Movie Tab II

The Game



A wealthy billionaire receives a gift from his troubled brother. It turns out to be a gift card for a program at customer recreational service. Initially hesitant to use it due to his busy lifestyle he eventually decides to give it a try. As part of registration he is asked to under go an extensive set of tests in wide variety of departments. Intellectual and biological. With a little uncertainty he is made aware that the game has begun.

The movie has a dark tone to it. Its funny how the movie doesn't have a sex scene because every aspect of the movie gives indication that there will be one at some point in the movie.The movie will be a little too predictable to anyone who is watching it for the first time now. You can see some twists coming from a mile away.But for 1997 crowd I think the twists might be a surprise. David Fincher is an auteur. But his directorial style is easy to copy and his auteur range is limited. His style quickly dissipates if he tries to do different kinds of movies. He is strong as long as he sticks with making movies about deviant people doing deviant things. Even a movie like Benjamin Button has a lot of mean characters.

The movie starts with a video recorder footage of Michael Douglas from his childhood. It highlights the strained relationship with his incredibly rich father. Eventually he kills himself. All this forms a very strong foundation to the personality of Michael D. He is the responsible on in his family and his brother is out there and is probably an addict running away from responsibilities. We meet Michael Douglas at a stage in his life when he is suffering from midlife crisis but his position of privilege forces him to suck it up and live a rich life. This is the first point of disconnect in this movie. Its very hard for audience to connect with and relate to a character who is super rich unless he is Bruce Wayne. So audience are left wondering why doesn't he just suck it up and live in a 100 million dollar building. What this does is it relegates the movie into a genre picture and doesn't emotionally resonate with audience. Audience from this point on are in it for thrills and scares and nothing else. With that out of the way. The movie has a city underbelly feel to it. Once our protagonist signs up to this shady company, his world starts changing. His privacy starts shrinking. Director captures that very well. Whats more interesting is the world of his high powered executive is already a shady world and add to that this organisation, it becomes increasingly clear that the guy is unprepared for whats coming. Its most definitely a 90s movie. You can see all the cheesiness in the movie. Douglas plays the role like he did wall street's Gordon Gekko. But with a little more compassion. Sean Penn is okay in the movie.

The movie does paranoia 90s style like JFK but little more heightened and simple. Its like Fincher said "The Sting on steroids". The resources of recreation center seem endless and vast. They set up and dismantle offices overnight. They own whole buildings. While signing up the company rep mentions that the service offers everything he doesn't have. As the movie goes on, one by one the checklist starts filling up. Initially the games offers him thrill. Slowly it seemingly takes away everything he has. Whats starts as petty becomes dangerous. The game never lets up. Its like an elaborate sting where in our character is always one step behind. It plays with deception very well. Whom you can trust and whom you cannot. There is a meta quality to it all. Movies are make believe and this film is showing movie within a movie. But its in Fincher style. The difference between this and something like the sting is that this movie hides its cards from us where as the stings shows all its cards. That's a problem because if you hide your cards, you are becoming a mystery thriller. You are forcing audience to figure out the mystery and not just be entertained by the film as a whole. Its like holding carrot at the end of dirty road. Audience don't bother that the road is dirty and will only focus on the carrot. The days and nights blend in the movie so well. The days are cloudy and nights are neon filled. But to me, the best part of the movie is the way game makes him realize his privilege. Loosing it all has a special meaning in the movie. There is a sequence in the movie where our character is kidnapped and placed in a graveyard in mexico I think. The movie has a very distinct color and cinematography to it. The character doesn't have any money on him in a foreign country. He is brought down to earth by his sudden poverty. He is humbled forcibly.The shots of Michael Douglas walking on the streets of mexico in in white dusty suit among the public and with that cinematography is breathtaking. It captures a man who lost everything and doesn't belong there. He is forced into situations and conversations that he never thought he would be. Begging an immigration officer for money.

All these are good ,but the movie falls into a repetitive cycle. As we go deep into the story everything our character gets involved in feels a little staged. Lot of things come at him at once. Apart from suspension of disbelief , the kind of unrealistic nature of these elaborate stings gives the illusion that anything is possible. Which is not a good thing. Perfect is never interesting. The movie should have had scenarios where Michael Douglas veers of planned path and the whole sting sort of morphs according to new parameters. This would have made the movie interesting. He just falls into the trap like a duck.Nonetheless the movie does play with the idea of perceived danger vs actual danger. By the third act most of 1997 audience would have been exactly where Fincher wanted them to be. That is a good thing. All these makes the movie a good genre movie instead of a good movie. Director plays the mystery card early on and doesn't let up. Its a cable watch movie.

The Exorcist



An evil possess a teenage girl and the movie chronicles how that effects everyone around it and ultimately human faith.

William Fried-kin was just below Spielberg,Scorsese and Coppola in terms of popularity and impact on cinema in the 70s. He won an Oscar for French Connection. There are two kinds of bad-ass movies. Realistic Bad ass and heightened bad ass. Realistic bad ass is much more subtle like French Connection where as heightened bad ass is good fellas. Realistic bad ass holds a mirror to the time period its set in where as heightened bad ass can only be seen in cinemas. Its not that realistic. Its a fantasy. If you watch french connection, you would know that it plays like a horror thriller. Its a game of mind and wit. Who blinks their eye first kind of conflict. The trifecta of films he made in 70s french connection, exorcist and sorcerer share the same DNA.

That brings us to this movie. Anyone who knows the promotional material about this movie would assume that since its an american movie and is called exorcist the movie is heavily based on Christianity. But whats jarring and kind of unique about this movie is that when the title card is displayed on screen you would hear Urdu(language predominantly spoken by Muslims) prayers. So that kind of throws a wrench into conventional expectations. The movie opens in Iraq where a priest interested in excavating ruins comes across a demonic figurine. This is where a mild element of surrealism seeps into the movie. What you are seeing is not supernatural at this point. All you see is a guy being uneasy after looking at a small rock and then being uneasy where ever he goes that day. But later we find out that the priest comes across a demonic statue and realizes that he is needed somewhere else in the world and the figurine shown earlier belongs to the devil and their excavations unleashed the devil.One of the interesting things about the movie is its decision to leave things a little ambiguous. Its an adaptation but nonetheless movie has to be treated as his own and this movie leaves a lot of stuff to imagination. Its one of those rare instances where imagination works better than whats in the movie.

The movie then cuts to 1970s america. The movie has lot of themes going on without being overt. We see the main character is an actress. We see her shooting a scene. Its interesting how this movie decides to use the family of a celebrity as the victim. I think devil is choosing a victim who has most hope and promise in life. If the victim was a starving family in a remote village, the devil doesn't have much will power and life force to chew on. The family is already giving up on life. But if a well to do family in western country is chosen then there is lot of will power and life force that it can drain from its victim and its family. Another main character in the movie is a priest. He doesn't look like an ideal type for being a priest. He is an ex boxer and is pretty athletic. If you read my review for Sorcerer or seen that movie, you would know that Friedkin has a talent for setting a mood that permeates through the whole movie. No matter the location. In Sorcerer there is a dark brooding tone that lasted the whole movie and sustained across various locations and settings. In a similar way the evil in this movie is centered around the room of teenage daughter of the actress. But the sense of dread and horror due to this evil can be felt through the movie and by that I mean the streets of Washington, halls of church , the house of our priest, train station at night, iraq and even a park in middle of the day. All that credit goes to Friedkin. He masterfully was able to intertwine those elements. In most of these movies conventional medical treatment is given very little value. People go to doctor once and then they deal with the supernatural. But the movie spends considerable amount of time testing the subject. The movie almost makes you believe that there are certain things which cannot be understood by science. The movie doesn't make a big deal about how the child was possessed. The erratic behavior of the girl increases with time. What the filmmakers choose to highlight as evil is very interesting. Most of the times when one thinks of evil they go to murder or scares but this movie considers even the most seemingly harmless things as evil. A teenage girl using curse words is considered un-characteristic and evil. Lack of social manners is considered evil. The way the movie tries to depict possession is by displaying change in character traits of a teenager. At an age when a teenager is much more concerned with self image and insecurity, the last thing she wants to do is break social norms and attract attention for wrong reasons. Even cursing is like that. In the second act of the movie there is a murder. Which leads to an investigative story-line. A police officer investigates a murder and tries to connect the dots which could lead to the house of possession. But filmmakers are much more interested in the trauma this incident adds up-to and not a police procedural story line. Even the ambiguity surrounding the murder is masterfully done. We don't see the actual crime committed. If I were to imagine, the scene would involve the boyfriend of our lead who was babysitting the possessed girl is killed by the devil in her. The scene would involves him being pushed or thrown onto a set of stairs outside the house and he lands at the bottom of it. None of it is shown and we are left of fill in the blanks after only the aftermath is revealed. That's much more terrifying because we don't know the clear motive. The procedure of exorcism and the practical ways the church deals with exorcism is also odd and interesting. I mean, we got a girl acting all crazy and the church needs proof to approve a procedure called exorcism. The odd circumstances of this whole event is pretty weird. The young priest mentioned earlier plays a key role in the movie. The movie wants you to believe the practicality of a possession and the practicality of an exorcism. So, during the exorcism when a priest is told that the devil will try to play mind games , we know exactly what kind of impact it has on its victims. The movie doesn't have cheap scares.

During the final act, the movie re-introduces the priest we saw at the beginning of the movie. It a brilliant way to do it because the last time we saw him was when he was staring at a huge statue of devil. So he brings all that eeriness with him when he is re introduced for the first time. The actual exorcism is a much more mind game and is very interesting. The devil tries to curse , scare and use their guilt against them. The ending of the movie as abrupt as it is seems to fit the rest of the movie.

Negatives about the movies are very few but glaring. One of the things that bothered me about the movie is how brave everyone is. I mean, if I was living in places where possession is common then I wouldn't be bothered by all this but when I am someone living in city in America then if I was someone working in this house where there are loud noises and all this scary stuff happening all the time, then I wouldn't even go into the house.The casualness of it all is really unrealistic in the movie. At a certain point as the movie gets going, the girl literally looks like a demon. Even at that point, a servant in the house is going into her house midnight and checking out her belly. I mean, who does that ? I think by this point, people feel that the daughter may have killed her mothers boyfriend. Even the mother goes alone into room to check on her daughter. So, all this is effecting the movie in a negative way. The priests see that the girl is lifting beds and looking scary as hell and I can accept that during exorcism they are willing to stay in the room. But if I were them, I wouldn't go into the room alone.All this started stacking up as the movie went along. Even the way certain story-line intertwined didn't work that well. The investigative story-line is meant to be metaphor for something but that didn't make much sense.

There is a narrative weakness I found in the movie.In movies where director is choosing to show the progression of something, they usually use a narrative where in they keep coming back to the story line. A story line starts, they cuts to another story line and then after a while they cutback to the initial story line. If the original story line is not strong enough then this feels like a repetitive cycle. Sports movie has this all the time and since the effect is compounded in them it feels repetitive. In the main story line itself they have multiple games. So you have multiple start , play and end in one story line itself. Same with racing movies. You gotta show multiple games in the same movie. So the novelty of going into a race for the first time is already lost. So in this movie after a while the story follows a repetitive beat. The girl is little crazy , something else happens and then the girl gets crazier. The girl is crazier and then some other character is shown and then the girl gets even more crazier. That becomes evident.

Despite all these inconsistencies I was able to get the tight rope the movie is walking. It is trying to deal with exorcism and concept of possession as a real thing. What if it happened in real world. The ghost wouldn't fly into the sky and scare the whole city like ghost busters. It has its limits and it has its ways it kills people in ambiguous way. The atmospheric eeriness is the ultimate achievement of this movie. It was able to capture how evil can effect all the people involved in this exorcism where ever they are. So in a way the movie doesn't let up. Usually movies have time off scenes. Audience are left to take a break from tension. But not this one. So all in all its a great horror movie and it has managed to do something that Hollywood is getting around to doing it again and that would be to focus on characters more than the scares itself. Director takes lot of time on the effects all this has on the mother of the girl.

Gilda (Charles Vidor, 1946) -

I guess this is okay as far as noirs go, but it still doesn't feel particularly special.

Paycheck (John Woo, 2003) -

Maybe the worst Woo movie, if only he doesn't seem like a natural fit for the material that waters down Philip K. Dick into a vacuous (yet not entirely unwatchable) high-concept action thriller. In many ways, it does feel like the PG-13 remake of Total Recall a decade before said remake actually happened (and is arguably worse to boot).

Dirty Dancing (Emile Ardolino, 1987) -

I think this is about as good as I could've expected it to be given its seemingly vapid high concept about a naive young woman falling for a bad-boy dance instructor with a heart of gold.

Dragonball: Evolution (James Wong, 2009) -

I was never into Dragon Ball so I don't feel the same white-hot anger about this Hollywood adaptation that the average fan would, but even taken as a standalone cinematic experience it's pretty embarrassing to watch.

Slither (James Gunn, 2006) -

An alien-themed body horror that definitely shows off Gunn's background in Troma movies and reverence for '80s schlock - for better and for worse.

Cutter's Way (Ivan Passer, 1981) -

A decent enough neo-noir of sorts about odd-couple Vietnam veterans who become involved in a possible conspiracy surrounding a dead body and a high-ranking politician. An appreciably '70s example of mystery narrative as postwar existentialism that is at the very least worth watching for John Heard's scenery-chewing turn as the eponymous Cutter.

Windtalkers (John Woo, 2002) -

Woo's heroic bloodshed sensibilities (not just in terms of depicting actual bloodshed but also when it comes to the conflicted loyalties that emerge between on-screen warriors) are at once a good fit for this true story about Native American soldiers fighting alongside white ones in the Pacific theatre but also seem misplaced more often than not.

Hush, Hush...Sweet Charlotte (Robert Aldrich, 1964) -

The spiritual successor to Whatever Happned to Baby Jane? isn't quite on the same level but it still does a good job of replicating the same twisted and tragic sense of energy.

The Breadwinner (Nora Twomey, 2017) -

Each Cartoon Saloon feature seems to get better than the last, which is just as well considering how good Song of the Sea ended up being. This tale about the hardships of life under the Taliban experiments with style while delivering a tight and tense narrative that still knows when to let its audience breathe.

Innerspace (Joe Dante, 1987) -

The archetypal Fantastic Voyage premise has its already-high concept amplified in this Spielberg-produced caper that sets up a buddy comedy between the micronaut and his host. Some remarkable effects work and Dante's madcap sensibilities are undercut by some sluggish pacing and rough characterisation that definitely stop this being as fun as it should've been.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

The Grey



After a passenger plane carrying Alaskan oil company workers crashes , they must fight for survival against a pack of wolves that are relentlessly hunting them.

When the revenant was getting a lot of praise at 2016 Oscars, I always used the grey as an example to point out that it wasn't the only film that had to endure cold vicious winters to make a movie. After re-watching it recently I stand by the statement. But there are some very weak elements in the movie. To discuss it we need to delve into the origins of this kind of movies. By this kind , I mean movie that gets green-lit based on a name actor attached to them. Make no mistake, there would be no grey without Liam Neeson. The intentions behind a movie like grey stem from financiers and script. Most importantly its the script. If there is any indication that the script for a movie is Oscar material then financiers will try and get it from the writer even though he is the director and gives it to a more established director. Because there are infinite ways a script can be directed with varying results.

Great scripts are tough to come by so when a great script is written, its always best to save it from other influences and give it to the guy who can make the best movie out of it. Sometimes that involves even the writer himself. For example, script for revenant can be directed in 100 different ways but in the hands of innaritu it became Oscar material. How does that happen ? well, it depends on the type of movie you make out of it. The degree of difficulty with which you want to capture the words on the paper with camera lens. Most of it comes down to money but with a solid 50 million $ any script can be captured with decent enough scope. The narrative choices and the setting of the scenes and editing choices. All this can lead to 100 types of movies. But it always starts with the script. There a few directors who can deliver the best possible movie from a great script like Spielberg , Scorsese, Nolan, Innaritu etc. These guys are well liked and they do add some of their personal touches to the script. Rest of the directors either has to be good at writing their own script or have to work with second rate scripts or if the scripts are not in the wheel house of top legendary directors then the director have to be in the next tier to pick up the script and make a great movie.

So the problem with the grey is, the script is very weak. I don't understand the point of making such a hard movie if the script is not great. As the movie begins, we quickly realize that we are dealing with a psychological movie. The lead character is in a existential crisis mode. He has nothing to live for. And then as they are retreating to their homes after a season of work, a plane crash changes everything. Movie after the plane crash is the weakest part. The director has many story-lines he wants to hit. One involves guilt and regret all these characters feel. One involves the primal nature of man coming to the surface. The way they form their own pack as they are hunted by the wolves with Liam Neeson being the alpha among men. And then we have the team comradery that is being formed. Even they have a wild card in Frank Grillo whose motives are not clear. He is anti Liam Neeson but with no proper intentions. He is opposing Liam Neeson's authority but for no real goal. Eventually they make up. All these are very predictable. There is nothing more to this movie than these characters being sad and evading the wolves and being killed by wolves or the elements. In between we get a national geographic lesson about wolves through Liam Neeson. The cold chilly thrill of being pursued by Wolves is a good genre trope to keep audience attentive but nonetheless its a trope.What was most surprising about the movie is how nothing happens. They start at the crash site, walk into the trees near by, walk through trees, go to the edge of a cliff and then go to wolves' den. It hard to capture the scope of ice unless you build something on it. Something like a wooden house or something. So for all we know the movie must have taken place in a 2 miles radius or less. In a way that kind of explains 25 million $ budget.

The movie does the grounded approach to this surreal scenario much more palatable. This movie highlights the directorial limitations of some lesser known directors. If Michael Bay , Peter Berg, Anton Fuqua and Gavin O Connor are macho directors who make movies for Budweiser drinking, football watching crowd then there are other directors who are stuck right in the middle of it like John Hill-coat, Scott Cooper and Joe Cornahan. These guys are not commercial directors but they are not action directors either. Their movies are stuck right in the middle and their movies semi feel like Auteur work , but the content of the script and skill of director is not that good. At the same time since the movies are not commercial, they are more than likely to bomb. Those elements are very evident in the movie. The director when making this movie would be thinking that he is making a great icy thriller with mature themes but the end result is a very thin plotted movie which can't seem to excel and even the scope is not captured. The movie alternates between present and past. So there is this cycle in the movie which is it starts with present and then there will be danger lurking and then the dream and repeat. This happens for the whole movie. I think wind river did a much better job regarding icy thriller than this movie. There is only so much you can do about stalking wolves. I think the movie may be much more interesting if it may have taken the route of man trying to reclaim his position as being at the top of food chain than what we got.This movie required extremely strong director who can directed his way out of a weak screenplay but Joe Carnahan was not the guy and also this is movie is a January release so they were hoping for a more commercial movie than a prestige movie. Its such a shame that this plot line wasn't taken full advantage of.

But as I said, this movie is worth the watch. The premise lends itself to a chilly thriller and what we got is a decent watch.

Predator 2



An alien hunts down people in 1990s Los Angeles.

I must agree that I went into this movie expecting a straight to video quality movie. But even though the movie is subpar to the first, the filmmakers of this movie got exactly what was appealing about the first movie. This movie makes it much more clear at the same time being subtle about the intentions of the predator.

We start off the movie with a shoot out in the streets of LA. This movie more so than the first captures the heat in the location. Nothing is hotter than a summer in LA. We recognize that the predator is watching a shoot out and this is a nod and a clear explanation of what a predator is looking for. It is looking for armed human that are essentially predators themselves. The shoot out harkens back to the jungle shoot out in the first. In that it picks on Arnolds team because they to be the better predators in the battle. My initial thought was that "how did this predator end up exactly in this place out of all the cities in the world ? couldn't it have stumbled upon a movie theater ? " and then I realized that it's not very often people carry guns with them at all. No one driving to their office carry a gun. So it makes perfect sense that it is exactly the right place for predator because not only guns are being carried but also being used in a shootout. Its a predator and it wants to fight people who are fighting and willing to fight. Not some guy working behind his desk or in a meeting with computer or book. In this shoot out our predator lays its eyes on our protagonist played by Donald Glover. He kind of takes control of the situation and single handedly saves lot of cops and proves to be the alpha of the winning team. So it has its eyes on Donald Glover and his team. But the predator kills the rest of the villain gang to prove to itself and Donald Glover indirectly that it is worthy of fighting him since both took out members from same gang.

This massacre of the rest of villain gang doesn't sit well with our hero because the deaths are similar to the first movie and souvenirs collected are odd and makes hero question who did this. That starts a chain reaction which pits each member of heroes team with the predator and it kills them one by one. The incident from the first movie has some consequences that bleed into this movie. And a secret government organization formed to capture and use the predator technology butts heads with our heroes team and is used as an expository plot device because they don't have much purpose other than help our hero catch up with the background of the predator. Nonetheless the movie plays with the urban paranoia and how that setting is affected by the presence of this alien. Thats a cool aspect.

The movie tries to do some innovative stuff but the need for quick pace and action takes the common sense out of the scenes and make them look stupid. The most interesting aspect about the movie is how consequential the story is. It never loses its steam. The movie starts and the game is on. The predator either comes in touch with the main characters or they go looking for it. There is never a parallel storyline that is running. It has single storyline through out. 'Its focused through out. Movie has an element of gangs and gangs violence in it. Which felt a little exaggerated. One thing I noticed about the movie is its African American and Latino heavy. I do think the studio must have seen the audience demographic for the first movie and realized that those audience are much more in number than caucasians and hence this movie is a little too overt in its diversity. Some parts felt a little too stereotypical.

So, even though the movie is a little boring, nonetheless the main positives about the movie is that it knows its audience, it got exactly what worked with the first one and the movie never lets up. I thought the predator would come in the story at the end of first act. But thats not the case. It is there in the movie from the get go. I do think changing the setting to a city is the only way for a sequel. They can't do it again in the jungle. I can't think of any better setting that builds upon the first and be expansive at the same time than what we got with this movie. Less stupid characters and strong story elements could have improved it.

Watched all this films this weekend! A very good weekend!!!!

Aguirre: The Wrath of God [1972] ‘Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes’ by Werner Herzog

★★★★★
I don't get tired of this one! Mesmerizing.

A Visitor to a Museum [1989] ‘Посетитель музея’ by Konstantin Lopushanskiy

★★★★★
This was INCREDIBLE! I need to hurry up and rewatch! Watched that ending four times in a row! Incredible! I need to write a review now! The real horror movie!

Hiroshima Mon Amour [1959] by Alain Resnais

★★★★
Lovely, sad, deep and well made!
Hi-ro-shi-ma!

Hereditary [2018] by Ari Aster

★★★
I can understan why many people liked it more than me, but it really deserves all this fuzz around it? Not for me, just a well made supernatural horror movie. The best thing about it it's that it doesn't waste my brain with stupids jump scares! But it's not scary at all.

El Cid [1961] by Anthony Mann

★★★★★
A great gem! How this film is 7.3 on IMDB while films like The Dark Knight are 9.0? Screw it! This is another proof that this sites are not trustable. The last sequence, when El Cid was in his horse, almost dead, running through the beach with Miklós Rózsa's organ playing in the background is one of the best moments in cinema history. You don't know what cinema is if you never watched this film.

The Asphalt Kiss [1981] ‘O Beijo no Asfalto’ by Bruno Barreto

★★★
A good movie about intolerance and sensationalism. Barreto is a very good brazilian director! The last scene is beautiful!

Total Recall [1990] by Paul Verhoeven

★★★★
One of the best Arnie movies, a very good sci-fi 'mindless' action movie with some of the best cheesy moments ever!

Hollow Man [2000] by Paul Verhoeven


★★★
Yep, another Verhoeven movie, this film rises some very great questions like: What would you do if you knew you couldn't be seen? It becomes a slasher in the last 30 minutes, a nice one!

Showgirls [1995] by Paul Verhoeven

★★★★
If people had paid more attention in the real intention about sexual abuse in the show business portrayed in this film, Weinstein wouldn't being a thing. In 1995 Verhoeven made this satire about the fade of the American Dream, the abuse of power in the showbusines, sexual abuse. It is overacted, over coreographed, everything it's over the top! And that was the ****ing point!
I respect Paul Verhoeven for disguising his films with a gargabe skin and putting so many efforts between the lines (like in Starship Troopers, a social satire)! I read somewhere that "if this was done by Paul Thomas Anderson, it would have been considered masterpiece." Well, I agree. It was made by a more competent director (Verhoeven >>>> PTA), and unfortunately was much criticized for the wrong reasons!

The Wages of Fear



A group of daily labor stuck in a village that's middle of nowhere are given a lifeline when they are presented with a deadly job of carrying highly volatile nitro glycerin to a destination.

I watched it after Sorcerer. So the black and white treatment to this story caught me off guard. The way this movie differs from its re-imagination has both positives and negatives.The movie tries to describe the plight of its characters verbally in this movie where as in Sorcerer its visual. One look at that place and you know its doomed. One of the things that is crucial to explain in both these movies is that the characters come to this place because they are escaping law but they come here with very limited resources. After they get there their only way is to stay there for some time , keep low profile and then make enough money to get out of that place. But the conditions there are so bad that they can't make enough money to get out of the place to a urban place where there are jobs. That's the plight of the characters. Escaping to the village is only part of the plan. The rest is to make enough money to go to a decent place near that place and make a better life.

There is a very interesting sentence in the movie which can be paraphrased as " this place is like a prison, everyone welcomes you to come in but once you are here there is no way to get out". The movie has few unnecessary characters and unnecessary character conflicts. I think carrying those explosives creates lot of conflict in of itself. One of the main areas where the original diverts from the re-imagination is the time it spends on character dynamic. In this movie, the volatility of the explosives is not given much priority. At no point are we afraid that the liquid will explode. We are more afraid the vehicle will get into an accident. Most of the shots are focused on the driving compartment. So once you are locked into it you know nothing bad is gonna happen to the vehicle. Its only during wide shots of the truck are we afraid its gonna explode. Where as in Sorcerer the movie is much more practical about people will behave in this circumstances. When you got an explosive and 4 desperate men trying to achieve their goal you have no time to be petty or even joking for that matter. It will mostly be trying to be calm and collected. This movie tries to explore various facets of human emotions.

The four characters in the movie are of varying personalities. Since this is a 1950s movie, one of them is an elderly wise man with a past. Movie tries to show that the man in in-charge of the oil company and this old man are pals. But nonetheless he is a crook looking to make quick buck. The others include a smart , slick and skilled guy , a hard working every man and at last but not the least , a womanizing street smart and tough guy who happens to be our lead. All of them are put through tests to see how good of drivers they are.The movie plays with the notion that only when stuff hits the fan you really know who someone actually is. The journey starts and you quickly realize that the old man is not up for the task. The movie also makes a big deal about the distance the vehicles must be from each other. The slick guy and working man are less contradictory and much more of smooth pair than our heroes pair. Both of those guys seem to work of each other and complement each other in efforts. The path in this movie is treacherous in a more deserted way than Sorcerer. In Sorcerer its full of lush jungle. But here its empty lands and rocks and cliffs. The infamous tree scene Sorcerer is replace by blowing up a rock in this movie. I thought the tree scene in Sorcerer was original but oops its not. There is a oil swamp scene that is thrilling even with the limitations of that time period. The most interesting aspect of the movie and it almost feels realistic is how the heroism and masculinity of our protagonist emerges. Before the journey begins he is afraid and the old man is brave. But as the ride progresses he emerges as the hero. That's how it happens in real life. People don't walk around with hero badges on them. They emerge when going gets tough. The perseverance and determination of our lead is the key element to it all. He doesn't let up when his partner does. But his partner is too much of a chicken and that amplifies his bravery. I can only imagine how different it would have been if his partner was a brave man as well but hero is a slightly more brave and willing to go the extra risk. Because the actual partner almost feels comical with his cowardice.

So in conclusion the best thing about this movie is the way it deals with interpersonal conflict and human spirit during extremely dangerous times. And the best thing about Sorcerer is the way it deals with the sense of doom and guilt in one's self. Sorcerer is a journey inward where as the wages of fear is a journey outward. The ending however evokes the same feeling as Sorcerer. Despite being wildly different plot points the sense of "its all for nothing" is something both filmmakers want to evoke.

Spoiler

In both movies only one character makes it out alive at the end of this mission. But the filmmakers don't want to make you feel happy that he made it out alive. They spent the whole movie showing all this suffering , struggle and watching all these teammates die. So they weren't gonna let the protagonist and the audience off the hook by giving them a happy ending. That I think is a brilliant piece of film making by both filmmakers.

The French Connection



A pair of NYC cops stumbles upon a huge drug deal that's being arranged in the city. This movie follows how they pursued these smugglers.

This is one of the defining movies of 1970s. Its culturally and aesthetically significant in its representation and portrayal of that time period. If anyone in the current time want to see how NY was in 60s and 70s , all they need to do is watch this movie. The mean streets of New York are never captured better. Its a police procedural with most of the movie about tailing. It feels so gritty and realistic. The movie stars Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider as two cops. One of them is inherently bad cop and aggressive one. The other is good cop and less aggressive. Gene Hackman's performance captures a cop who is a natural. He is born to be a cop. The way he is addicted to his job is pretty intense. The movie shows what it takes to be a cop at that time in NY. You can't be idealistic when you are dealing with criminals and crooks and lot of shady characters.

The plot revolves around a shady French entrepreneur. The movie starts with a French cop tailing this guy. Eventually the right hand henchman of the french man kills the cop. Back in Brooklyn, Popeye Doyle(Hackman) and Roy Scheider are doing their job busting bars predominantly in African american neighborhoods. But all they could get is the end product in the hands of consumers. Popeye always wants to get to the source but as a street cop he never gets the chance. During a night out which turns into an investigation they stumble upon a huge drug deal about to happen in future. What happens next is a game of cat and mouse until the very end.

The movie has lot of antagonists. All of whom are very shady and secretive. The best thing about the movie is its always on. The movie begins with the villain. So we know antagonist before protagonist and know that there is a looming problem in our hands.The plot moves fast. The movie merges Popeye's life with his job. He is so obsessed that whereever he goes, he sees job first. That is very evident in their first night out. He goes to a bar with Scheider. But in Popeye's mind he is there to look up people and see if anyone is shady. That's when they stumble upon one of the main contacts of our French man. The relentlessness of police pursuit is captured so well. Most of criminals who commit a crime with a plan often times think that they can get away with it. But in reality they can't, because police has lot of dormant resources that spring into action once a crime is committed. This movie shows what kind of people are behind that resources. Its people like Popeye who are 24/7 on the look out for someone who breaks law. It's not a job for everyone. Only few people can do the job. So, Popeye and him partner follows the guy from the bar. He is a small restaurant owner who happens to own 2 cars and uses one for his main job and the other for the shady job. For some reason a lot of people are surrounding him and falling over him at the bar. That's when our protagonist deduces there is something wrong with him.

The techniques used by smugglers to smuggle drugs into the country and the people involved are very clever. The French man is based on a real guy and his fate in the movie is very ambiguous. His traits on display in the movie sort of forecasts his fate. He is the brain behind the operation and is the only one who is much smarter and has outdone Popeye on one occasion. There is a scene when tailing the french man where in they go into a restaurant and Hackman has to keep an eye on them that is a love letter to law enforcement in a weird way. It shows the contrast between good and bad people in the society and how they are treated. The good cop is outside freezing and eating Brooklyn style pizza. Where as the criminal french man is inside eating a very large and delicious meal. The contrast in the scene must have a metaphoric meaning. The infamous train chase scene in the movie is a memorable piece of cinema. The danger in it makes it much more thrilling.

When I realized William Friedkin directed this movie I was looking for his signature and its all over the movie. There is sense of doom , gloom, despair and quite frankly "its all for nothing" feel to the movie. The end credits show that most of the people involved got out in less than 5 yrs. Which is a very sad note to end a movie on. The music choice in the end of the movie is the very indication of William Friedkin style. If you watched french connection and exorcist you can tell both were directed by the same guy. Its a new Hollywood movie. At this time you can still see traces of old Hollywood through some of the nominees that year and the win of a classic old Hollywood movie the sting a few years later. So the movie is a classic.

Age of Consent (Michael Powell, 1969) -

The logline about an ageing male artist facing a creative slump and being inspired by a pretty young girl really does sound terrible on paper so it's a credit to all involved that it doesn't turn out too badly in execution, though I suppose it's helped by not being too long or too skeezy and actually having some well-composed visuals thrown into the mix.

Surviving the Game (Ernest R. Dickerson, 1994) -

A competent "most dangerous game" movie that may not have the out-and-out craziness of something like The Running Man or Hard Target but still has plenty of verve and personality thanks to some eclectic casting choices and efficient direction.

The Embassy (Chris Marker, 1973) -

Marker does a mockumentary that follows a group of individuals who take refuge within an unspecified embassy during a military coup, delivering a short but reasonably effective political drama. Shame about the transfer that showed up on MUBI having such coarse sound quality that I had to switch on subtitles, though.

Oldboy (Spike Lee, 2013) -

I haven't seen the original in a long time and do wonder if watching the American remake has given me more or less reason to revisit it anytime soon. On the one hand, Lee's direction is distinct enough (under the studio hatchet-job, anyway) to give a decent amount of verve to a relatively faithful adaptation. On the other hand, its most prominent divergences from its source are just plain baaaad and sand off just enough of the edge for it to be a problem.

Death Wish (Eli Roth, 2018) -

Speaking of ill-advised remakes...yeesh. Regardless of what you may think about its attempts at commenting on gun culture and vigilante justice, it's still an ugly, boring, and painfully indulgent excuse for a...what? Drama? Thriller? Action movie? Whatever it's going for, its aim is terrible.

The Commuter (Jaume Collet-Serra, 2018) -

Another late-period Liam Neeson movie, though at least it's one of the more enjoyable ones I've seen.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (Jake Kasdan, 2017) -

This stuck-in-a-videogame variation on the living-boardgame original is an underwhelming excuse for an adventure-comedy that barely brings anything of worth to the proceedings.

Death Sentence (James Wan, 2007) -

This felt like a necessary watch after the Death Wish remake with its much more unforgiving take on the concept of a well-to-do family man's attempts at vengeful vigilantism. While that doesn't automatically make it an out-and-out good movie, there are a couple of good set-pieces thrown into the mix and it maintains a half-decent pace.

Mom and Dad (Brian Taylor, 2017) -

A genuinely unsettling horror concept - a mysterious signal causes parents everywhere to start murdering their own children - is turned into a rather misguided excuse for a black comedy by Crank co-creator Taylor. In addition, I think I've built up an immunity to the effect of Nic Cage's crazier performances.

The Boss Baby (Tom McGrath, 2017) -

Typical Dreamworks triteness.

The Kid [1921] by Charlie Chaplin ★★★★
A Prayer Before Dawn [2017] by Jean-Stéphane Sauvaire ★★★
Mission: Impossible - Fallout [2018] Christopher McQuarrie ★★★★
Ludwig [1973] by Luchino Visconti ★★★★
Top Gun [1986] by Tony Scott ★★★
In the Presence of a Clown [1997] ★★★★
The Red Shoes [1948] by Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger ★★★★★
Fanny & Alexander [1982] by Ingmar Bergman ★★★★★
Lock Up [1989] by John Flynn ★★★
Theatre of Tragedy – Last Curtain Call [2011] ★★★★
The Birthday Massacre - Show And Tell [2010] ★★★★
Legion [2016] by William Peter Blatty ★★★★
Poltergeist [1982] by Tobe Hooper ★★
The Cranes Are Flying [1957] ‘Летят журавли’ by Mikhail Kalatozov ★★★★★
Planet of Storms [1962] ‘Планета бурь’by Pavel Klushantsev ★★
Leviathan [2014] ‘Левиафан’ by Andrey Zvyagintsev ★★★★
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari [1920] by Robert Wiene ★★★★
Damnation [1988] ‘Kárhozat’ by Béla Tarr ★★★★
Voices from the List [2004] by Michael Mayhew ★★★
Upgrade [2018] by Leigh Whannell ★★
The Specialist [1994] by Luis Llosa ★★★
Magic [1978] by Richard Attenborough ★★★
Solaris [1972] ‘Солярис’ by Andrei Tarkovsky ★★★★★
The 13th Warrior [1999] by John McTiernan ★★
Violent Cop [1989] ‘その男、凶暴につき’ by Takeshi Kitano ★★★★★
Hail Mary [1985] by Jean-Luc Godard ★★★
Goodbye to Language [2014] by Jean-Luc Godard ★★★

Other films I watched in the last 30 days that wasn't included in the last two posts.

come on...2 star for 13th warrior ? it was a bold and daring movie that cast a Muslim lead in a 150 million $ movie.

Yes, two stars for a movie that was a bold and daring movie that cast a Muslim lead in a 150 million $ movie!

Black Rose Ascension (1975) -



Naomi Tani strikes again. Wait, no bondage? WORTHLESS!!! This is a pretty kewl pink film with only two very brief sex scenes in the first two thirds, and more than usual developed plot. Then a pretty long sex scene started that gave me The Man Who Put His Will on Film vibes. Naomi is stunning as always, and the sort of willful ignorance and acceptance of humiliation on her side totally makes the film the usual Nikkatsu Romano Porno of the time. And they didn't even need ropes for that.

Three Resurrected Drunkards (1968) -



Oshima's oneiric comedy with themes of Korean gaijin and Vietnam war. What struck me was how dream-like the film was. Its repetitious, incoherent, illogical form is surely very reminiscent of a nightmare. It's not Oshima's best, but it's still fairly poetic and I had a great time watching it!

This Is Not a Film (2011) -



Well, this *makes sure no Iranian authority reads this* is a film. Jafar Panahi seems really sad he can't make films and uses every possible opportunity to create something at least a little bit film-like. All that being said, the film is quite plain and with the exception of the phenomenal final take not that great. The story surrounding it is much more interesting than the film itself (it was smuggled out of Iran in a flash drive hidden inside a cake - HOLY COW).

Belle (1973) -



Beautiful at times, but also quite emotionless and too clinical for its own good. It's similar in style to another Delvaux film I saw The Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short.

Book of Days (1989) -



A great experimental film that pays homage to so many filmmmakers, from Kieślowski, to Parajanov, to Melies to Reggio. The music is great!

Wolf Devil Woman (1982) -



Stunning Ling Chang encourages you to suspend your disbelief and just let pure magic wash over you as you watch this splendidly goofy fairy tale.

The Runner (1984) -



A neo-realist tale of an unyielding boy running with a brick of ice that melts in the sun. Will he catch his train?

Nine Days of One Year (1961) -



A story of a threesome of scientists becomes an excuse to ponder on man's attitude to science and obvious dangers resulting from use of powerful technologies.

The Approach of Autumn (1960) -



Naruse's traits known from his romance melodramas are transfered to the world of children in this heartbreaking tale in which a little boy searches for a beetle, friendship, love.

Dialogue with a Woman Departed (1982) -



The death of his wife makes the director Leo Hurwitz reflect on her life through the use of footage from his previous movies, war stills and a snapshot of the woman holding a sign "Make film not war".

A Long Walk (2006) -



A strange old man seeks expiation with the help of a strange little girl with wings in a film that indeed is a horror of life.

Kaleidoscope (1999) -



Naomi Kawase decides to observe a photographer taking stills of two girls while interacting with and annoying all three.

My Blade, My Life (1978) -



Ling Chang shows her more serious side relentlessly cutting through flesh of her enemies to take revenge.

Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970) -



A Dr. Frankenstein type of a scientist has to face his own creation that went out of control.

The Tale of the Fox (1937) -



A cunning fox tries to outsmart everyone and profit from his mischief in this shocking anti-fairy tale ironically released in Nazi Germany in 1937.

The Unknown Soldier’s Patent Leather Shoes (1979) -



A Bulgarian harvest song makes now a grown-up man return to the times of yore when as a child he mooched around his village trying to understand the world of adults.

A Man and a Woman (1966) -


vs.


Two life-experienced people find each other and slowly fall in love while retrospectively revealing their past. A simple yet heartwarming melodrama is an excuse for Lelouch to show his mastery of mise en scene, montage, cinematography, creating mood. He mixes black and white with color and different palletes just like Guy Gilles will later do. He takes shots of people on the beach, of a train leaving the station, and a racing car at the pier creating gorgeous visual poetry. All of this is accompanied by soothing music that includes the famous "la la la" main theme, and seasoned with two strong performances from the leads. Lelouch, despite the fact he made a great work of art, seems to have an answer to Truffaut's question on which: life or art is more important. His answer is LIFE. This film affected me way more than I had thought. Now I want to save the cat, too! It's a beautiful statement on past and present, acceptance and refusal, and finally art and life. Additional notes: 1. Lubezki stole a shot from this for To The Wonder. 2. It has a sequel, but I'm afraid to watch it.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Pacific Rim: Uprising (Steven S. DeKnight, 2018) -

Though I liked the original well enough, this sequel never stops feeling like either a simple rehash or an active attempt to undermine everything that was good about the original.

BlacKkKlansman (Spike Lee, 2018) -

An effective dramatisation that weaves together a variety of tones and tactics in order to create a tale of small-town racial tension. I think I might have a new favourite film of 2018 now.

Someone To Watch Over Me (Ridley Scott, 1987) -

Ridley Scott's done his fair share of bad movies but this thriller about a married cop protecting an attractive witness is definitely a new contender for my least favourite of his, if only because everything about it from premise to execution is so incredibly pedestrian.

Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg, 1998) -

Revisiting this for the first time in I don't know how long (at least a decade?) and it holds up even better than I expected. Easy enough to criticise for being quote-unquote patriotic, but I can tell that Spielberg isn't operating on such a simple, superficial level even as the filmmaking on display is understandably more focused on provoking visceral reactions than anything else.

Play Time (Jacques Tati, 1967) -

The tricky thing about assessing Play Time for me is that, while I can definitely appreciate the downright immaculate manner in which mise-en-scène is composed all throughout the film, it's in service of a comedic story that I don't find all that funny or compelling to watch. I'd definitely be willing to try it again at some point but as for now I have to say that I find the film to be a challenge.

Castle of Sand (Yos-h-i-t-aro Nomura, 1974) -

A passable police procedural that is mildly noteworthy thanks to its 1970s Japan setting and how it addresses related cultural anxieties in getting to the bottom of its central whodunit. (Also apparently the spelling of the director's name contains a censored word so...yeah).

Mirai (Mamoru Hosoda, 2018) -

Hosoda's latest is probably the first time I've actively disliked one of his films, if only because it revolves around an obnoxious little boy annoying the hell out of his family (when he's not having increasingly elaborate fantasies that may or may not have real-world consequences). It's a shame, then, because it's in those bursts of imagination that Hosoda and co. really get to shine even in the service of such disappointing material.

Shoah (Claude Lanzmann, 1985) -

Part of me thinks that this defies any sort of rating not just because of the subject matter but also because the staggering running time and technical execution makes it a little harder to assess by conventional standards. Even so, I still hesitate to say that I "liked" it, though that's perhaps understandable.

Tyrannosaur (Paddy Considine, 2011) -

A rough but effective little kitchen-sink drama that definitely gets by on the back of some powerful performances even if the material they're using has its limits.

Maximum Risk (Ringo Lam, 1996) -

Pretty underwhelming by JCVD standards as he plays a cop out to avenge his long-lost twin who happened to have ties to organised crime. Not enough craziness even with Ringo Lam of City on Fire and Full Contact fame directing, but not entirely lacking in the hang-dog heart that makes your average JCVD movie function.

August, 2018 movies watched-

Mad Love (1935) A little ridiculous but I liked it.

The Roaring Twenties (1939) Definitely a treat to watch Bogie and Cagney together.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972) Probably the oddest western I've seen outside of El Toro.

Red Dust (1932) - I didn't think it was great but it fired me up.

The Goddess (1934) Very well done with an excellent lead performance.

Virtue (1932) Less than 70 minutes long, it's a very tight movie well worth watching.

Cimarron (1931) + One of the least celebrated best picture winners, but I thought it was decent.

Ninotchka (1939) - Very good romantic comedy.

Chappaquiddick (2017) As a Massachusetts resident, my guess is that I enjoyed this more than most here would.

Cavalcade (1933) Another lesser known best picture winner that was ok but not for me.

It's a Gift (1934) W. C. Fields is hilarious.

It Happened One Night (1934) Repeat viewing + The greatest romantic comedy?

Wuthering Heights (1939) Possibly a favorite if I watch it again.

Oh, Susanna! (1936) Gene Autry does Gene Autry.

The Last House on the Left (2009) Repeat viewing Last time I watch this piece of crap.

The Only Son (1936) Decent Ozu movie from the Ebert list.

Super Troopers 2 (2018) It was ok but it's no Beerfest.

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) + Pretty average for a Ford/Fonda collaboration.

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) Repeat viewing Slight improvement over my first viewing.

The Awful Truth (1937) Enjoyable screwball comedy with Cary Grant.

Dark Victory (1939) A much watch if you want a melodramatic downer.

Baby Face (1933) - Barbara Stanwyck dominates as a woman who knows how to get what she wants.

Revenge (2018) + Recommended for rape revenge fans.

Dillinger (1973) Cool cast and plenty of shootouts.

Top Hat (1935) - Excellent as a feel good movie.

The Hurricane Heist (2018) I'm surprised it wasn't direct to video.

Samurai Assassin (1965) I didn't have the easiest time following it, but there's obviously plenty about it that's great.

The Big Trail (1930) From the westerns list, I enjoyed the epic adventure part of it.

Trouble in Paradise (1932) Nothing wrong with it that I can see, but it didn't do anything for me either.

Art of the Devil 2 (2005) - Thai horror that has it's twisted pleasures.

The Great Ziegfeld (1936) A best picture winner that I thought was merely average.

The 39 Steps (1935) Repeat viewing - Top 10 Hitch for me.

The Cincinatti Kid (1965) - Should have been even better with what it had going for it.

Total August viewings-33
Total 2018 viewings-230

August:

281. Tokyo Tribe (Sion Sono, 2014) -
282. The Adventures of Robin Hood (Michael Curtiz, 1938) +
283. You Only Live Once (Fritz Lang, 1937) -
284. First Reformed (Paul Schrader, 2017) -
285. Captains Courageous (Victor Fleming, 1937) -
286. The Hunchback of Nortre Damme (William Dieterle, 1939) +
287. Leviathan (Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2014) -
288. Duck Soup (Leo McCarey, 1933) +
289. Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979)
290. Footlight Parade (Lloyd Bacon, 1933)
291. Imitation of Life (John M. Stahl, 1933) -
292. Deadpool 2 (David Leitch, 2018) -
293. Ballad of a Soldier (Grigoriy Chukhray, 1959)
294. The Black Cat (Edgar G. Ulmer, 1934)
295. M (Fritz Lang, 1931)
296. Baby Face (Alfred E. Green, 1933)
297. The Only Son (Yasujiro Ozu, 1936) -
298. Paranoid Park (Gus Van Sant, 2007)
299. Bob Dylan: Don't Look Back (D.A Pennebaker, 1967)
300. Avengers: Infinity War (Joe & Anthony Russo, 2018) -
301. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974)
302. The Times of Harvey Milk (Rob Epstein, 1984)
303. Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)
304. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (F.W Murnau, 1927)
305. Hereditary (Ari Aster, 2018)
306. The Slumber Party Massacre (Amy Holden Jones, 1982) -
307. Winter Light (Ingmar Bergman, 1963) +
308. Phoenix Forgotten (Justin Barber, 2017)
309. Won't You Be My Neighbour (Morgan Neville, 2018) +
310. Summer of 84 (Simard, Whissell & Whissell, 2018)
311. Hunger (Steve McQueen, 2008)
312. The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
313. Assault On Precinct 13 (John Carpenter, 1976) +

August Watches: 33
2018 Watches: 313

Red = Rewatch.

Thief
​

​
A Lone shark ex-convict and a career thief is forced to collaborate with someone on a big payout heist.
​
This is one of the early Michael Mann movies and its kinda shocking to think that a director who has been in the zone for over 2 decades from thief to collateral somehow went off rails in the last decade. This movie kinda gives the idea of where Michael Mann got his style from. He was somehow able to smuggle the 80s neo-noir nightlife style of film-making into the millennium. That's one of the reasons why this movie has its best parts set during night. Actual stuff happens at night in this movie. James Caan was cast in this movie partly because of the godfather. He carried some of his persona from that movie into this. The only difference is in this movie he is in the world of mostly methodical people. He is the loose canon. But in Godfather he comes off as a light weight because he is all bark where as others are much more dangerous than him.
​
I watched it back to back with french connection. This movie is comparable to Oscar winning french connection. One is made by this newbie called Michael Mann and the other is by Oscar winner William fried-kin. That's a testament to Michael Mann's directorial skill. Its so strong. The ending sort of made me give this movie 4 rating instead of 3. The movie is much more a character piece than a heist movie. The director is much more interested in character study than the heist part. There is a subtle undertone of anti-establishment in this movie. Having grown up in a foster home Caan lives a life of misery. Once he got out the only way to make a living with a decent life is to be a criminal and that puts him at odds with cops.All this is inferred as opposed to shown. Thats' the brilliancy of Mann and Caan. They say so much through the characterization of this role than exposition. His toughness feels authentic. In normal society there are always those people who keeps pushing the boundaries of societal rules. They get into road rages or fight people in public places but their acts are not so criminal that they get them into jail but nonetheless they push and move through life with a bigger personality than most other people. In the presence of a stranger you always have many options. You can strike up a conversation or keep to yourself or you can be direct and do much more than just talk. All those are direct results of your personality. The movie captures that sub conscious tough guys in the society. The people who make their own destiny with out waiting for others.
​
Michael Mann movies can sometimes feel sexist. The female roles in his movies feel tied down to family or be stereotypical bad-ass characters or supporting the men. I am not sure if thats' because he is telling a male story or his inherent desire to just focus on male characters. That's the problem we have right now. We don't need more female actresses or diverse actors in-front of camera. We already have them. All we need are the female and POC directors that are comparable to a Spielberg or Nolan or Tarantino or Scorsese. Directors with strong voices that can attract large group of audience. No amount of Oscar nominations is going to change that. Lady bird got Oscar nominations but no one is influenced by the movie other than film critics. Ladybird should be able to influence wider public and have a unique directorial tone other than that of every coming of age movie ever made. More female directors Kathryn Bigelow is what we want. We need directors with a style. Hurt Locker , zero dark thirty and Detroit has same directorial flair. You can't force Nolan or Mann or any of the legends to make a female-centric movie. They make what they can make.
​
One of the things about the reception of James Caan's performances as opposed to Gene Hackman's gives us an insight into the way Hollywood looks at an actor and performance in a movie. When these movies came out in their respective careers James Caan was an established and slightly famous actor and someone who looks super macho even before he opened his mouth. Gene Hackman on the other hand was a very lesser known character actor who is tough only if he opens his mouth but otherwise he looks like an average man. That's an actor 6000 industry veteran oscar voters can get behind. They are not gonna get behind someone who is macho and a star unless they humble themselves with a performance that's unlike them. Because actors who have the skill set needed to be a leading man and have been in some high quality movies are gifted at something inherently. So rewarding for your gift is like giving two gifts at a time. You need to be able to show them some skill set you have developed and not something you are gifted with. That forms a major part of how actors are rewarded. Ryan Gosling is the same in every movie. But he is just lucky to be having the looks of a leading man and being famous and that automatically forces movies studios to cast him as a lead in those movies. Being famous can be of different types. You can be famous for being funny, being in romantic comedies, being action hero, being a star who is internet famous, being a good looking dude in serious movies. If you stay long enough in that arena without caving into commercial pressures of business you will eventually be cast in those Oscar movies because financiers are going to spend money on a movie only if some star is in it. So the industry treatment of performances from Caan and Hackman in a way is appropriate because I can't imagine Gene Hackman being a badass until I see the French connection. But one look at James Caan and I can see him being badass. Thats his natural gift and he can't be rewarded for that.

The ending 10 minutes of this movie is awesome. Through out the movie we know that the life of this guy , rich as it is , is like a house of cards. Any small chunk in his armor could bring everything crashing down. Cops are breathing down his neck either to take a cut it in loot or nail him when caught. So all this forces him to be as careful as possible. But he knows the rough side of life having been an ex convict. As the movie builds we see him becoming a family man but towards the end we realize his collaboration on a robbery will bring it all down. So the actions taken by our protagonist after he realizes that he is stuck and can't get out clean are very in line with his character. It would have been interesting to see him after the movie ends in thief 2 because the movie ends in a very interesting way. Most times characters behave differently when stuff hits the fan but this movie's lead is exactly who he is at all times. He is a straight shooter and the movie proves that. Its a very 80s noir type movie.

Heavy Metal (1981) -



That neo-noir beginning was very promising, but the movie quickly loses its countenance and collapses under its own anthology film formula. The obese American teenager reads a comic book style with mindlessly naked females - necessarily skinny but with giant breasts - and dumbed down premise are real nails to the coffin of this film. Still, it's entertaining.

La symphonie pastorale (1946) -



Michele Morgan really shines here, and even though it's not Port of Shadows, it's a very pleasant melodrama that avoids cheap moralising and sentimentalism. That ending. :O

Fahrenheit 451 (1966) -



Yet again a pleasant Truffaut film. Yet again light years behind Godard. A moving ending!

Pays barbare [Barbaric Land] (2013) -



One of Angela Ricci Lucchi & Yervant Gianikian weakest, mainly because it uses narration that breaks any and every attempt at successful contemplation.

贊先生與找錢華 [Warriors Two] (1978) -



Wow, this is almost non-stop wonderfully choreographed fights! Some of the bad guys look really intimidating and they actually do kill some of the secondary characters, so it's quite scary watching these fights, because all characters are likable. The comedy bits are pretty kewl, too.

Freaked (1993) -



I can't believe I rated it so high. It's just pathetic, BUT it's still entertaining and I laughed a couple of times. Ugh, I mean, it tries to deconstruct the monster movie genre and functions as a meta-commentary... F*ck it. I just thought it was okay.

孔雀王子 [The Peacock King] (1989) -



Decided to watch this wonderful oddball flick from HK, and of course I'm not disappointed! Two monks use magic to fight the King of Hell, and one of them falls in love with the Virgin of Hell played by Gloria Yip who is a top notch waifu material! Is there anything more you can want from a movie? It also has bloody dinosaurs, claymation (?), Ken Ogata's special performance, some trademark HK humor, and that beauty of a feel good ending. Not a masterwerk, but quite a werk, ya JERK! GET REKT.

聊齋艷譚 [Erotic Ghost Story] (1990) -





Think a cheap erotic cash in on Chinese Ghost Story directed by Lam Nai-choi (who also directed Story of Ricky, the aforementioned The Peacock King as well as a handful of other gr8 flicks) with 10/10 naked Asian chicks having sex. BUT it's not just that, because the film keeps the INCREDIBLE ATMOSPHERE and Taoist CRAZINESS of the CGS series! The intro is already a masterpiece of humor, in which a group of bandits is lured by hot vixen to have sex, but then the ladies turn into rotten skeletons, and those poor guys have to run away, but one of them can't break the skeleton's hug. Haha, oh man. Then you have those sensual sex scenes, and I mean Amy Yip is a legend, and that other lady is fine, too, but the Japanese JAV actress import Hitomi Kudo really goes for it with not just a full frontal, but, get it, an uncensored spread legs shot! Of course, the good ole sexy time ends when, SPOILER, that innocent scholar turns out to be some hell freak,and he turns into a four-headed monster going ape-sheet crazy!!! I FEEL STRONG ASTRAL VIBRATIONS FROM ANDROMEDA GALAXY! F*ck, I haven't been so excited by a film (and I'm not even talking sexually) ever since Sex and Zen II's finale. Good Lord, this has two sequels. Can't wait.

PS: Hitomi Kudo's pussy shot > Tarkovsky

That's the truth.

灭门惨案之弱杀 [Red to Kill] (1994) -





Jesus Christ, this is the worst bad taste hysterical film I've ever seen! The fact that girl is mentally handicapped and gets raped is so wrong, and this guy is just so BATSHEET crazy. That finale, oh my God, that finale! No doubt one of the best movie nights I've ever had!

杏っ子 [Little Peach] (1958) -



A new day and let's take it easy this time. A Naruse film! Yet another film that exposes the stupidity of arranged marriages, in which the girl has to decide whether or not she's gonna marry a guy only after having met him once. The ending is quite annoying, but played on a happy note almost like an Ozu, or something. Yep, swallow your pride, girl, you have to suffer, because Japan is a patriarchal society. Hopefully she ditches that a-hole. Kyoko Kagawa deserves better.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962) -



Seconds is the true American masterpiece if there ever was one, but this one was a let-down. Don't get me wrong, it's still a pretty good film, but it was surely predictable, and just all-around good, but not great.

Identity



A group of strangers are stuck at an isolated motel in the middle of pouring rain.

The movie starts with a court case hearing at an unusual time. Its raining outside and the case involves pleading insanity for a defendant about to be hanged the next day. Apparently the defense found a previously undisclosed diary of victim which solidifies the case for the insanity plea with the prisoner suffering from multiple personality disorder and belongs in a hospital and not be hanged.While everything is being put together during this case proceedings a parallel story takes place.

We find that a family of 3 involves in an accident and the mother is badly wounded, so they end up at a motel in pouring rain. They are accompanied by the passengers of the car that hit them and it contains an actress and her driver, our protagonist John Cusack. They are eventually joined by a hooker and a pair of young lovers. There is no way to communicate with the outside world from this motel due to phone line issues because of heavy rain. So they are basically stuck there. The little boy of the family having witnessed his mother in an accident is still in shock and little withdrawn. After a while they are joined by a cop and a convict that is being taken some place. So we as audience fill in the dots this prisoner is the same on in our court case shown at the beginning. Moreover since its raining in both storylines we know its the same night. From then on, one by one they are picked and killed in gruesome manner. The rest have to figure out who is doing this before everyone gets killed forms the narrative thrust of the movie.

James Mangold is not particularly an auteur in the exact sense of the word. He is more of a competent and effective director than anything. He delivers on the promise of a script. His filmography doesn't have a stinker. Girl Interrupted , walk the line , identity , 3:10 to yuma , knight and day, wolverine, Kate & Leopold and Logan. All are good to great movies. One thing you can count on his movies is that they are not boring. They always have one or other thing going on in them and they have good pace. Even his most derided movies like knight and day is still a spin on spy movies. The concept of a world class spy swooping in and saving the day for damsel in distress is turned on its head and was made more as a parody. That's the reason I am excited for his Ford V Ferrari movie. Because his track record proves that he is competent. It much more important to be competent than be an auteur unlike Terrence Malick.

One of my favorite things about James Mangold is the minor ways he tweaks the script or plays around with the narrative and setting of the movie so that it has the most impact and feel different. You see, great movies always have certain ambiguity to them. Certain things that can't be explained or reasoned with but the overall plot of the movie makes sense. Its those ambiguities that leave audience asking for more or craving the movie you just saw because there is something more there that you can't get enough of but you want. For example in Logan, there is certain Noir feel to the movie. In the opening scene the blue neon lighting over the limousine and Logan, in the fight he cuts a metal rod and the sparkles of metal from the edges of the iron rod that's cut makes the whole thing look great. Those are directorial choices. It's not some script writer telling what to do. Even the Las Vegas they show in the movie is very different from Las Vegas in many movies. Its very dusty and cloudy. You just see the opening of the casino. The setting of the family massacre is the same thing. Its dark with street lights amidst corn fields. So getting back to Identity,this movie even though its set in a motel has a very layered layout. We are never aware of the layout of the hotel. We know its multi compartmental. Its not a chain of rooms. That adds to the suspense in the movie. The way characters are connected. The communication between them is interesting. After half way through the movie we realize that the prisoner the lawyers and judge are expecting and the prisoner at the motel are completely different people. But director has tricked us into thinking its the same by using rain in both cases. Thats a very clever directorial choice and very minor choice.

Spoiler
After the reveal that the whole motel setting is taking place in the mind of the prisoner who is suffering from multiple personalties and all the guests at the motel are different personalties of the prisoner. You can try to put together the purpose of each personality. It would have been a much more accessible film if the roles represent some form of grief stage of the character. But James Mangold doesn't want that. He wants the storyline at the motel to feel like a "whose done it" - style of murder mystery at the same time ramping up to supernatural thriller. Thats a James Mangold spin. His movie always stick to formula but, they put a spin on the formula. You can still see the foundations of the formula in the movie. But the structure above the foundation is nothing like a conventional movie.

Negatives about the movie is the twist and some character's behavior and motivation. However it becomes clear why characters feel 2 dimensional because its all in his mind and all of them are serving his narrative. In an auto pilot mode his mind keeps playing this massacre over and over again. But with the intervention of medicines his mind becomes much more aware of this multiple personalities and tries to identify the one causing the prisoner to behave like a serial killer in real life. I think the movie is much more meta physical than sci-fi. That sort of effected its chances at box office from being a block buster although it was a hit. If the movie included some sort of equipment that is plugged in or out so that the prisoner is in his mind or outside then that would be sci-fi but this movie is meta physical and so, audience are either in or out early on in the movie. The reveal that the personalty that is making him do the crimes is that of the little boy in the family may have been interesting but the shots of the kid making an angry face and walking around in montages kinda looked silly. However you look at it the kid looks silly. One of the metaphors for the kid being the personality responsible for criminal behavior can be attributed to his own troubled child hood and that means the origin of this criminal is his own self and not some imaginary character he created. His self wants to murder and the other characters he created are just spectators.

But all things aside the interesting things that sets it apart from generic psychological thrillers are because of James Mangold. Ordinary directors would have made a bland thriller with this premise. But James Mangold improved its quality a lot. Addition of rain in both storylines , inclusion of cop escorting convict in the motel storyline, the dense compartmental structure of the rooms in the motel etc. All these are minor tweaks to the script but nonetheless that ended being the secret sauce for this movie. Its a good movie.

Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1922) -

A very...educational experience (even knowing how much of it was staged and fictionalised) about Inuit life that's strangely artful in its perfunctory execution.

Blue Thunder (John Badham, 1983) -

More than a little disappointed by this tale about police helicopters that does admittedly have a decent 'Nam-vet throughline for Roy Scheider's protagonist and at least one nice and explosive set-piece.

Yoga Hosers (Kevin Smith, 2016) -

Considering how I've more or less hated Smith's work over the past decade and Tusk in particular, I was surprised at how I didn't totally hate this Tusk spin-off despite its many obnoxious elements (vapid teenage protagonists leading an irritating cast of characters, aggressively simple sense of humour, questionable attempts at actual horror).

Pom Poko (Isao Takahata, 1994) -

Takahata and Ghibli deliver an environmentalist tract rooted in Japanese mythology that centres around sapient, shape-shifting raccoons using what powers they possess to fight off encroaching land developers. It's a curious little film that pulls in a variety of directions without ever seeming to work as a whole but its various bits and pieces are always entertaining enough to carry said whole.

Romancing the Stone (Robert Zemeckis, 1984) -

A fairly boring excuse for an adventure movie that's ostensibly bolstered by the...romance that gives it what sense of personality it does have, but little to actually make it particularly worthwhile.

The Devil Wears Prada (David Frankel, 2006) -

A comedy about an aspiring journalist who takes an unlikely job at a high-end fashion magazine that results in a tiresome experience with little to actually hold onto.

Stolen Kisses (François Truffaut, 1968) -

Finally getting around to watching the rest of the Antoine Doinel movies (though skipping the "Antoine and Colette" short for practical reasons) and this one, while obviously a significant step down from The 400 Blows, still has an okay narrative in which Antoine gets into zany situations during his tenure with a private detective agency.

Bed and Board (François Truffaut, 1970) -

Diminishing returns set in big-time with the next Doinel movie that is all about him struggling to cope with married life - however, that doesn't prove a strong enough hook to make this particular chapter work.

The Double Life of Veronique (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1991) -

A strange little film that adds a sense of magical realism to Kieślowski's established matter-of-fact style with its tale of near-identical doppelgangers and how one affects the other. In many ways a dense film that can't totally be deciphered on a single viewing and one that aims for (and successfully achieves) a sensory experience that replicates its protagonists' inherently internal journeys.

Love on the Run (François Truffaut, 1979) -

The final Doinel film ends up being the weakest of them all as it ends up playing like a greatest-hits clip show that is better when it's referencing earlier parts of Doinel's life in comparison to his current life than it is at actually weaving together something new. The real question is whether or not any of these sequels retroactively ruin The 400 Blows for me.