Recently Watched Films 2016

[Lao Tsu Ben]

Wetherby, David Hare, 1985

I was reading some reviews by David Thomson collected in the book Have You seen? when I came across some very favourable words about the film (in the review of Plenty by Fred Schepisi actually, the script of which was written by Hare, Wetherby having its own review, not surprisingly, at the end of the book). I don't find much too fault in that movie, perhaps it is a bit slow but it is not everyday that you hear such tactful, considered dialogues (and Vanessa Redgrave's somewhat croaky voice has some magic quality to it). The only criticism that one could make is that it is a little too much in good taste maybe, but one needn't be that contradictory for the sake of it. That kind of middlebrow, serious movie is salutary at times. Now I'm very curious about Plenty .

[Piano Mouth]

Looks cool, that screenshot says it all for me.

[walto]

Two Danny McBride vehicles, Your Highness (Green, 2011) and Land of the Lost (Sliberling, 2009).



Both wicked stupid!!

[Dan Warburton]

Jacques Demy, Une chambre en ville, 1982

Demy originally wanted Deneuve, Depardieu, Signoret and Huppert, with music by Michel Legrand. Instead he got Dominique Sanda, Richard Berry, Danielle Darrieux and Fabienne Guyon, with music by Michel Colombier. And though the actors are OK (if you can live with the ridiculous fur coat and nothing under it that Sanda wears throughout), the music is far from memorable. Memorable, that is, as in Legrand-style memorable, which means you get the bloody tune stuck in your head and it stays there for the rest of the day. The critics liked it when it came out, but the public didn't, much. I tend to side with the public on this one. Still, a Demy film is always worth watching for the wallpaper, seriously

[Dan Warburton]

Michael Anderson, Logan's Run, 1976

I can't help thinking of Richard Pryor's line - "I just saw Logan’s Run and ain’t no niggas in it! I said, well white folks ain’t planning for us to be here!" Almost as amazing as the fact that this glossy dross actually scooped two Oscar nominations. Unlike Barbarella (see above), this makes the fatal mistake of taking itself seriously, modelling itself on both THX 1138 and Soylent Green and failing miserably to live up to either. Michael York, who I can't take seriously anymore since Austin Powers, is typically wooden, but Jenny Agutter is even worse (but there's the obligatory - with Agutter - flash of bare breasts) and Peter Ustinov's Old Man simply embarrassing. But not as embarrassing as the scale models and tinfoil costumes. Yeurch!

[jon abbey]

I really enjoyed that in the theater when I was 9 (more than Star Wars the year after), but you are probably a little older than that now.

[Dan Warburton]

I really enjoyed that in the theater when I was 9 (more than Star Wars the year after), but you are probably a little older than that now.

Physically, maybe Yeah, I saw it on telly when it came out (I would have been about 14) and have distant positive memories too. But now it's really awful!



Frank Perry, The Swimmer, 1968

Burt Lancaster described it as his favourite movie, which I suppose means something - but it's an odd one all right, a half-allegorical tale about the failure(s) of the American Dream, not so much a road movie as a pool movie, in which Burt shows up in each scene in his swimming trunks (that's all he wears throughout the entire film) and swims a length before moving on to the pool at the next door neighbours'. It doesn't take us long to figure out that his life hasn't worked out as he planned it, but thankfully the sordid details are left to our imagination. Makes for an interesting comparison with Kazan's The Arrangement, and, if you want a European perspective on the subject, Antonioni's Zabriskie Point. In fact, Antonioni seems to have been as much of an influence on this generation of American filmmakers as, say, Cassavetes was on the Europeans.

[Dan Warburton]

Raoul Ruiz, Les destins de Manoël, 1984

MANUEL ON THE ISLAND OF WONDERS is a French/Portuguese television coproduction shot in 16-millimeter and made up of three 50-minute episodes. (More recently it has resurfaced as a single, reduced 130-minute feature, LES DESTINS DE MANOEL, which I haven’t seen.) The first episode offers a narrative roundelay of recurring images and incidents whereby the eponymous hero aged seven meets himself aged thirteen and gets a forecast of future events. The second has Manuel exchanging bodies with an adult woodcutter, whereas the third relocates him in an aunt’s haunted house and pivots around a children’s party with Carrollian overtones.
Seen as a whole, the film’s storyline is gradually formalized through mantric repetitions and subsequent narrative suspensions until the characters and settings eventually become slaves of a dream logic that converts them into nonnarrative archetypes and emblems — pure spectacle without the Oedipal trappings of plot. Like CITY OF PIRATES , it qualifies as a “children’s adventure story” only insofar as it functions as a story at all — which is to say, only intermittently and superficially. Thus it seems highly appropriate that the cycle of episodes culminates in the extended children’s party, which is dominated by a sort of polymorphous perversity of the imagination—an infantile pleasure that all but abolishes the ordinary cause and effect of storytelling. The effect may be mesmerizing to a viewer on Ruiz’s wavelength, but it can only confound a spectator demanding a coherent synopsis.

What we saw was the 130-minute feature - the three-episode version has since surfaced over at KG (wonders never cease!), but I haven't had time to compare it to the longer film. I will say though that I preferred the first two episodes - the third is totally wacko even by Ruiz's standards. Great stuff.

[Dan Warburton]

Don Siegel, Private Hell 36, 1954

This is really terrific, and deserves to be better known - a great punchy script, tightly directed by Siegel, and a fine cast. Ida Lupino, who co-produced it with Collier Young and her Filmakers outfit, starts out as a hard-boiled femme fatale, but it's only a front. Meanwhile, Steve Cochran delivers a virtuoso performance as the cop heading inexorably towards the dark side of the force. Excellent noir - if you're a fan of the genre and don't know it, do yourselves a favour and check it out.

[walto]

I really enjoyed that in the theater when I was 9 (more than Star Wars the year after), but you are probably a little older than that now.

Physically, maybe Yeah, I saw it on telly when it came out (I would have been about 14) and have distant positive memories too. But now it's really awful!



Frank Perry, The Swimmer, 1968

Burt Lancaster described it as his favourite movie, which I suppose means something - but it's an odd one all right, a half-allegorical tale about the failure(s) of the American Dream, not so much a road movie as a pool movie, in which Burt shows up in each scene in his swimming trunks (that's all he wears throughout the entire film) and swims a length before moving on to the pool at the next door neighbours'. It doesn't take us long to figure out that his life hasn't worked out as he planned it, but thankfully the sordid details are left to our imagination. Makes for an interesting comparison with Kazan's The Arrangement, and, if you want a European perspective on the subject, Antonioni's Zabriskie Point. In fact, Antonioni seems to have been as much of an influence on this generation of American filmmakers as, say, Cassavetes was on the Europeans.

As I've mentioned before, I very much dislike Lancaster, but I found this movie helpful in understanding the Cheever story. For clueless readers like me, even bad movies can be useful. Another one with those qualities is My Foolish Heart (Robson, 1949) which helped me "get" Salinger's "Uncle Wiggly in Connecticut." It's not great and I'm pretty sure Salinger hated it, but....it worked for me. Even the Kubrick "Lolita"--which I prefer to the later one because it's not so dour-- is in that category.

[Dan Warburton]

H.B."Toby" Halicki, Gone In 60 Seconds, 1974

Ah, now I understand where that collection of sunglasses on the sheriff's dashboard in Kill Bill came from. Of course. Not to mention the yellow Mustang. Eleanor, by the way, is the car - which figures, as going to see this film for the "story" or (heaven forbid) the "acting" is like going to visit the Louvre to buy a plastic Eiffel Tower key ring in the entrance hall. Toby Halicki was a self-made businessman who made a fortune out of car dealerships and real estate and invested it in his own movie. Most of the cars (93 I believe) that get trashed were his too, but there's one smashing (!) scene where a cop car barrels into a row of brand new Caddies and concertinas the lot. Toby had to pay for that one too - but I don't think it bothered him much, as his drive-in cult classic made $40,000,000 (and financed two more epics of road destruction before the director / driver himself was killed on the set of Gone 2 - though not in a car crash). Great, mindless destruction. Joe Bob Briggs must have loved it

[Dan Warburton]

Thom Andersen, Los Angeles Plays Itself, 2003

This is a truly splendid, long (2h50) - but as far as I'm concerned not long enough - film essay on Los Angeles (woe betide you if you call the place "L.A."), with fascinating insights into the history of city, its urban development, and hundreds of juicy mouthwatering snippets of films shot in and around the place. I would love to think somebody would do the same kind of in-depth work on Paris, which along with NYC must be only comparable city in terms of its role and presence in the history of cinema. Needless to say, the movie I reviewed just above was one of many wonderful discoveries I've made thanks to this superb document.

[Piano Mouth]

Thank you, Dan. I'm watching this right now, it's very intriguing.

[Dan Warburton]

Olivier Assayas, Clean, 2004

Though it was acclaimed by the press, I wasn't as impressed by this one as I was with Maggie Cheung's earlier outing with Assayas, Irma Vep. The problem seems to be that he's filming what is essentially a melodrama (mother separated from her child, brought up by ex-husband's aged parents - Nick Nolte's weary words of wisdom soon annoy - etc) as if it was a thriller. The fast-moving - and exquisitely lit and shot - camera work is cool in Demonlover, but here one wonders why it's necessary all the time. Example: when we see Maggie sneaking out of the back of the Chinese restaurant to have a crafty smoke, there's no need for the Steadicam to follow her all the way through the corridors. That makes sense in Goodfellas (the famous Ray Liotta walk through the kitchens) but here comes across as excessively dramatic - and it's not really a dramatic moment. Still, solid performances from, amongst others, Béatrice Dalle and Jeanne Balibar - and Ms Cheung herself of course.

[Dan Warburton]

Rene Clément, Gervaise, 1956

I like to think that if Emile Zola were alive today, he'd be in Hollywood - though I hope not as some awful Oliver Stone-like figure - his grim and often gory novels lend themselves well to film adaptations, and there are numerous examples I don't need to bore you with. But tackling L'assommoir, the descente aux enfers (as the French like to call it) of Gervaise, is a heroic and difficult task - and one that René Clément managed to bring off surprisingly well. Of course, we don't feel the extended and inexorable slide into misery and alcoholism as well as we do in the book, several of whose key episodes are telescoped or quickly dispensed with in voiceovers, but many fine details remain: the visit to the Louvre, the roast goose feast, Coupeau's terrifying DTs (though, as I recall, these didn't take place at home in the novel). The casting is good and both the studio sets and external locations carefully crafted, as is the Aurenche / Bost script. Cinéma de qualité, quoi.

[walto]

Oz the Great and Powerful (Raimi, 2013) I'm a fan of Baum and his Oz books, and while this isn't actually based on any one or two of them, but is, rather, a prequel to the (also loosely based) 1939 movie, you can tell the writer(s) were familiar with the literature. I enjoyed the effects and the cinematography generally, and Franco isn't too bad. But Kunis is terrible, and there are too many Disneyesque touches for it to be enjoyable throughout by adults. It's strange that the real gem in the Oz movie corpus is, IMO, Return to Oz (Murch, 1985) which WAS a Disney production. But it, like their earlier Alice cartoon was "too bizarre for kids" and failed miserably. That film, with its many Freudian references, worries about headlessness, gorgeous David Shire soundtrack, shock-treatment cures for bleak Kansas insanity, is one of my all-time faves.

[Dan Warburton]

André Téchiné, Rendez-vous, 1985

And that's basically all we've got here: a bunch of guys, none of whom is particularly sympathetic (or well-sketched as a character), eyeing/pawing/groping Juliette Binoche. Most IMDb user reviews are pretty sophomor(on)ic, but I can't resist quoting this one, as it sums up how I feel quite well:
'Lousy, stereotypical and misogynistic, but, hey, if you ever wanted a glimpse of Binoche's binush, this is the film for you! Binoche plays a slutty, fairly talentless actress who meets up with Wadeck Stanczak and invites him to her play, even though she's sleeping and living with one of the ushers. His presence breaks up that convenient relationship and she accompanies Stanczak home. He assumes he's getting laid, but he's too goody-goody for her. Instead, she ends up falling for his complete bastard of a roommate, played by Lambert Wilson. The guy, after seeing her once, attempts to rape her and threatens to kill her. On their next meeting, he threatens to slit his throat in front of her (with the razor he brought with him). This is known in France to be normal behavior, as we all know from their movies. Of course, she'd fall for him, leaving poor sap Stanczak with a rosy palm. The film is unbelievably insulting towards women. Fortunately, Binoche is such a fantastic actress that she almost makes the film worth watching. The character is stereotypical in a lot of ways, but she gives it her all. This was basically her first starring role in what would be (and continues to be) one of the best acting careers in the movies.'
Yes, it's well-acted - the excess / hysteria is the fault of writers Téchiné and Assayas, not the actors - and nicely put together, but you really wonder when it's all over what it was all about. As an exercice de style from two former Cahiers journalists (albeit of different generations) it's not too bad, but like many French art films of the 80s, it hasn't aged well.

[Dan Warburton]

Jean-Paul Civeyrac, A travers la forêt, 2005

Just over an hour long, and consisting of just ten shots, one for each scene, this is an elegantly crafted, haunting/ed tale of a girl coming to terms with the death of her boyfried in a motorcycle crash. I don't think I'm spoiling anything by telling you that - nor should you be surprised when he returns in several scenes, and it's up to you to determine whether these reappearances are merely taking place in the imagination of Armelle (Camille Berthomier is a good choice as Civeyrac's muse, and she can sing too, if Joanna Newsom / Björky weedy fairy voices are your cup of tea). In addition to her two songs, there's a very fine soundtrack, including Cage, Scelsi and Ives - The Unanswered Question, quite appropriate for the enigmatic ending. It's maybe a bit too soft round the edges, but I don't mind.

[Dan Warburton]

James Benning, Deseret, 1995

I can do no better than link you to this fine and detailed article by Jonathan Rosenbaum: http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/1996/03/deseret/

[Dan Warburton]

Henry Hathaway, Seven Thieves, 1960

I seem to be the only person I know who finds this film a boring, sloppily made, clumsily edited and badly acted mess. Caper films are fine by me, as long as the caper is genuinely exciting / nailbiting - think Dassin's Rififi or Melville's Cercle Rouge, or even (Peter Collinson's) The Italian Job. Here we have to sit through over a quarter of an hour of Rod Steiger humming and hawing on whether's he even going to take part before we even have an inkling of how Edward G.Robinson is going to rob the casino in Monaco, and then have a hard time believing in any of the characters he's recruited to help him do the job. Eli Wallach mimes playing the tenor sax quite well, but apart from that can do little more than squint menacingly. And Joan Collins is simply appalling as the love interest. She could never act anyway, but the lame, clichéd (and often alarmingly sexist) script doesn't exactly give her - or anyone else for that matter - much to work with even if she could. The remaining three thieves are nonentities, both the characters and the actors who play them. But apart from all that, the editing is rough - it might be worth watching the film just to count the continuity gaffs - and the crude intercutting of stock location footage from the Promenade des Anglais in Nice and studio sets gives the impression the director's heart wasn't in it (to put it politely). Neither were the actors', with Steiger particularly unconvincing as the imported tough guy who starts blubbering hysterically when Edward G. dies (of happiness?). The plot is dumb, and the ending even dumber. But reading articles like this http://sensesofcinema.com/2008/feature- ... n-thieves/I wonder if I've been watching the same movie. Watch it yourself and see what you think, if you like - there's no way I'll be returning to this one. Ocean's Eleven is much more fun.