Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition

Tools    





ICE MERCHANTS
(2022, Gonzalez)



"A family drama about loss and family connection."

That is how filmmaker João Gonzalez described his short film for a New Yorker interview. At 14 minutes, this silent short film certainly has to let the images and the music carry the burden of those themes, but it does so pretty well.

Set in a steep cliff where a house is perched, Ice Merchants follows a father-and-son duo as they continuously go through their routine of picking ice, jumping down, selling ice, going back up. It's all shown beautifully through the minimalist animation of Gonzalez.

But beyond the rigors of that routine, there are indeed some moments where the images show you there was a loss, and consequently, how that ever-present connection between the family can keep us alive, and help us to carry on. Ice Merchants might feel like a simple story, but it does have a lot of heart.

Grade:
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



MY YEAR OF DICKS
(2022, Gunnarsdóttir)



"Pamela, let me tell you, women don't actually like having sex. They like the kissing beforehand, and the hugging and the cuddling after. But the actual... penetration is quite unpleasant for a woman."

Puberty and adolescence can be a stressful and confusing time for any teenager. Everything is out of control; the body, hormones, emotions, feelings. Not to mention the pressures of friends and society, paired with the moral inhibitions about love and sex. Our body wants certain things, our peers say we should do certain things, but our parents and society tells us we shouldn't, which makes this acclaimed short an interesting snapshot of one teenage girl's journey.

My Year of Dicks is a semi-autobiographical short written by Pamela Ribon, based on her experiences as a teenager. Directed by Sara Gunnarsdóttir, it is separated in five chapters chronicling a year in the life of Pam (Brie Tilton), as she is determined to lose her virginity. Each chapter follows a different attempt from Pam to "succeed", while featuring different tones and animation styles, culminating with her father giving her the "sex talk" (see an excerpt above).

There have been countless of films about male teenagers determined to lose their virginity, but not nearly as much about female teenagers in the same situation. From that angle, it is refreshing to see Ribon's experiences and perspective brought to life. The story, though, doesn't stray that far from the typical tropes of the genre, and you can probably guess where things will go in the end, but that doesn't make the journey less endearing.

In addition, Gunnarsdótir's decision to distinguish every chapter with a specific tone and animation style makes things feel more alive. The main animation style, which I think is roto-scoping, can be a bit crude but it adds a certain level of unpolishness that I think fits the overall theme. After all, that's how love and sex are usually at first, unpolished and not necessarily as "perfect" as we would expect, but still unique and worth experiencing and remembering.

Grade:



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
MY YEAR OF DICKS
I hated this film, but I have a theory that "dicks" means literal penises (ones she hadn't got for a long time, though wanted to) but also (and predominantly) the men she wanted to lose virginity with who turned out to be just that in her mind: dicks. Just imagine a guy directing the movie: "My Year of Cants". And of course, there's that
WARNING: "My Year of Dicks" spoilers below
one guy who rejected her advances in the park (I cheered!) but eventually gave in to her (I booed!). Mandatory rape/molestation part, mandatory you're on your period so I lost my boner, and a mandatory (literal!) patriarch saying "Women don't enjoy sex". Jesus Christ.


I mean, The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse wasn't good either, and the inspirational quotes pilfered straight from a self-help book sure irked me. But at least it looked good and the characters were adorable. The Boy, The Mole... was substantially more valuable than My Year of Dicks in nearly every way.

Puberty and adolescence can be a stressful and confusing time for any teenager. Everything is out of control; the body, hormones, emotions, feelings. Not to mention the pressures of friends and society, paired with the moral inhibitions about love and sex. Our body wants certain things, our peers say we should do certain things, but our parents and society tells us we shouldn't, which makes this acclaimed short an interesting snapshot of one teenage girl's journey.
Interesting. Now that I think of it, I never really went through that adolescent part. I was a child and then, BAM! I became an adult. I never had that infamous rebellious phase either. I never wanted to do certain things, and I always frowned upon those who did. I was always calm and composed. I never did anything that was against my beliefs or moral system and I never really wanted to.

So, I never understood movies like My Year of Dicks. I never understood any of the teen comedies. I did understand, say, Japanese teen dramas. But never American teen comedies. It's such an abstract concept to me, to desperately want to lose your virginity. With whoever is first. But just to lose it, as if it was a rite of passage that gives you superpowers.

There have been countless of films about male teenagers determined to lose their virginity
Have there? Probably those teen comedies I avoid like fire. Because I sure can't remember anything like that at the moment. Oh, there's the American Pie series. One of the worst series in the world, I guess.

but not nearly as much about female teenagers in the same situation
Here I can at least say Lady Bird - another sorry excuse for a movie.

After all, that's how love and sex are usually at first, unpolished and not necessarily as "perfect" as we would expect, but still unique and worth experiencing and remembering.
I think it's not just because some people's expectations are too high. But also because some people unknowingly do things that make their initial relationships unpolished, and ultimately fail. Like, I don't know, getting involved with a dick, or something.
__________________
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.



I hated this film, but I have a theory that "dicks" means literal penises (ones she hadn't got for a long time, though wanted to) but also (and predominantly) the men she wanted to lose virginity with who turned out to be just that in her mind: dicks. Just imagine a guy directing the movie: "My Year of Cants". And of course, there's that
WARNING: "My Year of Dicks" spoilers below
one guy who rejected her advances in the park (I cheered!) but eventually gave in to her (I booed!). Mandatory rape/molestation part, mandatory you're on your period so I lost my boner, and a mandatory (literal!) patriarch saying "Women don't enjoy sex". Jesus Christ.


I mean, The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse wasn't good either, and the inspirational quotes pilfered straight from a self-help book sure irked me. But at least it looked good and the characters were adorable. The Boy, The Mole... was substantially more valuable than My Year of Dicks in nearly every way.
The title is obviously a wordplay on literal dicks and metaphorical "dicks", like you said. Since you brought it up, The Boy, the Mole.. is the only Oscar-nominated animated short from last year I haven't gotten to, and it's the one who won. Of the others I've seen, I enjoyed The Ostrich... more, but I had no issues with this one.

Interesting. Now that I think of it, I never really went through that adolescent part. I was a child and then, BAM! I became an adult. I never had that infamous rebellious phase either. I never wanted to do certain things, and I always frowned upon those who did. I was always calm and composed. I never did anything that was against my beliefs or moral system and I never really wanted to.

So, I never understood movies like My Year of Dicks. I never understood any of the teen comedies. I did understand, say, Japanese teen dramas. But never American teen comedies. It's such an abstract concept to me, to desperately want to lose your virginity. With whoever is first. But just to lose it, as if it was a rite of passage that gives you superpowers.
Everybody has different experiences and perspectives, and this short certainly isn't the first time that I hear/read of experiences like this. My perspective from a Christian-raised male from Puerto Rico won't necessarily equate to the ones from Ribon or Gunnarsdóttir, but I can appreciate them sharing their views.

Have there? Probably those teen comedies I avoid like fire. Because I sure can't remember anything like that at the moment. Oh, there's the American Pie series. One of the worst series in the world, I guess.

Here I can at least say Lady Bird - another sorry excuse for a movie.
Aside of American Pie, some of the ones that come to mind that are about "losing virginity" or touch on that on a significant "subplot" level are...

Porky's
Can't Hardly Wait
Sixteen Candles
Risky Business
Fast Times at Ridgemont High


Out of those, the one I can certainly take away as genuinely good is probably Fast Times. The other ones I either think they're dumb fun, haven't seen in a very long time, or don't like that much.

I think it's not just because some people's expectations are too high. But also because some people unknowingly do things that make their initial relationships unpolished, and ultimately fail. Like, I don't know, getting involved with a dick, or something.
I think both things go hand-in-hand. Because of all those reasons I brought up about peer pressure or sheer hormonal drive, a lot of teens jump into sexual encounters without the right maturity, caution, expectations, etc. which result in not so pleasant experiences. Then again, there is that unnecessary pressure of that "first time" being "special" when at the end of the day, it really shouldn't matter, but well.



VALLEY OF THE DOLLS
(1967, Robson)



"Honey, listen, it's a rotten business."
"I know. But I love it!"

That's the entertainment business they're talking about in the above quote. A business that one can say is equally plagued by the "highs" of success and the glory of fame, as well as the bitterness, the jealousy, the resentment, the backstabbings, and the overall pressures of keeping a certain status. Those are waters that a lot of wannabe artists crave, but not everybody can navigate, which serves as the backdrop of these 1960s titillating drama.

Valley of the Dolls follows three young women that find themselves dipping their toes in these waters and then end up being washed away by it. Most of the plot follows Anne Welles (Barbara Parkins), a recent graduate that starts as a secretary at a theatrical agency but ends up unwittingly sucked deeper into the business. She is joined by Neely O'Hara (Patty Duke), a rising star in Broadway, and Jennifer North (Sharon Tate), a chorus girl with low self-esteem.

The film chronicles the rise and fall of the three friends as they struggle with newfound fame, failing relationships, and addiction to alcohol and barbiturates (i.e. the titular "dolls") in the midst of this "rotten business". Generally speaking, I feel like there is a strong story here about the burdens and pressures of fame. Unfortunately, it is buried under mediocre craftmanship and bad acting.

The film has some serious issues with its pacing, and the way the events unfold. Maybe it's the editing or the direction, or a mixture of both, but there is an unnevenness in how the film moves from one sequence to the other. Certain relationships, interactions, and plot developments feel like coming out of nowhere, as if there was a scene or two missing in between.

Some of these plot developments either "half work" or should work, but it's all so shoddily assembled that it ends up hindering the overall effect. Add to that the poor performances and the excessive melodrama, and you end up with all the ingredients for a disaster... and still, just like the "rotten business" the characters are sucked into, there is something captivating about it. Not enough for me to "love it", but enough to not turn it off.

Grade:



THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN
(2022, McDonagh)



“We’ll keep aimlessly chatting, and me life will keep dwindling, and in 12 years I’ll die with nothin’ to show for it, bar the chats I’ve had with a limited man. Is that it?”

What are friends for? That's a question that's often asked rhetorically when acknowledging something done among friends. But seriously, what are friends for? Are they people you feel comfortable with and want to hang out with, people to aimlessly chat with, or is there a deeper value to be attributed to friendship; something you feel the need to get something from?

The Banshees of Inisherin seems to ask that question as it follows longtime friends Colm (Brendan Gleeson) and Padraic (Colin Farrell) reach a crossroad in their relationship. Colm seems to be going through an existential crisis that makes him see little value in his relationship with Padraic, especially as he approaches a certain age, whereas Padraic just can't believe his old mate doesn't wanna hang out with him anymore.

The thing is that Colm seems to be more interested in the future, his "legacy" as a musician, rather than his friendship with Padraic. McDonagh uses this conundrum to explore what is our place and purpose in the world – to create and leave "something" behind – or just to be nice to people, but also what it means to be a friend in the face of despair, maturity, growth, and even death.

Are friendships supposed to be this "transactional" relationship where you're supposed to "get something" out of the other? Are we meant to be friends with everybody forever and ever, regardless of how much we change and grow, or is Colm behaving like a 12-year old? It's interesting how, upon Colm's rejection, Padraic latches onto Dominic (Barry Keoghan), the friendly but dim-witted son of the local policeman, as if establishing a new "friend hierarchy" with him at the top.

But that dilemma is just the beginning. McDonagh ends up taking the story into really unexpected ways, anchored by four amazing performances in Gleeson, Farrell, Keoghan, and Kerry Condon as Padraic's sister, perhaps the most level-headed resident of Inisherin. They are all blessed with a script that's smart, clever, funny, witty, deep, and evoking equal doses of despair and hope, in an amazing mixture of tragedy and comedy.

Grade:



EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
(2022, Daniels)



"Not a single moment will go by without every other universe screaming for your attention. Never fully there. Just a lifetime of fractured moments, contradictions, and confusion. With only a few specks of time where anything actually makes any sense."

That's how one of the main characters of Everything Everywhere All at Once (or rather her "evil" counterpart) describes this "tortured" multiverse reality they're living, but it could also be used to describe the plot of the film. I mean, a Chinese-American immigrant (Michelle Yeoh) is being audited by the IRS when she discovers her connection with multiple universes, including one where people have hot-dog fingers; a connection she has to use to save these universes from being destroyed by her alternate father and daughter, and a floating bagel. Whoosh!

Really, it's not that its complex, just that it is too many silly and absurd things thrown at once. The overload from the story and the fights and the frenetic rhythm of the film, all screaming for your attention might not be for everyone. Fractured moments, contradictions, and confusion, one might say; with only a few specks of time where anything actually makes any sense, and I'm not necessarily saying it in a bad way. I discovered this film was written and directed by the same guys that did Swiss Army Man shortly after watching it, and I went like "yeah, it figures".

So if you're into fast-paced absurdism, then this might be for you. But as far as I'm concerned, what kept this film afloat was the emotional anchor provided by the characters, especially Ke Huy Quan and Stephanie Hsu, who play Yeoh's husband and daughter respectively. KHQ gives an incredibly endearing and charismatic performance, but Hsu really digs deep into the heart and emotion of this "fractured" character to which nothing actually makes any sense. As fun as Jamie Lee Curtis was as a relentless IRS agent, I see no universe in which her performance was better than Hsu's.

I commend the Daniels for staying true to their quirky ideas, but to be honest, I think that the emotional weight of the film was sometimes drowned by all the things that they throw at the audience screaming for our attention. Now that they won every single Oscar, I suppose they'll swing even harder, but I think a bit of restraint wouldn't have been a bad thing here. Even though I was never fully there, I cherished those specks of time where something, anything, made any sense for me.

Grade:



SHIP OF FOOLS
(1965, Kramer)



"Are you happy?"
"Who is happy?"

That's the exchange between two characters during a climatic conversation in this film. It goes to the core of every passenger, each of which is coping with different shades and levels of unhappiness. And yet, most of them pretend things are not what they seem as they try to "avoid being fools". Knowing where the ship, and their lives, are headed, we know things aren't getting any easier.

Set in 1933, Ship of Fools follows a group of passengers on a ship headed to pre-World War II Germany. The passengers include a "flirty" divorced woman, a young couple that can't stop fighting and making up, a disgraced former baseball player, an opiate addict, a troupe of flamenco musicians and dancers, a dwarf, Nazi sympathizers, Jewish people, and hundreds of poor Spanish workers sent back to their country. Through their interactions, the film addresses themes like classism, racism, xenophobia, regrets, love, infatuation, happiness, and the lack of it.

The film boasts an impressive ensemble cast that includes Vivien Leigh, Oskar Werner, Simone Signoret, Lee Marvin, José Ferrer, and George Segal, among many others. Most of the performances are solid, with Werner probably being my favorite. His role as the ship's medical officer, Dr. Schumann, is the closest that comes to a protagonist and his complex relationship with La Condesa (Signoret) provides a lot of the emotional baggage of the film.

Ferrer also seems to be having a lot of fun with his performance as a loud anti-Semite while Marvin, although not as effective, still has a particularly solid scene as he drunkenly reminisces on his career. Michael Dunn also has an excellent performance as Glocken, the dwarf that seems to be on the sidelines most of the time, observing everything and even breaking the fourth wall to comment on what he sees in this "ship of fools".

Like it often happens with ensemble films, the attempt to juggle so many characters results in some of the subplots falling by the wayside. For example, even though Leigh is pretty good, her subplot was one that I didn't particularly care about. The film also relies often in the use of dramatic irony, which sometimes ends up feeling like forced attempts of the film elbowing us and going like "get it?".

Despite those few flaws, I still find this film to be quite effective. Even though it's not as subtle as one would want, I appreciated how it showed the many ways that these passengers try to find happiness; whether it is in sex or love, a dance or a drink, a seat at the table or a moment alone, or maybe even a spray from a water hose in a hot day. They might not end up finding happiness, but they'll be happy... at least for a moment.

Grade:



EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE
(2022, Daniels)





That's how one of the main characters of Everything Everywhere All at Once (or rather her "evil" counterpart) describes this "tortured" multiverse reality they're living, but it could also be used to describe the plot of the film. I mean, a Chinese-American immigrant (Michelle Yeoh) is being audited by the IRS when she discovers her connection with multiple universes, including one where people have hot-dog fingers; a connection she has to use to save these universes from being destroyed by her alternate father and daughter, and a floating bagel. Whoosh!

Really, it's not that its complex, just that it is too many silly and absurd things thrown at once. The overload from the story and the fights and the frenetic rhythm of the film, all screaming for your attention might not be for everyone. Fractured moments, contradictions, and confusion, one might say; with only a few specks of time where anything actually makes any sense, and I'm not necessarily saying it in a bad way. I discovered this film was written and directed by the same guys that did Swiss Army Man shortly after watching it, and I went like "yeah, it figures".

So if you're into fast-paced absurdism, then this might be for you. But as far as I'm concerned, what kept this film afloat was the emotional anchor provided by the characters, especially Ke Huy Quan and Stephanie Hsu, who play Yeoh's husband and daughter respectively. KHQ gives an incredibly endearing and charismatic performance, but Hsu really digs deep into the heart and emotion of this "fractured" character to which nothing actually makes any sense. As fun as Jamie Lee Curtis was as a relentless IRS agent, I see no universe in which her performance was better than Hsu's.

I commend the Daniels for staying true to their quirky ideas, but to be honest, I think that the emotional weight of the film was sometimes drowned by all the things that they throw at the audience screaming for our attention. Now that they won every single Oscar, I suppose they'll swing even harder, but I think a bit of restraint wouldn't have been a bad thing here. Even though I was never fully there, I cherished those specks of time where something, anything, made any sense for me.

Grade:
That was largely my impression as well, and I think I might've given the film too high of a rating. I understand why many people really like it, but I was just too worn down throughout so much of it to feel the emotional resonance much.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



TIMECRIMES
(2007, Vigalondo)
A film with the word "Time" in its title



"No matter what you hear, don't come out. Don't interfere."

Some SPOILERS might follow

Time travel films vary in style, purpose, and quality. From the wacky shenanigans of Back to the Future to the horror-like thrills of The Terminator. However, one thing is always constant in them: Don't interfere, because the slightest meddling in past events can have tragic or maybe even catastrophic consequences.

Timecrimes takes that premise and brings it down into more personal stakes. The film follows Héctor (Karra Elejalde), a man who unknowingly walks into a time machine that takes him an hour into the past. This puts him in a time loop where he is attacked by a masked man, forcing him to protect his wife from him or others.

It is impossible to talk about this film without spoiling it in some way, so I won't try. I appreciate how economical the film is in how it handles its premise. With a low budget, and a cast of only four people, the script is clever enough to keep the focus, not necessarily in the sci-fi/time travel aspect, but rather in the choices this man makes as he explores this new reality. Like I said above, the stakes are not "world destruction", but rather to protect his wife at all costs.

There are some aspects of the story that might be predictable, especially if you've seen a film like Triangle, with which it has a lot of parallels. However, the twists and turns keep things interesting. I'm a sucker for time travel films, so I always enjoy how they spin their paradoxes in a way that can still surprise me to some extent. Plus, I really appreciated how the film behaves more like a slasher instead of a sci-fi film.

There is a bit of a stretch in how the main character goes from a bumbling, middle aged man that doesn't realize the consequences of his actions into a more ruthless sociopath that doesn't care about them. However, the positives in the film outweigh the logistical issues it might have. Overall, it's a fun ride, so I choose not to interfere with it.

Grade:



THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI
(2017, McDonagh)
A film with the the number 3 (Three, Third, etc.) in its title



"There are just some cases, where you never catch a break. Then 5 years down the line, some guy hears some other guy braggin' about it in a barroom or a jail cell. The whole thing is wrapped up through sheer stupidity."

Tragedy can take many forms and shapes. It can come in the form of an unexpected illness or the murder of a loved one. The above is the faint hope that Sheriff Willoughby (Woody Harrelson) can give Mildred Hayes (Frances McDormand) after the murder of her daughter has been unsolved for months. But Mildred is not one to wait 5 years for some random barroom gossip or someone's stupidity to wrap things up.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri follows the efforts of Mildred to spark Willoughby and the local police into action in order to bring justice, but also for her to have some sort of closure. Her strategy is to rent three billboards on an isolated road in town asking the sheriff for results. Unfortunately, this puts her at odds not only with many supporters of the sheriff, but especially with Dixon (Sam Rockwell), a loyal but racist deputy that's determined to stop Mildred.

This was the second McDonagh film I saw in the month. It's interesting to see the parallels in terms of tone as the writer and director skillfully juggles both tragedy and comedy. It kinda reminds me of Bong Joon-ho, who does so in the middle of serious dramatic films about murder, serial killers, or classism. McDonagh's script is clever enough to weave in and out of these tragic situations with effective humor, but without losing the dramatic weight of what has happened or what will happen.

I do think he goes a bit overboard from time to time, and some subplots are underserved, but overall, the character of Mildred keeps things grounded pretty well. McDormand adds yet another stellar performance to her resume, but it is Rockwell who steals the show with his performance as a loud-mouthed, alcoholic, racist, and abusive a$$hole. It is impressive how, despite boasting the traits of a despicable man, you end up caring for him.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is one of those films that dares to take the story into some unexpected places. Regardless of how some of these detours work or not, I respect McDonagh's swings. Much like Mildred's strategy, it's still worth trying; even if it doesn't work, even if it ends up enraging others, even if it refuses to wrap things up as neatly as you would expect.

Grade:



OKJA
(2017, Bong)
A film from South Korea



"Shoulder blade! Loin! Spare rib! Hock! Got it? This is what will happen to her. This is Okja's fate!"

There is a special bond formed between a child and their pet. It is usually one of mutual love, care, and protection. Unfortunately, it's not a bond that everybody understands or values, and that is sometimes dismissed without realizing the consequences. That is some of the backdrop of Bong Joon-ho's US/Korean co-production, Okja.

The film follows the titular "super-pig", one of many that was genetically modified and bred with one goal in mind: to become shoulder blade, loin, spare rib, hock! That is Okja's fate, according to Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) and the people at Mirando Corporation. But Mija (Ahn Seo-hyun), the young girl that has been taking care of Okja for ten years, sees beyond the superficial purpose of her "super-pig".

The thing is that Mija doesn't know about Okja's "fate". She's under the impression that the pig belongs to them, so when a Mirando team comes to their house to take Okja, she ain't having none of that. Determined to rescue her pig, Mija goes from Seoul to New York. In her journey, she is helped by members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) led by Jay (Paul Dano), who seemed to have their own goals in mind regarding Okja.

Like most of Bong's films, Okja walks a fine line between drama and humor. Most of the characters are larger-than-life caricatures, sometimes in both ends of the spectrum. From the emotionally detached corporate executives to the emotionally invested environmentalists. Most of these, work pretty well within the film. However, I think Jake Gyllenhaal's performance as a wacky zoologist and TV host was a bit too far. It's maybe the only character that felt out of place for me.

On the other hand, Ahn Seo-hyun's performance as Mija is a true delight. She succeeds in transmitting the innocence and charm of a child, but also Mija's steadfast determination to do whatever she needs to rescue Okja. I would've loved to see a bit more done with the relationship with her grandfather (Byun Hee-bong). It seems to me that there was a bit more there than what we ended up with, and considering the way their paths clashed, I would've liked to see something more out of it.

In addition to the performances, Bong's direction and Darius Khondji's cinematography are fantastic. The film's criticism of the meat industry is nothing but subtle, which might rub some people the wrong way, but given the overall film's tone, I think it is warranted and ultimately effective. I'm as far from a vegetarian as anyone could be, but I think there's something for all of us to think and ponder about whenever we're having shoulder blade, loin, spare rib, hock.

Grade:



DO THE RIGHT THING
(1989, Lee)
A film from Spike Lee



"Let me tell you the story of Right Hand, Left Hand. It's a tale of good and evil. Hate: it was with this hand that Cain iced his brother. Love: these five fingers, they go straight to the soul of man. The right hand: the hand of love. The story of life is this: static. One hand is always fighting the other hand, and the left hand is kicking much ass."

Race relations in the United States (and probably elsewhere) have always been... complicated, to say the least. From the British and the Native Americans, to the white man/black man struggles, and everything in between. With more than 200 years of established, there isn't a time in American history that is not defined in some way by racial tension. The idea of a "melting pot" where people from different cultures can come and meld together to become stronger is constantly put to the test.

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing gives us a microcosm of that in one little street. Set during a hot summer day in the Bed-Stuy neighborhood of Brooklyn, the film is mostly focused on the interactions of Mookie (Lee), a pizza delivery boy, with the residents of this street personifying that microcosm. We have the Italian-owned pizzeria and the Korean-owned convenience store anchored in a predominantly black neighborhood, with some Puerto Ricans sprinkled around.

This is the second time I see this film, with the first time being probably more than 20-25 years ago. Needless to say, my appreciation and perception of the film now was way deeper than it was back then, when I was 17 or 18 years old. It is amazing the way that Lee challenges the audience through a carefully crafted script that is not designed for us to root for anyone, but rather to show us the way things are, and maybe make us wonder what can we do for things to change.

To fully analyze this film and what it means, you can't just look at the main events that occur, but also at those that preceded it. There are catalysts and consequences to everything, and the way the film presents us "big picture" themes of cultural appropriation, displacement, gentrification, and racial tensions through seemingly "little" events in one day is masterful. It is the kind of film that the more I think about, the more things I find out that enrage me, but also make me fall in love with it more.

The main thesis of the film is presented through the above quote from Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn), a colorful character that carries around a loud boom-box and wears two brass knuckles with the words "LOVE" and "HATE". His little monologue highlights the duality that is in all of us, which we see all through the film, most notably in the constant references to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X as representatives of African-Americans, but also in Mookie and his boss, Sal (Danny Aiello). There is "love" and "hate" in all of us, and sometimes they get mixed up with each other.

The last act features a murder at the hands of the police, and a business burned down in the middle of a riot, and then another day begins. The cycle repeats. The film then closes with two contrasting quotes from King and Malcolm X, both of which show their differing ideologies: "Love" and "Hate". The fact that both were assassinated within three years of each other during the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights movement, is a sad reminder of the "options" that people have to demand equality.

These quotes are followed by a dedication to a handful of victims of racial violence during the 1980s. 30 years later, we're still seeing people dying at the hands of the police, businesses burned down in the middle of riots, and the cycle keeps repeating itself. And yet, another day begins, with another chance for every one of us to "do the right thing". That's it.

Grade:



A system of cells interlinked
Timecrimes is excellent, as is Triangle, which you also mentioned. Do the Right Thing is a classic.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Timecrimes is excellent, as is Triangle, which you also mentioned. Do the Right Thing is a classic.
I give a slight edge to Triangle, but maybe that's because I saw it first? But anyway, yeah. Two really cool films.



IKIRU
(1952, Kurosawa)
A film from Akira Kurosawa



"We only realize how beautiful life is when we face death. And even then, few of us realize it. The worst among us know nothing of life until they die."

There is a tragic irony in me writing about movies while sitting on my desk at a job I don't particularly enjoy. For numerous reasons, we often end up trapped in dead-end jobs or thankless careers; sometimes reasons we cannot or won't change, so we just wait as time to pass by, so we can go home, sleep, and wake up to do the same again. Sometimes it takes bravado to change things around, and sometimes it takes a terminal illness for us to realize how much time we've wasted in the wrong things.

Ikiru follows Kanji Watanabe (Takashi Shimura), a man that is stuck in that cycle. After 30 years working a monotonous, bureaucratic job, he gets diagnosed with cancer, which prompts him to start making some changes in his life. He goes from a night of drinking with a novelist he meets at a bar, to spending whole days with a former co-worker half his age because he says he's "jealous" of her energy.

There is a very strong and ever-present critique of bureaucratic systems throughout the film. It is shown as something that stifles the efforts of the government to ultimately serve the public, as well as stifling those like Watanabe that work under that system. But the film is ultimately about his quest for purpose in the last stage of his life. It is a reminder that we can still make a difference regardless of how late we think it might be.

This is the first non-period film from Kurosawa that I see and you can notice a bit of a shift to a more "personal" approach to his direction, especially when compared to epics like Ran or Seven Samurai. There are a lot of close-ups, especially of Watanabe's face, where you can literally see his despair and anguish as he tries to figure out what to do with what's left of his life. His exchanges with the novelist (Yūnosuke Itō) and the female co-worker (Miki Odagiri) are two effective ways in which the film anchors the first two acts of the film.

However, there is a storytelling device used in the last act that I didn't find as effective. I felt it muddled the overall impact, but not by much. Overall, the film is a poignant and heart-warming look at life and the choices we can still make while there's still time. There are two instances when Watanabe sings a song called "Gondola no Uta", which are probably the emotional peaks of the film. A song whose lyrics reminds us that "life is brief" and that we should do the things we want, "for there is no such thing as tomorrow, after all". Maybe I should learn from that.

Grade:



Finally, here's my summary for MARCH 2023:

A film from South Korea (March 1st Movement): Okja
A film with the number 3 (Three, Third, etc.) in its title: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
A film from Akira Kurosawa (born March 23): Ikiru
A film from Spike Lee (born March 20): Do the Right Thing
A film with the word "Time" in its title (Daylight Savings Time, March 12): Timecrimes



Other films seen, not for the challenge

30th Hall of Fame: Dog Day Afternoon, Valley of the Dolls, Ship of Fools
Oscar-nominated shorts: The Flying Sailor, Night Ride, An Ostrich Told Me the World Is Fake and I Think I Believe It, Ice Merchants, My Year of Dicks
Best Picture nominees: The Banshees of Inisherin, Everything Everywhere All at Once





Not counting rewatches, I think my favorites were The Banshees of Inisherin and Ikiru. Beyond that, there were a lot of really good ones like Okja, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, and Ship of Fools.

My least favorite was probably Valley of the Dolls, but I have to admit there's something alluring about it



SCREAM
(2022, Bettinelli-Olpin & Gillett)



"You can't just do a straight sequel, either. You need to build something new. But not too new or the Internet goes bug-f-ucking-nuts."

That is part of the explanation that a character gives when explaining the course of the Scre- I mean, Stab franchise, as they try to understand why another Ghostface is stalking them 25 years after the first Woodsboro murders. But of course, it's all part of the constant wink, wink, nudge, nudge to the audience that this film is pulling, as this new, umm, sequel in the Scream franchise unfolds.

This time, we're following estranged sisters: Tara and Sam (Jenna Ortega and Melissa Barrera). When Tara is attacked by Ghostface and left in the hospital, Sam returns to Woodsboro with her boyfriend Richie (Jack Quaid) where she reunites with Tara, and meets her circle of friends, most of which will probably die soon. Of course, as is the case with the franchise, one (or two?) of them are likely the ones doing the murdering. But who?

Ever since the first Scream was released in 1996, the franchise has become known for its notable meta-commentary on the state of the horror genre. Unfortunately, as more sequels came around, the franchise devolved into some of the same trends and problems it was criticizing in the first place. Scream 4 was a bit of fresh air as it managed to subvert some of the expectations about the story, while still being fun.

Now, 11 years after the last installment, the franchise is trying exactly what one of Tara's friends, Mindy (Jasmin Savoy Brown) is saying in the above quote. Scream (this Scream, not the original) is "something new, but not too new". It has a new creative team behind, and is headed by "new main characters, yes, but supported by, and related to, legacy characters. Not quite a reboot, not quite a sequel."

Aside from the above cast, the film sees the return of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette, as they are determined to stop this trend of Ghostface murders. The integration of the "new main characters" and the "legacy characters" works for the most part. Campbell looks more comfortable than ever in the role, while allowing Ortega and Barrera the space to shine. Arquette was also the best I've seen him in the whole franchise.

But like I said above, the beauty of the franchise is in two things: its clever meta-commentary and how well it manages to handle the "whodunit" aspect. I felt it succeeded for the most part in both. Although the commentary on sequels/prequels/reboots and the rise of so-called "elevated horror" was sometimes a bit too "in your face", I still felt it was funny and witty. Meanwhile, the intrigue about who the killer (or killers?) is was well executed. I could say there's some predictability to it, but that's the thing with these films; we're always looking and guessing, so it's hard not to put our money and guesses on the right one(s).

Unfortunately, the pace was a bit off at times. There were some lulls between solid moments that didn't work as well, and there's a bit of a stretch in believability in how these events are connected to the original films. Regardless of that, I think my experience was positive, the characters were mostly likabel, the thrills were there, the kills were good, so I'm open to see where this new team takes the franchise, instead of going "bug-f-ucking nuts".

Grade:



AVATAR
(2005, Quílez)



"Every time you hold out longer."

Traditional wedding vows usually include the promise from both parts to love and be with the other "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part." This sounds so charming and moving during the wedding, but not so much when the actual "worse" comes around five, ten, twenty years down the road; and sometimes one or both parts can't hold out any longer.

Avatar is a short film from Spanish filmmaker Lluis Quilez that presents us a couple in that situation. It follows a wheelchair-bound husband (Sebastián Haro) as he is subjected to a tense bath from his wife (Rosana Pastor). From the get-go, you can see there's distance between the two, and this is proven as the short progresses. Evidently, the "worse" and the "sickness" came, and there was no room to love and cherish.

This short film was recommended by filmmaker Tim Egan, when I interviewed him earlier this year. He cited it as an inspiration for him while calling it both beautiful and heart-breaking. I suppose that the same can be said about marriage. Anybody that has been married long enough knows that the time you spend together with this other person is bound to have both beautiful and heart-breaking moments, so it's just a thing to try to navigate those moments together.

From a technical standpoint, the short is great. Direction, cinematography, editing, everything is in the right place. But what makes it for me is the performances from Haro and Pastor, both of which make so much with just facial expressions and looks. There's hardly any dialogue and yet you get all you need to know from their body language, and it's impressive.

There is a tragic beauty in how Quílez slowly unfolds what's happening. Like with any family and personal situation, there are a hundred things we don't know about others, and when it hits you towards the end, you can't help but feel sorry for them. For better, for richer, and in health is easy; for worse, for poorer, and in sickness might require us to hold out longer for things to change... or just to let go.

Grade:



NEXT FLOOR
(2008, Villeneuve)



"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

That was God's command to mankind on the sixth day, at least according to the Bible. Putting men and women in a position of power over everything else, asking them to "subdue" the earth, and "rule" over every "living creature". Some of that might or might not be at the core of this short from Denis Villeneuve.

Next Floor follows a group of guests being offered an opulent banquet of various foods: from beef, sausages, chicken, fish and oysters, to antelope or rhinoceros. All being constantly carted into the table as the guests chow down relentlessly and voraciously. The contrast between the elegance of the setting and the grotesque of the menu, as well as their behavior, is evident.

The short film is fairly enigmatic and surreal, as we see the crowded table, guests and all, plummet down onto the "next floor". Something that doesn't seem to faze the guests that much. Even though it keeps on happening, they just keep on eating and eating, as the caravan of waiters follow them down the stairs.

It isn't that hard to find meaning in it. It can be a critique of the senseless slaughter of animals, it can be a metaphor for capitalism and the ruthless use of power by those in position, or it can be a reference to the ironies of the Bible and religion as "careless men" are asked to "rule" over every "living creature".

As I saw it, I got strong echoes of 2019's The Platform, which I think is more blunt in its symbolism. Regardless of what Villeneuve had in mind or the meaning different people might get from it, it's a gorgeously shot short film and it nonetheless offers something for us to chew on.

Grade: