The Blurbs (250 Words or Less)
These are reviewettes: short writings that are not long enough to be official reviews, but are composed within a couple hours of completing a film, just like my standard reviews. These are presented in order from newest to oldest and grouped together by the year that the film was first watched. All films are rated on a scale from Worthless to 4 Stars.
2019-
Sorcerer (1977) 2.5 Stars -- It’s interesting watching the second adaptation of a novel directly after the first, especially when you are not familiar with the source material. Sorcerer has thrills that are unique to itself, which is saying something considering how unflinchingly suspenseful and thrilling The Wages of Fear is. However, there are various differences that exist between the two films due to either a truer dedication to the source material or a shift for the sake of the filming location that do not benefit Sorcerer when you compare it to The Wages of Fear. And while there are several points at which the film could have ended, director William Friedkin chose the second most-New Hollywood ending and the worst timing of any possible ending. The really tough thing with Sorcerer is that you care about the drivers in one capacity or the other, but you're not completely dedicated and invested in them like you are with the drivers in The Wages of Fear. You don’t really care what will happen to the drivers at the end of Sorcerer: you know what their fates will be and it doesn't bother you. Well, it doesn't bother you until you watch each of them meet their end. Because deep down, you know that the end Friedkin gave each of them isn't what they deserved.
The Wages of Fear (1953) 4 Stars -- Although I wish that The Wages of Fear had ended with Mario (Yves Montand) collapsing in front of the raging blaze at the oil well, I don't have any complaints regarding the ending. It is not your stereotypical Hollywood ending. It ends the way French cinema often mocks the typical Hollywood ending- by teasing a happier conclusion before providing a darker, more realistic ending. For those who wish Mario had survived, making such a decision would have condemned the entire moral standing of the film. Time and time again, The Wages of Fear emphasized how the rotten exploit the innocent and get away scot-free. Mario was the worst member of the appointed driving team. Sure, you loved all of them: Mario, Jo (Charles Vanel), Luigi (Folco Lulli), Bimba (Peter van Eyck). I loved them all, too. But Mario was the worst human being of the four, the most exploitative, and for him to survive would have ruined the film. Adding in his cocky steering on the twisting roads despite the dangerous nature of their task, I have never been so satisfied with the death of a main character. He got what he fucking deserved. It's that simple.
Les Vacances de M. Hulot (1953) 2 Stars -- I watched the 1978 Tati re-edit that Criterion included in their "The Complete Jacques Tati" release. This is widely considered to be the superior version of the two. I found it quite boring and will only revisit the original longer version if I have the time later in life. While Tati made a valiant effort to make it an assured comedy (a 6.0+ on my Laugh-O-Meter), he did not succeed, and it will remain a relatively dry film with a few delightful moments that could not save it.
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) 4 Stars -- The ending sure does harm the film, but The Magnificent Ambersons itself is so magnificent (forgive the adjective choice) that the ending’s dissatisfaction in many ways is, while not forgivable, easy to overlook. And if anything, this studio-approved ending, just makes me more hopeful that [director] Orson Welles' original ending will one day be miraculously found and see the light of day. Because I am certain that a master filmmaker and storyteller such as Welles had a much more thematically satisfying ending in mind.
Wild Strawberries (1957) 4 Stars -- While the comparison is imperfect, Wild Strawberries seems like, in concept and presentation, an unconventional repurposing of Charles Dickens' classic story A Christmas Carol. The Ghost of the Past shows the dreams and recollections Isak (Victor Sjöström) has of his time as a child at the summer house and the affair his wife had. The Ghost of the Present is the continual real-time following of Isak during his car ride with his various companions. This continues as he accepts his honorary degree. Then, that night, there is the transition into the Ghost of the Future. After a couple interludes, like Isak talking with his son (Gunnar Björnstrand) and saying farewell to the children who helped him adopt a new view of life, this Ghost's vision is left up to the audience. We, the audience, are allowed to imagine what Isak's future will be like, a wonderful gift from [director Ingmar] Bergman that is much more intriguing and uplifting than the imagining of characters’ fates he leaves the audience with at the end of his oft-labeled masterpiece, Persona (1966), which he made nine years later.
2018-
The Fountain (2006) 2 Stars -- This film prospers from its final thirty minutes. It prospers from its Conquistador storyline. It is harmed by its other storylines. It is harmed by its sloppy execution. It is harmed by [Darren] Aronofsky’s uneven direction. It is harmed by some of [Hugh] Jackman’s acting. It is a film that is of foolhardy ambition; ambition that The Fountain may have been able to surpass with its original cast, script, and budget. Alas, this film does succeed in only one major regard: it brings its stories together and shows that through death there is life. It shows that life is cyclical, and death is the uniter, the master of life.
Arnulf Rainer (1960, short) Worthless -- If I ever have the desire to watch nearly seven minutes of black and white screens joined by the alternation of white noise and silence again, then I will switch my TV to a channel or setting that gives me nothing but static, do that for the predetermined and aforementioned length of time, and realize that I have reached an unsurpassable low of boredom.
Ex Machina (2015) 3.5 Stars -- This film is like a Turing Test: you need to get to the end to know if the test was passed. The only trouble is, you don’t know what was being tested and if it passed or failed. Is the Turing Test being conducted by the viewer on the film, or is the Turing Test being conducted by the film on the viewer?
A Portrait of Ga (1952, short) 2 Stars -- This short is lucky to have been so beautifully shot.
Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory (1895, short) 3 Stars -- I watched all three versions: the one-horse, two-horse, and no-horse versions. They all have their own little bit of charm, most notably the dog in all three scenes. But the camera is still, and apart from detailing end of the working day life for many workers, it doesn’t provide much more for the viewer.
Pickpocket (1959) 4 Stars -- This comes as an observation I made the morning after seeing Pickpocket. Like my thoughts on Robert Bresson’s other work that I have seen, Au Hasard Balthazar (1966), this too will be short. However, it will not feature the harsh, backhanded, passive-aggressive tone of my response to the former. The brilliance of Pickpocket’s story comes from Bresson’s deft directing. He makes the viewer indifferent of Michel (Martin LaSalle), the eponymous main character. The real interest of the film is not in the pickpocketing either, although it does provide some fine moments and often feels like we the viewers are watching a documentary rather than a drama. Bresson puts the focus of the viewer’s fascination instead on Jeanne (Marika Green), Jacques (Pierre Leymarie), and the Chief Inspector (Jean Pélégri). They are the woman, the friend, and the cop who frequent Michel and the three people closest to him. They are, as far as the viewer is concerned, the truly captivating facets of the story, with their strained relationships and undying interest in a man who acts as if the world is dead to him.
Sherlock, Jr. (1924) 4 Stars -- I decided that watching Sherlock, Jr. for the first time was my best option in the waning hour of the 4th of July. Because what better way to celebrate America than with its first and only true cinematic comedy genius? Turns out, I made a damn good choice.
Call Me by Your Name (2017) 4 Stars -- A film that is both a foray into young love and the maturation of love, but more importantly, a complete lesson on the power that love has over people.
Greed (1924) 4 Stars -- Greed is fascinating, but watching it as it exists today only makes you wonder what it must have been like in its original and complete nine-and-a-half hour length. The version I watched is the most complete one that we as a film community have. It's four hours long and remastered, adding in new intertitles of missing scenes and their corresponding production stills. The still photographs do get a bit irritating as the film progresses, but I found that my irritation is more directed at the executives who mutilated the film 94 years ago than it is due to the harm that infusing the photographs brings to the overall quality of the film.
Breaking the Waves (1996) 4 Stars -- This film is long in runtime and feels like a trial. While this oftentimes has a negative impact on a film, here it is a rather positive effect and parallels the film. The film is a trial to watch because it is a trial of the soul, a trial of faith, a trial of love, a trial of what it means to be human, and most of all, a trial of life’s trials. This was one of the hardest films for me to watch, not because of the content per se, although the content was at times difficult to watch. It was hard for me because Bess, played magnificently by Emily Watson in an Oscar-nominated performance (that in my eyes falls just shy of Frances McDormand's winning performance from Fargo), is a good person. In fact, the character is perhaps the best person, objectively, in film history, and it is torture to watch the only perfect human subjected to cruelty for her dedication to all that she sees as good in her life, for her ability to keep herself pure of mind, spirit, and faith, and for her ability to keep herself perfect in spite of everything she endures and how every other character views her actions.
2017-
Wings of Desire (1987) 4 Stars -- Wow. Just wow. I was afraid that the film would dip after Damiel (Bruno Ganz) made the leap to the human world from the spiritual world, but it held its own. And that's the only thing I'll write about Wings of Desire because I believe everyone should see this film without many preconceived notions or critics' influences on what to expect. I honestly do not want to reveal too much, or really anything, about the film. It is magical, and knowing too much will almost certainly minimize the effect it can have on a viewer. I did not know very much about Wings of Desire before I saw it, just the basic plot outline, and I've never before been so glad to go into a film with so little background information. Ignorance may not always be bliss, but it certainly lets the imagination run unyielded and open the mind by relieving expectations. If you'd like to hear my thoughts on Wings of Desire, feel free to reach out to me after you've seen it for yourself.
Fanny and Alexander (1982) 3 Stars -- This is a hard rating to give to a film that is so many different things, all parts fantastic. Ultimately, I have an issue with the fluidity of this film. Although the theatrical version was released first (and is the version I watched), the television miniseries of Fanny and Alexander was completed first and it is through making cuts to the miniseries that the theatrical film was born. Ingmar Bergman is a director who, no matter how ambiguous or bizarre his films are, always presented them with a fluidity featuring a care and an ease unlike that of any other director. But here, there is a severe lacking of any fluidity as the film progresses. Undoubtedly, this is the result of the efforts to cut down a 5-hour miniseries to a 3-hour film. It may seem harsh for this film to lose a whole star when the rest of it is so phenomenal, but the choppiness of some scenes and missing clarity in narrative and technical jumps from one scene to the next harm this film irreparably.
Andrei Rublev (1966) 1 Star -- It may be cinema's greatest tragedy that perhaps the most beautifully filmed epic is also the most confusing and boring epic.
Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) 3 Stars -- All that I will say is, this film is fantastic in its approach, but not fantastic itself.
42nd Street (1933) 4 Stars -- The fascinating thing about 42nd Street is that typically, in a film about the production of another art form, the production within the film is imperative to the plot. This is precisely the opposite here and it really adds to the film’s charm. I cannot tell you a single thing about the plot of Pretty Lady, but that doesn’t bother me the least bit… and it shouldn’t you neither. I haven’t researched it, but if I were to surmise why we know so little about Pretty Lady, I’d say it’s because the purpose of 42nd Street is to show the struggle that goes into a Broadway production. The silly fodder of what Pretty Lady is about is inconsequential to the film itself. The fact of the matter is that these characters put forth all they could muster and put on one hell of a show. It doesn’t matter what the show is, all that matters is they achieved their goal. This is why I like the decision to make the focus of the final twenty minutes various sequences from the play: it showcases the parts that Julian Marsh (Warner Baxter) was so displeased with during the five-week rehearsals and how far the cast and chorus have come. Boy, this was a fun film to watch. This is also a terrific example of why I never want to direct a musical. Not the outcome of the film and its watchability, but the stress it puts on all those involved.
2016-
Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) (short) 2.5 Stars -- I think this may be the piece of cinema most deserving of the experimental label, at least out of the like that I have seen (which includes titles such as Last Year at Marienbad (1961), A Movie (1958), and Duck Amuck (1953) among others). I thought it was trippy and decent. I liked the usage and manipulation of the music, but disliked the music itself.
8½ (1963) 3 Stars -- This film confused me, and I’m still a little confused after reading several plot synopses. Don’t get me wrong, I think that this film is deserving of acclaim. I’ll give it a thumps up, a fresh tomato if you will. The part of this film that I liked the most occurred whenever a character got up and walked around. At each moment like this, the camera angle and movement made it feel like you were the one that the characters were talking to. The reasons why I dock this film a star are simple. Half of that star docking is the result of the unsatisfying confusion that litters the film’s atmosphere and plot. The other half of the star docking is the result of poor supporting acting. Anouk Aimée and Marcello Mastroianni are terrific, just as they are in La Dolce Vita (although their performances in the earlier released film are better than here). But every other performance lacks in one way or many, and this flaw not in Fellini’s direction but in his actors’ capabilities is what causes the other half-star docking.
In the Mood for Love (2000) 2.5 Stars -- I was disappointed by this film. It’s not that this film is poor in any specific area; it’s just that it is not good in any specific area. Tony Leung does give a very commendable performance as Chow Mo-wan and the film holds one of the most touching and agonizing love stories presented on the silver screen. However, the film is a significant step down from Wong Kar-wai’s 1994 film Chungking Express. The most off-putting part of this film would be the music: it is rarely good, and it fits the corresponding scene less than it doesn’t. Perhaps the best way to describe this film is to have someone imagine a Wes Anderson film, speed the story up in terms of duration of plot, and have each scene last between 30 seconds and two minutes.
Barbarella (1968) Worthless -- If the plot wasn't so ridiculous and poorly acted (by all except [Jane] Fonda), I may have given this a star for either its soundtrack, its campiness in appearance/special effects/costumes, or a combination of the two. Alas, I cannot.
Harvey (1950) 2.5 Stars -- Too rambunctious, too much overacting, too many things going on at once with too little information provided. There may be a few humorous moments here or there, but this is in no way a comedy. With all this being said, it is an incredibly sweet film and another stellar performance by [James] Stewart
A Star Is Born (1954) 4 Stars -- While the original theatrical release is great, the 1983 restored version is only 3 stars. The addition of the sepia tone pictures and dialogue over top is completely unnecessary and incredibly detrimental to the film.
Bunny Lake Is Missing (1965) 4 Stars -- This was the most difficult film I have ever had to analyze. Ultimately, this is a 4-star film because the ending is so unexpected, which while this would ordinarily seal the fate of a film as a major disappointment, here the ending is so well acted and insightful that the film, although not continuing on its initial path of greatness, is still great at the end of the day.
2015-
Fruitvale Station (2013) 3.5 Stars -- One of the most powerful final 25 minutes I have ever watched. All of the acting performances rocketed to another level at the end.
Blue Velvet (1986) 4 Stars -- Why is Blue Velvet such a great mystery? Because you never know exactly what is going on and there is no point in the film where the entire story is fully explained.
Strange Days (1996) 2.5 Stars -- This film is really 2 stars, but it features a soundtrack that is so great and fitting that it brings it up a half-star
Comments