Marcello (Marcello Mastroianni), as he navigates through Rome's nightlife and lifestyle of the rich and famous.

The film's story, which is split into seven separate vignettes, is said to represent the Seven Deadly Sins, or the Seven Hills of Rome, or the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. But while I try to make sense of all those symbolisms, on the surface the film features Marcello struggling with his relationship with volatile fiancée Emma (Yvonne Furneaux) as he also goes about his job as a gossip columnist and socialite, while mingling with celebrities and wallowing in the excesses of sex and drinking.

However, deep down Marcello craves a more meaningful life. He confesses as much to his friend and role model Steiner (Alain Cuny), who as opposed to Marcello, enjoys "partying" with intellectuals, poets, and philosophers instead. It is at this party that we hear the above quote, and up to this point, we've already seen Marcello flirt, engage, and possibly more, with sunbathers, a prostitute, a wealthy heiress (Anouk Aimée), and an actress (Anita Ekberg), not to mention Emma.

For the rest of the film, Marcello continues his descent as he visits a nightclub, an aristocrat party, and a decadent party in a beach house. He's restless, burning, as if constantly looking for something, anything to distract him or take him out of a life he doesn't want, while longing for a life that might not be as good as he thinks. Should he "freeze" or "burn" himself?

Marcello is a tough character to analyze. He's not entirely likable; after all, he's a womanizer, he's unfaithful, and has outbursts of violence and excesses. Putting aside whatever symbolisms each may have, to see every single woman he meets fall at his feet also made me roll my eyes often. But anyway, to add to his complicated persona, Marcello also works at a job that's not the most liked. Still, as a middle-aged man myself, I can't help but sympathize with his search for meaning and purpose, even if I disagree with the ways he goes about it.

At the end of the film, Marcello doesn't seem to be any more closer to finding out about his life as he was at the beginning of the film, but he does seem to be more at peace with just not knowing where "the sweet life" will lead him.

Grade:

Dropped the latest episode of Thief's Monthly Movie Loot today, where I talk with Erik Anderson (from Awards Watch) about the Oscars past, present, and future. We also share our Top 5 Best Picture winners, so feel free to check it out.

Thief's Monthly Movie Loot 35: The Oscars Loot (with Erik Anderson)

Spotify users can check it out here.

Barry Lyndon follows the exploits of the titular Irishman, an opportunist that comes from humble means but sets himself to become an aristocrat at any cost during the 18th Century. The above quote is the vow that his mother declares as she joins and instigates many of the dubious dealings to elevate his son's social status.

Barry Lyndon (Ryan O'Neal) is, by all means, an insignificant person, that fights in insignificant skirmishes during the war, and gets involved in insignificant romances. His life history is bookended by insignificant duels for insignificant reasons, all while he aspires to achieve significance, to no avail.

This is the second time I watch this, and although I was a bit lukewarm on my first viewing, I ended up appreciating it a lot more this time. Present in it is Kubrick's perennial theme of dehumanization, as we see Lyndon dehumanized by his desire to climb the social ladder, which he briefly achieves, but to the expense of everyone around him.

It is ironic to think that Kubrick's original idea was to make a biopic about Napoleon, a man of allegedly small stature but great achievements, but then went the other way to make a film about Lyndon, a tall man (O'Neal is 6'1") but, again, of insignificant achievements. O'Neal might not be the best actor, the few emotional moments needed for his character are a bit lacking, but I think he was the best actor for this role.

But other than Lyndon's ups and downs through the aristocrat path, what takes center stage on this film is the amazing direction, cinematography, set design, and whatnot. The film is one of the most gorgeous films I've seen with every shot seemingly taken from a painting. There is a subtext in that, as we see characters that are essentially immoral and insignificant, surrounded by this facade of beauty in the background and surroundings.

As much as Barry and his mother tried to achieve significance, through "important friends" and money, their attempts ended up being fruitless in the end. Fate wasn't in Barry's favor, but it was in favor of this film which, despite being previously seen as rather insignificant amidst Kubrick's oeuvre, has gained more favor recently. It certainly did with me.

Grade:

Set in an isolated fictional community called "The Bathtub", Beasts of the Southern Wild follows the lives of 6-year old Hushpuppy (Quvanzhané Wallis) and her father, Wink (Dwight Henry). The two live in extreme poverty as they struggle to take care of each other. Their lives, essentially broken by past events: be it the abandonment of Hushpuppy's mother or Wink's deteriorating health. To make matters worse, a huge storm lashes the community, leaving its residents to fend for themselves.

Rookie director Benh Zeitlin chooses a somewhat unconventional approach to the film, with a mostly raw and down-to-earth approach to filming that fits the "crudeness" of the life in this community. But he also mixes a social and environmental commentary about climate change with a fantasy element represented by the approach of the "aurochs", some primitive creatures that have broken free from the ice and are heading to "The Bathtub".

It is in this fantasy element that lies the film's main weakness. I kinda understand the intention, but I don't think it was successfully integrated into the main story. As a result, there's a bit of a jarring shift as the film tries to weave that symbolism into the plot. Ultimately, I don't think it was necessary at all.

The focus of the story is, and should've only been, the dynamics between Hushpuppy and Wink, and how they try to put the pieces of their life back together. Both Wallis and Henry deliver a pair of great performances, which is more impressive considering that none of them were actors. Henry wasn't even looking to audition, but decided to read for the part after he met the film crew who used to have breakfast at his bakery.

I watched this film for the first time in 2013, and I really didn't feel a lot of change in how I felt now in 2021 from what I felt then. Maybe the melodrama was a bit more off-putting now than it was then. However, I felt a stronger connection and more of a "punch" from both Hushpuppy and Wink than I felt then. Perhaps it's called "parenting".

Grade:

I've only seen Barry Lyndon once, and that was over a decade ago, but I'd probably give it a straight-up 10, and I'm way overdue for a rewatch/review of it.

The doctrine of "mutually assured destruction", which became popular during the end of World War II and the subsequent Cold War, establishes that if two opposing countries were to engage in full-scale nuclear attacks, the only result would be the complete annihilation of both. It serves as a chilling deterrent against nuclear weapons, not necessarily because you don't want to use them, but only because you don't want them to be used *on you*. That is what the characters in this French action thriller remind themselves of before embarking on a dangerous mission.

The Wolf's Call follows a group of sailors aboard two separate submarines: the Formidable, a nuclear submarine led by Captain Grandchamp (Reda Kateb), and the Titan, led by Captain D'Orsi (Omar Sy), which will escort the Formidable to the sea, where both sides will have to face extremely challenging decisions. But the focus of the story is on Chanteraide (François Civil), a sonar expert who has "golden ears" and specializes in underwater acoustics. His hearing is so acute that he can identify boats, submarines, sea animals, based only on their sounds, which puts the safety of his fellow sailors heavily on his shoulders.

I knew little to nothing about this film, but based on the favorable reception it has on a few film sites, I decided to check it out. Indeed, the film kickstarts with an extremely tense encounter during the first act, where the Titan has to stealthily extract a special forces team from enemy territory. This whole sequence ends up being intense and nerve-wracking. Unfortunately, the middle act drags a bit as the sailors expect for their next mission, which happens to be an apparent nuclear attack from Russia, which forces our heroes to decide whether to fight back or not.

Overall, this film does a lot of good things right. The attention to detail as far as submarine operations and procedures go, seems to be on point, the tension during the attack scenes is effectively executed, and the performances from most of the cast are solid. My main issue is with Chanteraide, who is pushed as the main character. But with a bland performance from Civil and pretty much no character development for a character that frequently behaves more like an annoying and irresponsible whiner instead of a trained soldier, there's not much to hold on to.

On the other hand, when the focus is on Grandchamp, D'Orsi, or the Admiral in Command (Mathieu Kassovitz), the film manages to stay afloat. The Wolf's Call might not be a great film, but still manages to hold your attention with taut and tight direction, some cool action sequences, and solid supporting characters. If you're into this kind of film, don't let my quibbles deter you from giving it a shot.

Grade:

My special episode #5, where I analyze a specific scene I love from a film I love, is out. In it, I talk about the conversation between Michael and Fredo from The Godfather Part II:

Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - Special Episode V (The Godfather Part II)

So what better way to celebrate Al Pacino's birthday and Oscar night today than to listen to me babbling about Pacino's best performance in one of the Best Picture winners ever?

Spotify users can check it out here.

That's how easily a couple of police officers dismiss the crime of a stolen bicycle. But to poor Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani), it means the loss of a steady income and food on the table. It is a devastating loss that could impact the lives of his family for a long time. So what can he do then?

Set in post-World War II Italy, Bicycle Thieves follows Antonio, a poor man looking for the bicycle that was stolen from him which he desperately needs to keep his job. Antonio, like many other Italians during this time, is desperate for work to support his young family and this job represents a steady income and ultimately food on the table for him, his wife, and their two young children.

One of the many things this film does magnificently is to show how chaotic the economic situation was after the war. From the crowd of people looking for work or the towering stack of belongings that we see have been pawned at the shop to the push and shove of people trying to get on a bus to get to work. In a country so affected by war, any work is a lifeline, and that lifeline is represented by this bicycle, which is not "just a bicycle".

That desperation is perfectly portrayed by Maggiorani, who transmits so much of that hopelessness through his eyes, face, and body language. He is joined in the search by his young son, Bruno (Enzo Staiola), who does an equally great job of showing mixtures of frustration and confusion amidst all of this (Another sign of the hard times is the fact that this 8-9 year old kid is seen working at a gas station).

But what I loved about this film is how it blurs the lines between "good" and "bad" as the plot progresses, which really makes us reevaluate our feelings through the first half of the film. The struggle that we see in Antonio is the struggle in all of us, desperate, holding to whatever lifeline we have, even if it's "just a bicycle".

Grade:

That's part of the flirting back and forth between the main characters of Jean-Luc Godard's first film. This is peppered between existential conversations, talks about past lovers, ambitions, goals, and the occasional lies. And even though there's an obvious attraction, they just don't seem to be in the same wavelength; they don't jive. Which more or less explains how I felt while watching this film.

Breathless follows Michel (Jean-Paul Belmondo), a small-time but dangerous criminal who is on the run after shooting a cop. Desperate, he seeks refuge with Patricia (Jean Seberg), a former love interest that is an aspiring journalist in Paris. Even though she doesn't know much about Michel, his past, or even that he's on the run, she still spends most of the film resisting his romantic advances or dancing around the idea of being with him, as they wander carefree around Paris.

Breathless was released in 1960 and is considered as one of the earliest examples of French New Wave cinema. Its revolutionary editing and use of jump cuts, as well as the overall visual style are worth noting. Godard's handling of the camera on several continuous shots is also pretty neat and impressive. Belmondo and Seberg's performances aren't that bad either.

But like Patricia and Michel, I found myself falling in and out of it all through. First, Michel is, by his own admission, "an a$$hole". But more important than that, I didn't think his story was interesting at all. He's just a thief waiting to meet someone that owes him money, and that's it. So what we're left is with his interactions with Patricia, and even though there are a couple of interesting lines about philosophy and existentialism, as a whole, it doesn't amount to much in terms of a story that could've grabbed me.

Overall, I can appreciate Breathless place in film history as well as some of its technical aspects, and it's a good checkbox to tick off my list. But to be honest, if you ask me to say something nice about it, I don't know.

Grade:

There is a saying that goes "only when facing certain death, can you live life to the fullest". Maybe that's true, maybe not, but I think most people that are nearing the end of their lives, or that have gone through near-death situations, would agree that in that moment, priorities change, and so might the way our values work. That is the situation faced by the characters in Stanley Kramer's post-apocalyptic drama.

Set in an alternate reality where World War III has devastated half of the planet, On the Beach follows a group of characters that are sheltered in Australia, which has managed to escape the nuclear fallout, but not for so long. As radiation threatens to reach them, the characters scramble for options: from looking for other habitable places to staying where they are and face certain death, from clinging to memories of the past to embracing new love.

Among the main characters, there is Commander Dwight Lionel Towers (Gregory Peck), a stoic military man quietly mourning the loss of his family, until he meets Moira (Ava Gardner). In addition, we have Lt. Commander Peter Holmes (Anthony Perkins), a young man assigned to serve under Towers, while desperately weighing the options for her young wife and baby child. Finally, there's Julian Osborn (Fred Astaire), an aging scientist that seems to be more cynical about the war and the prospects of the future, while also seeming to be more at peace with it.

It is Julian the one who says the above quote, when faced with questions about how he felt in the past about someone. But the point is that it doesn't matter anymore. However he felt in the past is not important anymore; his "sense of values seem to have changed". But the same applies to all the characters, all of which end up making decisions down the road that seem to go against what they believe in normal situations, but that make more sense in the face of certain death.

From the moment someone brought up this film and I read the synopsis, I was intrigued by the premise. Even though the film does dwell quite a bit into sappy melodrama, it manages to balance it pretty well with the bleakness of the story, which I found surprising for a 1959 mainstream film full of "big stars". In that regards, the film does manage to deliver an ending that packs a punch. The pace is slow, with most of it being conversations between the characters about how to face the future, but I never felt it dragged too much.

As for the performances, Peck is a bit too cold, which suits his character, but I wouldn't have minded a bit more emotion from him. Perkins is a bit uneven, with some parts where he goes too far, but has some good moments. The best performances come from Gardner, but especially from Astaire, who I thought was pretty darn good and who has probably the best lines. His arc, and probably Perkins, are the most interesting.

This is a film where, for most of its duration, I went a bit up and down with it. Maybe it was the excessive melodrama that came up from time to time. But, like most of its characters, as it approached its ending, my feelings changed; I appreciated what it set out to do a bit more. Let's say that my sense of values seem to have changed.

Grade:

A film with a title that starts with the letters G or H:
The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (1966)

A film from the Criterion Collection whose number includes the #4 (i.e. 14, 340, 714):
#24 High and Low (1963)
Part of my Kurosawa project. The first hour was suspenseful and brilliant and I was ready to call this my favorite. I found the second half (slightly) less compelling so I knocked my rating down a bit but this is still an excellent film. If I were ranking the Kurosawas I've seen this would be Top 5 or 6 no doubt.

A film from the 1940s:
The Fighting Kentuckian (1949)
Before this month I hadn't watched many John Wayne films (like maybe only 1). This did not make me a fan by any means, but it was of interest to me because his lovable sidekick was played by none other than Oliver Hardy. Unfortunately this was a John Wayne Film, not a Wayne 'n' Hardy film, so Ollie's screen time was limited. As an L&H fan I'm glad to have seen this for completionist reasons, but it would be a hard one to recommend to others. The plot? I dunno, Wayne was from Kentucky and liked a girl or something.

A drama film:
The Shadow on the Window (1957)
An under-the-radar thing that turned out to be pretty good and surprisingly gritty. Some thugs murder a fella and take his secretary hostage, because she witnessed the crime. Not a lost classic or anything but we'll file it under "pleasant surprise". The secretary was played by the future Edna Babish of Laverne & Shirley, and her son is played by Jerry "Beaver" Mathers. Directed by William Asher (Butcher, Baker, Nightmare Maker)

A film primarily set in a submarine (Nat'l Submarine Day, April 11):
Operation Pacific (1951)
John Wayne again. When he's not submarining, he's pining for his ex-wife Patricia Neal. (Neal was 25, Wayne was 44)

__________________
Captain's Log
My Collection

I finished my challenge last night with Doomed!, the documentary about Roger Corman's Fantastic Four film. So what else to do today? Of course, watch Roger Corman's Fantastic Four film I'm halfway through, so two reviews pending

oops, forgot one:

A film with a title that starts with the letters G or H:
The Ghost in the Invisible Bikini (1966)
How To Stuff a Wild Bikini (1965)

Yikes! I've seen Doomed but haven't had the courage to brave the actual "film". I tip my hat to you, sir.