Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition

Blue Collar follows Zeke, Jerry, and Smokey (Richard Pryor, Harvey Keitel, Yaphet Kotto), three workers at an auto factory in Detroit. Suffocated by the pressures from management, the low wages, and the inaction from the union, the trio decide to rob the union headquarters. However, they end up getting more than what they bargain for, as they end up uncovering ties from the union with organized crime, which might put their lives in danger.

This is the debut film from Paul Schrader, more known for writing Taxi Driver and recently directing First Reformed. It was recommended about a year ago by @Slentert, when we were recording an episode on debut films for my podcast. I finally was able to get to it, and I'm so glad I did, because it was pretty darn good.

Like the above quote implies, the film ends up being a critique of the struggles of "blue collar" workers, as well as union practices, and more broadly, economy itself. It achieves this with a smart and engaging script that gives the three leads the opportunity to shine. I was particularly impressed with Pryor, who I had only seen in more comedic roles, but here he gets a chance in a role that's both serious and tragic.

There are many accounts of all the issues that happened during filming; from tension between the three leads as they each fought for the spotlight, to tensions with Schrader, who had a nervous breakdown after Pryor allegedly pulled a gun on him on set. That tension might've translated to the film, since there is a constant uneasiness and tension about what will happen to the characters.

Surprisingly, it didn't translate to their performances because, as much as they apparently hated each other, as far as the film goes you really believe these three guys are best friends. Blue Collar is a remarkable debut with some surprisingly good performances that manages to be funny, engaging, and powerful, all at the same time. Definitely recommended.

Grade:

__________________

Your thoughts on Sunrise are similar to my own. I'm always a sucker for silent films which get by on the strengths of their visual and aesthetic ingenuity, but from what I've seen, this is very hard to pull off as it often results in lulls in between the more striking scenes. Man With a Movie Camera is the only silent film I've seen which accomplishes this. Faust almost did as well with its perfect first half, but then the second half killed its momentum. Bummer

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

That's what Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) tells Maggie (Lisa Zane), as he summarizes the many ways they've tried to kill him without success. This film then proceeds to unquestionably prove why they should've left him dead, instead of keeping him tickin'.

Freddy's Dead follows a group of troubled teenagers at a shelter that somehow end up being terrorized by Krueger. Led by Maggie, a therapist at the shelter, they discover various truths about Freddy's past, including the fact that he had a child. Whatever. The film is just a stupid excuse to pit a new batch of teenagers against Freddy, as he dispatches them one by one, in sillier ways.

This is a film I had seen a long time ago, and even as a teenager back then, I remembered thinking this was s-hit. It's somewhat comforting to confirm through this rewatch that I was right then, and that this is indeed s-hit. Putting aside the shortcomings of the genre or even the dubious approach to "psychology" in the story, the film is just plain bad.

From Zane's bad performance or the script's attempts to offer some sort of background to Freddy, to the awkward cameos from the likes of Roseanne & Tom Arnold, or the lame 3-D excuse and the awful CGI in the last act, the film is just a barrage of terrible, terrible decisions. Like some of the previous films, the logistics of how Freddy works doesn't make much sense, but here it is all paired with the mediocrity of everything and everyone involved.

The above picture is a perfect representation of the lengths of stupidity that the franchise has gone to as it has progressed. From a terrifying and nightmarish presence that could drag you through the walls while slicing you open, to a cackling clown using a freakin' "Power Glove" to make you endlessly go boing-boing around a room until you die. They tried fire and holy water, but they should've tried not writing this instead.

Grade:

Those are two I haven't seen, but that are high on my watchlist. Have you seen The Last Laugh, also from Murnau? That one's my favorite silent film, and I think it manages to pull both the visuals and the emotional pretty well.

The Great Ziegfeld follows the life of theatrical producer Florenz Ziegfeld (William Powell) from his humble beginnings as a "carny" and his subsequent succesful rise in Broadway, anchored by the notable Ziegfeld Follies, to his fall from grace due to financial problems and The Great Depression. It also chronicles his personal life, including his relationship with various women.

If you think that's a lot to cover on a film, it is. The 3-hour runtime is one of the main issues I have with the film; not because a film can't last 3 hours, but because this one feels massively bloated and all over the place. By trying to cover too much, it can't really focus on anything, so it basically feels like speeding through someone's highlights of life.

But length aside, the film is very well directed and crafted. It has several impressive musical numbers with some stunning choreographies and production values. If only they were shorter, there might be more of a chance to appreciate the film around them. It's funny how a film that it's made to celebrate the excesses of Old Hollywood indulges in the same excesses.

But my other main issue is in how the film presents Ziegfeld, and how it tries to lift up a man that is nothing more than a womanizing con man. Not because you can't make a film about a womanizing con man, but the film is clearly presenting him as someone noble and good, while brushing his faults under the carpet with a bit of a wink.

There are also some problematic and unnecessary instances of female objectification and grooming. There is a bit in particular with a young acquaintance of Ziegfeld that we meet as a child first, and then returns later as a young woman, that really rubbed me the wrong way. Especially because nothing is done with it other than chuckle at the "awkward" moment.

But credit where credit is due, Powell is very good in the lead role, so that might be a selling point if you're a fan of him. The supporting cast of Luise Rainer and Myrna Loy as Ziegfeld's wives, and Frank Morgan as Ziegfeld's rival, is also pretty solid. Unfortunately, there's not much in the story and beyond the spectacle for me to care about.

Grade:

Yeah, I think you recommended it to me a while back. I don't remember it too well, but I remember enjoying it quite a lot.

That's how Robert Shaye (Robert Shaye) pitches a Nightmare on Elm Street sequel to Heather Langenkamp (Heather Langenkamp). The blessing and the curse of making a successful film is that fans will always want more, and the studios – being the business enterprises that they are – more often than not will bow to that, putting business interests above creative and artistic ones in the process.

New Nightmare is a bit of an exception to that. The film is set in a fictonalized version of "reality" where Langenkamp, along with other cast and crew members of the franchise, are being terrorized by Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) who is invading the real world. It is a unique meta approach that I'm sure wasn't an easy sell back in 1994, but that somehow works.

Craven does a great job of building the tension, while letting bits and pieces of the original film fall through the cracks into this "real world". There are some nice homages to most of the deaths from the original; from a character stabbed and dragged through the walls and roof to Freddy's glove sneaking next to the crotch of another character. It works perfectly to keep that tie between the original film and the "reality" of this film.

The film also gets rid of the wise-cracking Freddy that we saw in the previous 3 or 4 films, and it's obvious that Englund is having fun with the role (he has said it's his favorite). But I think Langenkamp, not only shows a lot of improvement, but overall does a pretty good job conveying the confusion, desperation, and ultimately resilience of her character in not letting this "evil" take over her life.

Like most of the films in the franchise, the last act does feel a bit weaker than the rest. As Heather gets more and more absorbed into Freddy's world, the limitations of that world that we've seen through pretty much all films also spill into this "new nightmare". Craven still manages to pull the reins a bit, but it does feel ultimately lacking and not as clever as the first two acts.

Craven managed to successfully "kill" Freddy for almost 10 years. That is until they pit him against Jason in 2003. Then, a 2010 remake brought him back to life, receiving almost universal criticism. A second remake has been allegedly in the works for the last 10 years. Even after Craven's passing in 2015, his estate has been evaluating different projects, from a sequel to TV show. I guess evil never dies, right?

Grade:

The fight to end all fights! Freddy vs. Jason follows the two titular antagonists as they fight each other; something that had been in the minds of the studios since the 1980s. The film features a weakened and forgotten Freddy (Robert Englund), who resuscitates Jason (Ken Kirzinger) and sends him out to kill teenagers because somehow he thinks people will put the blame on him, allowing him to gain power and come back to life.

Yeah, whatever. Freddy vs. Jason, right? That's pretty much all that matters. Still, as silly as the whole premise is, I enjoyed seeing the hoops that the writers jump to join these two "universes". The fact that the end result is somewhat coherent AND fun is impressive, even if I generally feel it leans more towards the mood and style of the Nightmare on Elm Street films.

But anyway, the film is mostly fun, with some nice kills and cool setpieces thrown around. There's a scene where Jason interrupts a rave in the middle of a cornfield that is pretty cool. Then there are the two iconic fights between the two main baddies: first in Springwood and Freddy's boiler room, and finally at Crystal Lake. There is a certain amount of eye-rolling silliness, like Freddy bouncing Jason off of pipes and vents like a pinball machine, but at least it's stuff you can laugh at.

The film also suffers from some bad CGI effects, especially at one scene where Freddy takes the form of a worm to lure a stoner into death. Speaking of the stoner guy, did I even mention the "main characters" of the film? No? Well, it doesn't matter. I just know I had a lot of fun seeing these two go at each other. If you're a fan of any of these franchises, I don't see a reason why yo should skip this one.

Grade:

Late as hell, but finally! here's my summary for JANUARY 2023:

A film from the new Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time list whose ranking includes the #1 (i.e. 1, 19, 100): Sunrise (#11)
The first film from any director you like: Blue Collar (Paul Schrader)
The first Best Picture winner you haven't seen (starting forward from Wings): The Great Ziegfeld
A Friday the 13th film: Freddy vs. Jason
A film from Sudan (Independence Day, January 1): Tajouj


Other watches:

Classic silent shorts: The Big Swallow, Fantasmagorie, Electrocuting an Elephant, The Dancing Pig
Disney/Pixar shorts: BURN-E, Lou, 22 vs. Earth, Far from the Tree, Destino
Nightmare on Elm Street rewatch marathon: A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, Wes Craven's New Nightmare
Others: The Uninvited


I think Blue Collar was probably the best, but some of those short films were really good; especially Far from the Tree.

Least favorite, Freddy's Dead quite easily.

Now that I'm finally caught up with all my January reviews, here is my second "assignment" episode on this new format I'm doing for the podcast.

The Movie Loot: The February Assignment (with Frank from Silver Screeners)

In this one, my friend Frank Mandosa joins the loot as we choose a set of 5 categories to guide us on what to watch during the month.

You can also see the live broadcast we did via YouTube



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

Here are the criteria for FEBRUARY 2023:

A film with Jack Lemmon (born February 8):
A film about an inventor (Nat'l Inventors Day, February 11):
A film with the name of a couple in its title:
A film from Masaki Kobayashi (born February 14):
A film from Kuwait (National Day, February 25):

Carlo on video!

Will have to catch this asap...

__________________

Still have to find my groove for these live shows, but it's fun. I very much prefer the audio edited version

This line, delivered towards the end of this bleak, post-apocalyptic drama from the Soviet Union, highlights what I think is the main line of thought of the film; the idea of transmitting hope in spite of everything against it. Set in this post-nuclear wasteland, Dead Man's Letters follows Larsen (Rolan Bykov), a professor determined to find hope somewhere, anywhere.

But how can we find hope when everything around us is in ruins? When everybody is telling us it is futile? When all our loved ones are gone? The film presents us a world that seems completely beyond hope, as people are forced to live underground, while wearing protective clothing and gas masks outside to keep them safe from the polluted air, the dirty water, and the scattered carcasses.

Although the slim hopes of most people rely on the existence of a "central bunker", Larsen is sure that there has to be more outside of that. Released towards the end of the Cold War, this seems like a very clear analogy of the centralized aspect of communism in the Soviet country; something that results in fewer resources, and therefore fewer chances to "survive" outside of this "centralized" system.

I do wish that the character of Larsen would feel more real, more relatable. The film goes for a bit of a more cold and distant approach that keeps its characters at a distance. And even though the despair and hopelessness of the situation does come through, I feel that a more emotional and character-driven approach could've been more powerful.

At several points, Larsen interacts with a group of orphaned children that have been discarded and pretty much left to die. It is in them that Larsen sees the hope of a future in this world, and it is to them that he shares the above story about "a star". Maybe he saw it, maybe not, but when darkness takes over, sometimes we have to hold on to the hope that that star is there.

Grade:

Creature with the Atom Brain follows police doctor Chet Walker (Richard Denning) as he tries to stop atom-powered creatures unleashed by Frank Buchanan (Michael Granger), a criminal on the run that wants to get revenge on his enemies. To do this, Frank has recruited ex-Nazi scientist Wilhelm Steigg (Gregory Gaye) whom he is forcing to work for him.

This is the second film from Edward L. Cahn I've seen in the last 2 months; the first one being another B-movie titled 12 Hours to Kill. There is something very pleasant and comforting about his economical approach to these two. If it has to do with skill or just the limitations of the film, I don't know. The truth is that both films work really well for what they are.

The tension in the film is well handled and Buchanan makes for a decent, moustache-twirling villain. The creatures, with their Frankenstein-like stitched heads, might seem silly but I found their mindless lumbering to be creepy enough within the setting. I also liked the way they tried to explain the logistics behind the brain implant that allows Buchanan and Steigg to control them.

Denning is also pretty effective as the lead, although he acts more like a detective than a police doctor. The 69 minute length is also a big plus, considering what the film has to work with. Some other films would've bothered with senseless exposition, or bloated backstories, but from the opening scene, Cahn knows what we're here for. We just want to see people die.

Grade:

Never heard of it.

You wouldn't get it.

Fat Girl follows the relationship of sisters, Anaïs and Elena (Anaïs Pingot and Roxanne Mesquida) as they each face their respective coming-of-age issues and sexual awakening in very different ways. The contrast between both is the central focus of this drama from Catherine Breillat.

As Elena herself says in the above quote, they are very much different. Anaïs is 12-year old, "chubby", and leaning more to the shy/introvert side albeit with a bitter cynicism to her, while Elena is 15-year old, skinny, and bolder in her approach to men, with a certain dose of wickedness. But as "daring" as Elena presents herself, she is actually waiting for the right man to lose her virginity. Anaïs, on the other hand, says she wants her first time to be "with nobody. I don't want a guy bragging he had me first."

The film extends that juxtaposition also to how supporting characters approach and treat the sisters. From Elena's new "boyfriend" (Liberto de Rienzo) to a key character in the last act, we are left to wonder on the differences and similarities between both treatments, and how much lies, deceit, and violence play into the "game".

It is the last act what might separate the film from being a masterpiece to some or a disappointment to others; the ones that love it from those that might hate it. It is most definitely one that's filled of unexpected tension, and a twist that feels completely out of left field (but is it?). Regardless of where you fall, I give Breillat heavy props for unapologetically throwing it out and just let the chips fall where they may.

Grade:

Kramer vs. Kramer follows the struggles of Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman), after his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) abandons him and their 7-year-old son, Billy (Justin Henry). As Ted copes with this, he has to learn to find some balance between his professional career, his personal life, and his duties as a parent.

Released in the late 1970s, I have to assume that this film stirred up some controversy, primarily for the way it challenges conventional gender roles. The wife and mother is the one that leaves, and the father has to learn how to take care of themselves. In that respect, the film is totally about Ted and Billy. Personally, I think I would've preferred a more balanced approach to both parents AND child, but technically, that would've been a very different film.

As it is, I really appreciated the way that the film portrayed Ted's growth as a parent, and in his relationship with Billy. Also, the moments where we see the kid trying to internalize and rationalize the abandonment and this clash between his parents were heartbreaking. There are a couple of scenes that are obviously put in there to highlight that contrast; the two breakfast scenes, or the scenes when Ted's walking Billy to school. As obvious as they are, I think they work, mostly because of the excellent performances from Hoffman and Henry.

I think that the film loses a bit once they bring Joanna back in the last act, mostly because you clearly see that the script is not on her side. Apparently Meryl Streep advocated for a more sympathetic portrayal of her character, and Hoffman fought her on it. But that is perhaps the more "benign" clash that they had. Streep has claimed that Hoffman groped her, slapped her, and harassed her, allegedly as part of his "method acting". Obviously, all of that means Hoffman is an a$$hole, but he's a talented a$$hole, and he very much shows that in here.

Streep also does a great job with what she gets, but like I said, this is Ted and Billy's story, and I was completely caught up in that. Being the son of divorced parents, but also being a "struggling new parent", I can confirm it has to do with constancy, it has to do with patience, it has to do with listening, even when you can't listen any more. But more important, it has to do with love.

Grade:

After all, what can a few land crabs do? Well, that's what Attack of the Crab Monsters wants to answer. The film follows a group of scientists sent to a remote island in the Pacific Ocean to study the effects of nuclear tests. What they eventually find is that the island is inhabited by mutated giant crabs that take over the minds of their victims.

There is an undeniable charm to these creature features that were made during the time (which I suppose is the reason why this HoF is so appealing to some of us). Part of it had to do with the fears of the moment, i.e. radiation, nuclear power; but another big part of it has to do with the "low budget" approach to these films. There's obviously a bit of both in this one.

Most of the focus falls on biologist couple Dale and Martha (Richard Garland and Pamela Duncan), and technician Hank (Russell Johnson). There are even hints at a love triangle between them, but it all ends up being pointless. Like modern slashers, the rest of the cast are more or less disposable, with the real stars of the film being the giant crabs.

The goofy design of the crabs, with the almost "googly" eyes, just adds to that, uhh, charm. However, I really don't understand the purpose for having the crabs take over the minds of their victims, as opposed to have them be just "killer giant crabs". But putting that aside, Corman does a solid job keeping a nice pace to things, especially considering that the only thing we have here is earth, water, and a few land crabs.

Grade:

The above quote anchors the life of Alan Turing, as told by The Imitation Game. The quote makes a reference as to how people that are underestimated are sometimes the ones that end up doing really great things. However, it seems that the film takes some, uhh, liberties in portraying how "underestimated" Turing was at the time, and that's just one of the many liberties the film takes.

The film follows Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) through three different times in his life: his teenage years at boarding school, his time serving the British government during World War II, and his secluded adulthood after the war, in the early 1950s. The story moves back and forth between these three timelines as we see how he was, how he is, and how he would be; at least according to screenwriter Graham Moore.

The main focus of the story is on Turing's work on cracking the Nazi's Enigma code. Turing, who is portrayed as socially awkward, somewhat egocentric, and disliked by most people, is assigned to work with a team under the strict supervision of Commander Denniston (Charles Dance). At first, Turing and his work are dismissed and rejected by everyone around him, which goes back to the above quote, and how he eventually ends up cracking the code.

Another significant focus of the story lies on Turing's sexuality, and his relationship with a young Christopher Morcom during his school years, and with Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), a cryptoanalyst that works close to his team during World War II. Him being a homosexual adds another layer to the above quote since this also added to him being dismissed by others.

Unfortunately, despite some of these broad strokes being accurate, a huge amount of what we see in the film is made up. Turing was not that socially awkward, there's no evidence he was bullied at school, he wasn't the first to crack German codes, he wasn't the sole inventor of the "cracking" machine, he had a good working relationship with his team, Denniston was supportive of him, and although there was a Russian spy at Bletchley Park, there is no evidence that they interacted. So, yeah, pretty much 80% of the film.

I know that films aren't meant to be documentaries, but even if we were to take it as a fictional account, the film follows the familiar beats of most biopics. Even Cumberbatch's portrayal seems like Oscar low-hanging fruit, considering that there is no evidence that Turing behaved like a "1940s Sheldon Cooper", but yeah, I guess that "sells". Still, the film is not awful, most of the performances are pretty good, and there are moments that work. So even if you can't imagine the film working for all the reasons above, to some extent, it does and there might be something for some people in there.

Grade: