Saturday, April 30, 2022

Settling the Scorsese: New York, New York

This is my second in a 2022 bi-monthly series finishing the final six Martin Scorsese movies I haven't seen.

A lot of work has just gone into staying on schedule in this series.

The definition of "on schedule" encompassed two things:

1) Watching the next Martin Scorsese movie I hadn't seen during the month of April; 

2) Having that next movie be the next one, chronologically, I had not seen.

For a while there it didn't look like I could accomplish the latter, but then when it appeared I could, it seemed highly dubious that I'd be able to accomplish the former.

I've known since the start of the series that I'd have a hard time getting my hands on New York, New York, the 1977 musical drama starring Robert De Niro and Liza Minnelli. My streaming services, YouTube and iTunes all came up empty for a movie by one of Hollywood's most celebrated directors. If I were to have a hard time finding something Martin Scorsese directed, I'd think it would be Boxcar Bertha, which I'd seen before this series started, or Who's That Knocking at My Door, which I watched to start this series in February. I would not expect it to be a film that starred two Hollywood icons.

Yet the outlook on New York, New York was bleak enough that I had to consider excluding it from this series, which would fatally undermine the whole idea behind the series. I could buy it on Amazon as a last resort, but I usually stop short of that nuclear option in a context like this -- I get fussy about what it means to add a movie to my collection, especially one I've never seen. But it wouldn't be the first movie I'd bought as the only means of watching it, and besides, the concept of a "collection" is not what it was prior to streaming. 

The problem, then, became that it was only available via region 1, the region that includes the United States. This was never an issue for me in the past, but I have recently said goodbye to our region-free DVD player due to a malfunction with its tray. If I couldn't get this movie in Australia's region 4, Amazon was no help to me anyway.

It's worth pointing out that I still don't pirate movies. I'm still paranoid about some government agency arriving at my house and deporting me. I don't need that. (Plus a small part of me is worried about viruses.)

The options were clear: Drop the chronological order of the movies in the series, and hope I could work out the New York, New York issue at some point later in the year, or exclude the movie entirely. Exclusion had been an idea I'd put forth when I first introduced this series, if I couldn't ultimately find this film, and in that scenario, I was planning to make Killers of the Flower Moon, the new Scorsese movie, my final movie in the series. Except that movie just got pushed to 2023. 

Well, around the middle of the month, something came along to unlock the possibility of actually watching this movie before the month was out. And that was my revival of my old laptop as a region 1 DVD player, as discussed in this post. Fairly quickly after making this discovery, I recognized its possibility to benefit me in terms of Settling the Scorsese. I got on Amazon quick smart and ordered a shipment of the New York, New York DVD from America, with an expected arrival date of April 29th. That left me a fairly short window to receive and watch the movie before the month was out, but at this point I realized what a person should never forget in this scenario: I am the person setting these deadlines and, without a doubt, am the only one who actually cares about them.

Instead of taking longer than advertised to arrive from the U.S., as shipments of all kinds usually do, the movie arrived Wednesday of this week, and I watched it on Thursday.

The technical challenges were not over yet. Oh no. I had to deal with one more annoying thing that threatened to drive me mental. Because my laptop was set up for my son's use, it kept asking to sign in to Microsoft to allow him to send access requests and the like to his parents. And every time this screen would pop up, it would jump to the front -- not just in front of the movie as it played in the background, but kicking the movie out of view entirely, so I could only hear the dialogue. Every time I would quit this application from the task manager, it would pop back up, and I couldn't stop the service because I didn't have administrator access on my son's login (and don't remember the password to log in as an administrator). Each time I thought I'd solved the issue, I'd get comfortable in my arrangement of beanbag chairs in the garage (where I continue to isolate with COVID), only to have it happen again five minutes later. 

Finally, I determined that if I shut off the WiFi on the computer, it would no longer pop up this window because there was no way to verify my son's sign-in information. (I would have just put in the password but I didn't know it/remember it.) At this point I finally watched the rest of this movie -- this very long movie -- unmolested.

I wish after giving you a dozen paragraphs of preamble I could tell you that I liked New York, New York, but I did not like New York, New York

In fact, at the start I hated it, and not just because I had an obnoxious sign-in window interrupting my experience every couple minutes. I hated the characters, especially De Niro, who I found to be one of the most unpleasant movie characters I'd met in quite some time.

Oh, it's not because this is one of De Niro's classic violent louts whose toxicity is built into this hair-trigger tendency to whack you or at least hit you at a moment's notice. I suppose saxophonist Jimmy Doyle is violent, in a certain way, but it's mostly limited to verbal abuse and a tendency to grab Minnelli -- first his unwitting and unwilling love interest, then his unaccountably willing wife -- by the arm and either walk or in one direction, or refuse to let her walk in the other. 

No, it was his pure obnoxiousness -- which back then was supposed to pass as some sort of charm -- that put me out on Jimmy Doyle, and I never got back in. He meets Minnelli's character, Francine Evans, on VJ Day in New York, at a celebration where a big band is playing. It's clear she has utterly no interest in him -- like, utterly, not just being coy -- yet he pesters her and pesters her and pesters her. This goes across three or four different scenes in their lives, where Francine makes it as clear as day that she wants nothing to do with him, yet he keeps trying to kiss her and get her phone number and grab her by the waist. After a while I also found her deplorable -- first for allowing him as many liberties as he takes with her patience, and then for finally reciprocating.

Because of course she has to reciprocate. These are the two main characters in the movie -- she's a singer, he's a saxophonist, and they are destined to be together both professionally and romantically. But I hated them both for representing both sides of the classic on-screen relationship, where the woman resists the man and the man wears her down by some combination of dubious charm and brute force. 

Now, to be clear, the movie does not ultimately land on Jimmy's side. He continues to display reprehensible and immature behavior, and it doesn't get him what he wants in life -- eventually. But that doesn't mean I wanted to spend two hours and 40 minutes watching things trigger his fragile ego and light his short fuse to toxic masculinity. I wanted Francine to be smarter than succumbing to Jimmy Doyle and she just isn't, for most of the movie.

The plot? Well they get married, go on the road with a band, start to become successful, and then start to go off the rails when Francine gets pregnant and Jimmy doesn't handle it well. Because of course he doesn't. Anything that comes along that could possibly take away the only two things he appears to crave -- professional success and Francine's singular devotion to him -- is a threat. So naturally he turns into a big baby all over again.

I would have hated this movie from start to finish except that I found some of the things that happen in the final third slightly redemptive. For one, Jimmy finally starts getting punished for his terrible behavior, which was very satisfying. But then the film also becomes more of a musical, capitalizing on Minnelli's abilities and even going on one of those flights of fancy from old Hollywood musicals that I don't really love, which is the extended musical sequence that lasts about 15 minutes. In New York, New York this worked for me, probably in contrast to what had come before -- I desperately needed it at this point.

Two last observations about New York, New York before I finally release you from my grip today:

1) I noticed a few distracting edits, cuts from one shot to the next that didn't follow from the previous one in terms of the staging. That led me to look up whether Scorsese's long-time collaborator, Thelma Schoonmaker, was that editor on this movie, and in fact she was not -- that job went to the trio of Bert Lovitt, David Ramirez and Tom Rolf, none of whom I have heard of. (Which isn't hugely surprising as there are only a handful of editors I could actually name.) The interesting thing to note is that Schoonmaker -- who did work with him on his debut film, Who's That Knocking at My Door -- was back on board for his very next film, Raging Bull, and has not left his side since. I'm wondering if Scorsese also noticed those bad edits and said "Okay, it's time to bring Thelma back."

2) I had no idea that this movie was the origin of the famous Kander and Ebb song that plays at the end of victories by the New York Yankees at Yankee Stadium, popularized by Frank Sinatra. If I'd known the actual name of that song, I would have -- it's "Theme from New York, New York" -- but I didn't. Given the ensuing cultural prominence, or lack thereof, of Scorsese's film -- I mean, you can't even watch it without buying it, and your DVD region options are limited -- I simply could not believe it had birthed such an iconic song, even if that song gives me the shits a bit as a fan of the Boston Red Sox. Nor could I believe that the song had only been around for 45 years -- it feels more likely that it was a hundred years old than less than 50, probably because it was already from an archaic musical form at the time it was first written. I was far more likely to guess that the movie took its title from the Sinatra song, and when I heard little bits of the familiar music being worked out by Jimmy Doyle throughout the movie, it was a bit of an Easter egg for those of us in the audience who were well aware of the song as a cultural institution. It's hard to believe that when Minnelli does finally sing it at the end of the movie -- making her, and not Sinatra, the one from whose lips it originally came -- that it wasn't some sort of big payoff for an audience who had been waiting the whole movie to hear it. In fact, they were hearing it for the very first time. 

I've given each of the first two movies I watched in this series only two stars out of five. I hope to improve on that with the next film in the series, 1986's The Color of Money in June, which will require a viewing of 1961's The Hustler at some point before then. 

Friday, April 29, 2022

My 2004 film rankings (in 2004)

This is the fourth in a 2022 monthly posting of the 12 year-end rankings I completed prior to starting this blog, on the occasion of my 25th anniversary of ranking movies. I'm posting them as a form of permanent backup, plus to do a little analysis of how my impression of the movies has changed since then. I'm going in reverse order and will end with 1996 in December. 

I almost forgot to do this this month. After starting a draft of it in mid-March, I remembered on the third-to-last day of April it was still sitting there in my drafts. I can't miss a monthly installment of something on my blog, now can I?

As we go back in time, this year contains the first movie I saw in the theater with my wife (The Aviator) and a handful of the movies that remind me of my romantically tumultuous year of 2004, where I was trying to get back together with an ex for most of the year and had a drama-filled long distance fling in the middle. Suffice it to say that meeting my wife a week before Christmas brought some much-needed stability that I am still enjoying to this day.

Only 59 films! When I think of the 111 more movies I ranked in 2021 than in 2004, I don't think so much of a man who is frittering away most of his time on frivolous things, who used to spend that time so much better. No, instead I think of a man who watched a lot of evening baseball games, so therefore, he didn't have time to watch a lot of evening movies. There are no American sports conflicts in the nighttime hours in Australia, and my ability to watch movies -- both new movies and revisits of favorites -- has leapt forward accordingly.

Here were the rankings of the 59 films I saw in 2004 when I closed those rankings in late January or early February of 2005:

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. Finding Neverland
3. Sideways
4. Hero
5. The Girl Next Door
6. The Aviator
7. Maria Full of Grace
8. A Very Long Engagement
9. The Incredibles
10. Super Size Me
11. Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
12. Garden State
13. Closer
14. Baadasssss!
15. Touching the Void
16. Team America: World Police
17. Shaun of the Dead
18. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
19. Dawn of the Dead
20. Kill Bill - Volume 2
21. Before Sunset
22. Million Dollar Baby
23. The Manchurian Candidate
24. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
25. The Forgotten
26. Fahrenheit 9/11
27. Napoleon Dynamite
28. Wimbledon
29. Spider-Man 2
30. Along Came Polly
31. Miracle
32. Collateral
33. In Good Company
34. The Day After Tomorrow
35. Win a Date With Tad Hamilton!
36. 13 Going on 30
37. The Polar Express
38. Still, We Believe: The Boston Red Sox Movie
39. Mean Girls
40. Hellboy
41. Eurotrip
42. Open Water
43. The House of Flying Daggers
44. The Ladykillers
45. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story
46. The Butterfly Effect
47. Taking Lives
48. Welcome to Mooseport
49. Saved!
50. Osama
51. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
52. The Passion of the Christ
53. The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
54. You Got Served
55. The Village
56. Laws of Attraction
57. Spanglish
58. I Heart Huckabees
59. Troy

Before I even do the comparison with where these films are on my Flickchart now, I can see there will be some huge jumps of films I didn't properly appreciate when they first came out. As a reminder, the number in the following list is the film's ranking on Flickchart (out of 5874 films), followed by the percentage of that ranking (out of 5874 films). That's then followed by the number of spots it went up since 2004 (a positive number) or down since 2004 (a negative number), relative to the other 58 films I ranked back then. 

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (44, 99%) 0
2. Sideways (109, 98%) 1
3. The Girl Next Door (189, 97%) 2
4. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (297, 95%) 14
5. Hero (311, 95%) -1
6. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (328, 94%) 18
7. Shaun of the Dead (329, 94%) 10
8. Finding Neverland (401, 93%) -6
9. Dawn of the Dead (588, 90%) 9
10. The Aviator (737, 87%) -4
11. Maria Full of Grace (745, 87%) -4
12. Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (837, 86%) -1
13. The Incredibles (841, 86%) -4
14. Napoleon Dynamite (874, 85%) 13
15. Team America: World Police (898, 85%) 1
16. Closer (931, 84%) -3
17. Kill Bill - Volume 2 (936, 84%) 3
18. A Very Long Engagement (945, 84%) -10
19. Baadasssss! (1084, 82%) -5
20. Super Size Me (1123, 81%) -10
21. Garden State (1303, 78%) -9
22. In Good Company (1443, 75%) 11
23. Before Sunset (1465, 75%) -2
24. Along Came Polly (1485, 75%) 6
25. Miracle (1844, 69%) 6
26. The Manchurian Candidate (1975, 66%) -3
27. Touching the Void (1986, 66%) -12
28. Spider-Man 2 (2306, 61%) 1
29. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2461, 58%) -3
30. Wimbledon (2570, 56%) -2
31. Million Dollar Baby (2593, 56%) -9
32. The Forgotten (2779, 53%) -7
33. Mean Girls (2810, 52%) 6
34. Win a Date With Tad Hamilton (3151, 46%) 1
35. Open Water (3292, 44%) 7
36. Hellboy (3396, 42%) 4
37. The House of Flying Daggers (3586, 39%) 6
38. Still, We Believe: The Boston Red Sox Movie (3902, 34%) 0
39. Collateral (4025, 31%) -7
40. Eurotrip (4382, 25%) 1
41. Saved! (4384, 25%) 8
42. The Polar Express (4507, 23%) -5
43. The Day After Tomorrow (4565, 22%) -9
44. Osama (4570, 22%) 6
45. The Village (4649, 21%) 10
46. Welcome to Mooseport (4844, 18%) 2
47. 13 Going on 30 (4906, 16%) -11
48. The Butterfly Effect (4924, 16%) -2
49. The Ladykillers (4992, 15%) -5
50. The Passion of the Christ (5022, 15%) 2
51. Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (5223, 11%) -6
52. The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (5231, 11%) 1
53. Taking Lives (5359, 9%) -6
54. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (5412, 8%) -3
55. I Heart Huckabees (5507, 6%) 3
56. Spanglish (5547, 6%) 1
57. Laws of Attraction (5554, 5%) -1
58. Troy (5756, 2%) 1
59. You Got Served (5758, 2%) -5

Five best movies I've seen since closing the list (alphabetical): Birth, Downfall, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, Man on Wire, The Sea Inside
Five worst movies I've seen since closing the list (alphabetical): The Cookout, Paparazzi, Surviving Christmas, Twentynine Palms, White Chicks
Biggest risers: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (+18), Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (+14), Napoleon Dynamite (+13) 
Biggest fallers: Touching the Void (-12), 13 Going on 30 (-11), A Very Long Engagement (-10)
Average percentage on Flickchart: 53.25% (1 of 4)

Two of the three big risers are what are now considered classic and/or cult comedies. It's difficult to know in the moment how they will endure, but Anchorman and Napoleon Dynamite certainly have had a life well beyond 2004 -- though probably only one of them really holds up these days. (I haven't felt particularly compelled to revisit Dynamite recently, probably because I want my initial impression of it to remain untainted.) The biggest riser, though, is a lot more of a curious phenomenon. I always rated the third Harry Potter movie, the one directed by Alfonso Cuaron, as a triumph, possibly my favorite in the whole series -- its only meaningful competition coming from the final movie. Why it wasn't higher than #24 in my initial rankings is beyond me at this point.

None of the fallers is a movie about which I have really changed my opinion, but they were probably a little too elevated to begin with -- or I just haven't done much thinking about them in the years since. A Very Long Engagement in particular would be worthy of a rewatch, as I saw it only that one time. As for 13 Going on 30, I watched it in a weekend where I was supposed to be receiving a visit to Los Angeles from the aforementioned fling, who lived in Chicago, but who had to cancel at the last moment, so I was depressed that weekend. That's also when I watched Collateral. To this day I still associate those two movies with that weekend, though I rewatched Collateral last year to confirm that I just don't think it's all that. (It also dropped seven spots.)

Also I am perplexed that the innocuous You Got Served is my lowest ranked movie of this year. It's no great shakes, but every time I come across it at this spot on Flickchart I wonder if I woke up on the wrong side of the bed the day I ranked it. One day it will come up against a film ranked higher than it that shouldn't be, win that duel, and get out of the 2004 basement. 

Overall a very strong group, as evidenced by the average 53.25% ranking on Flickchart -- easily the highest of the four years so far.

If I don't actually forget rather than almost forgetting, I'll look at 2003 in May. 

Thursday, April 28, 2022

COVID Film Festival: Days Two and Three

I've kept up the pace of four movies per day on each of my past two days in COVID isolation in my garage, though I guess yesterday I did not feel up for writing a separate post to recap day two.

Actually, if I'm being honest, I think I was just having too much fun between watching baseball and watching movies to take a writing break.

Yes, my health has improved with each day, and in fact, I'm going to try to work today. I say "try" because my boss has already told me to work as long as I can and then stop. Since I can control exactly how much I work -- I have no meetings today that I'm aware of, and no one usually calls me -- I can probably work a full day as long as it's sort of a slack day.

But no matter what happens, I will probably continue my isolation in the garage for at least a day or two longer. My wife has a big thing she has to do on Sunday and needs to keep testing negative until then, even if I have probably now passed the point where I'm still contagious.

I've chosen the poster for Ryusuke Hamaguchi's Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy, which I am reviewing, as a good way to encapsulate the eight movies I've watched in the past two days, three of which were new to me and five of which were revisits. It has indeed felt a bit like spinning the wheel to see what comes up next, even though there has been a clear reason behind more than half the movies I chose. Hamaguchi's follow-up to Drive My Car -- which was actually released before that movie in most parts of the world -- is an anthology of three 40-minute stories, and indeed, that's a good metaphor for any film festival, whether it's one of a person's own choosing or one that has been thrust upon that person by illness.

I won't go on at length about these films but I will give you a little taste of my thoughts on all eight.

All the Avatar I ever needed

For the number of times I have tagged Avatar on this blog -- this is now the 11th time overall, making it one of my most tagged movies -- you'd think I'd have seen the movie more than once. 

But no, Tuesday afternoon's viewing of the James Cameron magnum opus -- my second straight day leading off with a Cameron movie -- was the first time I'd gone back to it since I saw it on one of the world's largest IMAX screens in Sydney in December of 2009. Australia wasn't my country of residence then, but rather, a travel destination.

And it confirmed that I only needed to see it that one time, plus do not need the half-dozen sequels it sounds like they are planning to make.

It made a good contrast with Titanic, which kicked off the festival. Even at 30 minutes longer than Avatar, Titanic breezed by in comparison. The things I expected to do for Titanic -- pause it for breaks, only half-watch while I did other things on my computer -- were the things I did for Avatar instead. I guess that's the difference between caring about the characters and the story and not caring about those things. 

Avatar still looked cool, but with 12+ years more of digital innovation since then, it no longer seems like a unicorn. Fantasy worlds are credibly conjured for us all the time now, so much so that they have left us feeling blase. 

I reckon I missed the immersiveness of the 3D, which was certainly a big part of the positive things I took away from the movie the first time. Left with altogether too much time to think about only its story, you're not left with all that much.

One funny thing I did want to point out. I started watching Avatar on my work computer, with my personal computer serving as my distraction from the movie. (I did have my attention on most of it, for those thinking I didn't get it a proper chance.) Weirdly, the on-screen subtitles -- as in, embedded into the movie -- were not in English. I couldn't say for sure what language they were, but my best guess was Dutch. It didn't matter all that much because a) it's never too hard to figure out what the Na'vi are saying in the context of what's occurring on screen, b) it's interesting to have it feel additionally foreign, as a non-speaker would, and c) who cares anyway. But I did find it funny.

Halfway through, I had to switch which computer was playing which role, and now, for some reason, the subtitles corrected themselves to English. No idea what the difference is between Disney+ on those two computers, and a little light googling got me nowhere so I just moved on.

Ryusuke Hamaguchi is here to stay

Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy was first introduced to me when a film podcaster I listen to, Scott Tobias, placed it in his top ten of last year, even though it seems as though many/most other critics didn't see it. Drive My Car, Ryusuke Hamaguchi's other 2021 movie, was his #1, but Wheel came in somewhere around a very respectable #6.

Even though it's an hour shorter than Car, I was still viewing it as something of a chore to tackle while sick. But I made a commitment to review it in time for its Australian release date, which is today, long before I knew I would get COVID. And my screener was only good until Saturday anyway, so I'd have to watch it at some point while I still called these garage walls my home.

Well, the nice thing about Hamaguchi movies is that they are straightforward. Not emotionally, mind you -- the emotions in a Hamaguchi movie are perplexing even though always truthful -- but in terms of story, he's not hard to follow. You could argue that just reading subtitles while sick is something that takes too much effort, but I obviously don't think that as I have now done it three times in this festival, including Kin-dza-dza on Monday and one you are about to read about in a minute.

And damn if this guy doesn't have a unique perspective on the human heart and all the unexpected ways it will react to any stimulus out there. 

Because I've got a review going up today -- look to the right within the next few hours if you want to see it -- I won't go on too much more about the movie here. But let's just say that it's a worthy companion to Drive My Car. Like that movie, it increases in emotional intensity as it goes -- not in this case because a single narrative is becoming more and more touching, but because the three narratives are organized in a sequence to accomplish the same thing. 

Especially since his own work has been in a little bit of decline, Hirokazu Kore-eda is going to have to make some room for Hamaguchi among my favorite working Japanese filmmakers.

Tucker and Dale vs. COVID

Eli Craig's Tucker and Dale vs. Evil was my first attempt to use laughter as the best medicine. It was my third time overall watching the horror comedy, first since 2013.

I still appreciated the movie that cracked my top ten of the year it was released, but let's just say there were not any belly laughs forthcoming -- probably just as well as they could have led to coughing fits.

I don't suppose you generally do laugh very hard on subsequent viewings of comedies, though you are definitely supposed to get that knowing dopey grin that takes the place of laughter when that element of surprise is gone. I didn't have that as much, though I did still chuckle over some of the absurd deaths of the college kids trying to attack the titular hicks that they think are attacking them.

Because I've still got five more of these to go, I'll just keep going.

Exploring the elephant in the room for gay people

Because Tuesday was also time for another documentary alternate Tuesday -- I've been watching a documentary every two weeks since last August -- I had lined up Baraka, the spiritual sequel to Koyaanisqatsi, for a viewing to finish off the night. Or thought I had. Turns out it's not streaming on any of my services, nor even rentable via iTunes -- which doesn't matter anyway since iTunes rentals don't play on my projector. 

So instead I went for a movie whose existence I had only just been reminded of while browsing through my streaming service Stan earlier that day: Do I Sound Gay?

The movie is exactly what the title would suggest. It explores the little-discussed -- among polite company anyway -- phenomenon of the "gay voice," which identifies male gays to heterosexuals and other gay people just by the inflections of their voice. The filmmaker, David Thorpe, has decided he loathes his own "gay voice," and while studying the history of this and interviewing gay icons such as George Takei and David Sedaris, he also undergoes speech therapy to try to sound more straight. 

As you would expect, the film is oozing with self-loathing -- the very sort of self-loathing that has prevented many homosexuals from acknowledging their sexuality to the world in the first place. Fortunately, that doesn't make it downbeat either. Thorpe has fun with the topic while also going in depth with his research, all while bringing the thing in at only 80-some minutes. An absolute must watch for people who enjoy documentaries that focus on something specific that is actually important and provocative -- not something specific like which chicken is the best chicken at the chicken show.

My most unconventional #1 movie?

I started off bright and early Wednesday morning, the first day when I didn't have a baseball or basketball game dictating my early morning viewing. So at a little after 7, I was already watching Toni Erdmann with my eggs, toast and coffee.

As you will recall, I'm rewatching my #1 movies in 2022 with the aim toward ranking them at the end of the year. I'd been spacing them out at about two-week intervals, but watched my #1 of 2016 only two days after my #1 of 1997 (Titanic). Since Toni Erdmann is another long one, I decided I couldn't pass up the opportunity of being a captive audience in my garage and not trying to squeeze in all two hours and 40 minutes one night before bed. Besides, if I get a bit ahead on my pace, I can take three weeks off in July and August when I'm in America.

As with Titanic, I thought I might kind of half-watch this, since it would be my third time overall and I probably didn't need to catch every moment. As it turned out, as with Titanic, I wanted to catch every moment. I care about Ines and Winifred the way I care about Jack and Rose, and the way I don't care about Jake Sully.

Even as I was really enjoying the movie -- more than on my second viewing, I think -- it occurred to me how unusual it is for a person who is usually a believer in the three-act structure and other narrative conventions of particular genres. This is a comedy -- for the most part -- and yet it runs closer to three hours than two. And I suppose that it is a collection of set pieces perhaps more than a straight narrative, maybe it's own Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy within one movie. That doesn't prevent it from building in emotional power until that big hug at the end, which gets me every time.

The other screenwriting rule Toni Erdmann breaks is the one that says that every scene must clearly contribute to the thrust of the story. There should be no fat you can lift out. Maren Ade's film arguably has quite a lot of fat -- the hotel tryst between Ines and Tim, for example -- but it all sort of contributes to our overall perspective of the characters. Maybe then this is not fat, because maybe Toni Erdmann is the sort of story for which the idea of narrative fat is a non-starter. And maybe that's why I like it so much. 

Metal turds

I decided I didn't want to fully fall behind on 2022 movies, so I watched the most recent higher-profile Netflix movie I hadn't seen, Metal Lords.

Because it stars teenagers who are into heavy metal, I imagined it would skew too much on the kiddie side of things, with the metal theme being fairly quaint and more an aspirational element for younger viewers.

Nope. This thing is laden with profanity throughout. As just one example, the band's name is Skullfucker.

Glad I didn't start watching with my younger son when he made a mummy-approved visit just before I was planning to start watching.

It's also laden with bad filmmaking and overall lameness. I didn't like the actors, the story is all over the place, and the conclusions it reaches are pretty specious.

On to the next one.

Too many times down the same Road

If having seen Avatar only once qualified as mildly surprising, it's probably much more surprising that I'd only seen Mad Max: Fury Road once. It's something I'd been meaning to correct for some time now, but it was never "the right night." A random number generator ensured that this would finally be the right night, as it beat out two other choices, which may come up as this festival continues, it if does: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and Sin City, which would be the second time for both of those as well.

The reason I'd seen it only once is more similar to the reason I'd see Avatar only once than I'd like to admit. I liked it, but not nearly as much as most people seemed to.

Like Avatar, it's really cool to look at it and I'm really impressed by the achievement. Don't get it twisted -- this is a better movie than Avatar.

But like Avatar, the story doesn't really do it for me, and I can trace that back to one fatal narrative decision: Having gotten to an end point they were expecting to reach and not found it there, the characters just turn back around and go back the way they came. This makes the series of vehicle chases through the desert seem even more monotonous than they already seemed. 

If you don't find this narrative choice to be a problem for you, let me put it to you this way. What if Dorothy and company got to Oz, and instead of clicking her heels to get back to Kansas, she had to reverse her order through the gauntlet of challenges she'd faced along the yellow brick road? Would that be satisfying?

It would not be, and this is one of the reasons -- in addition to some bad dialogue -- why Mad Max: Fury Road is not nearly as satisfying as it should be.

And also, you know what? I don't care that much about either Max or Furiosa. 

There, I said it. 

(Don't stress, it still gets four stars from me just for degree of difficulty.)

Re-watching something old

The final "obligation" of these past two days was to re-watch something older. I watch favorite movies from the last 30 years all the time, but it seems a lot more rare that I dig back older than that. 

So I purposefully set out to find something on my Kanopy account that would qualify, and Herk Harvey's cult classic from 1962, Carnival of Souls, was the winner. (Its 77-minute running time helped that decision.)

Carnival of Souls beat out Wild Strawberries, The Great Dictator and The Wages of Fear for the honor, the latter largely because it's more than twice the length. This search gave me some targets for future options in the festival, except watching Carnival of Souls expended my April credits on Kanopy -- which I think is the first time that has ever happened.

Well, I was really happy with this choice. 

I first watched this low-budget horror in 2013 when I was doing my Flickchart Road Trip series on the Flickchart blog, watching one movie set in each of the 50 states. This was the option for Utah and it lined right up with Halloween.

Well, it really stuck with me and I enjoyed the hell out of watching it last night. It's super creepy and the central performance by Candace Hilligoss is indelible. She's just got such an interesting face.

And since my own credits are expended after writing about eight movies, I'll stop there.

Although I'm working today, I plan to start watching movies again after the end of the workday, though I will certainly decrease by at least one movie per day -- and possibly two, depending on length.

And one day, I will actually leave this garage for reasons other than slinking out for urgent food, toilet and personal hygiene needs.

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

COVID Film Festival: Day One

I have COVID.

My wife has been saying it's inevitable that we would all soon get it, now that they've lifted the last of the mask mandates (we had to wear them on public transportation up until about a week ago), and true enough, my time has come.

Given that I managed to hold out for more than 26 months from when people really started talking about it, it was quite surreal to see that second line come up on the RAT test. (Note: Saying "RAT test" is kind of like saying "ATM machine," but everyone else does it so I will too.) But I kind of knew it would, because the small cough I'd had for a day or two had gotten worse, and now there was snot involved, and a feeling of wooziness and sweating. (Though my temperature was in the normal range. Go figure.)

I'd almost gotten to the point of scoffing at the possibility of getting COVID, not because I feel like I'm impervious to it or because being triple-vaccinated makes it impossible I would get it. We all know now that the vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting it, if it ever did, but it usually makes the symptoms more manageable. No, I was kind of starting to doubt it because every time I've had symptoms of something in the past, I have not tested positive. Even when my younger son tested positive for it about three weeks ago, and I also felt shitty, I returned negative tests on four straight days before I decided I was just wasting tests, especially since I felt better by then.

My wife has even begun to tease me a bit, like I'm a hypochondriac, which is funny coming from her because she is so vigilant about all the right things to do when it comes to COVID.

Well, now I have it and it could be a lot worse. I'm coughing some, I'm sneezing some, I have occasional pains in my chest. But none of these are really dominating me. I wouldn't want to focus on work, and I'm on my first official sick day today after a long weekend. But I can obviously do things like write this blog post.

Oh, and watch a movie marathon on the projector on my garage wall.

That's right, I'm isolating from my family, who have been testing negative, in our garage. My wife actually offered me the upstairs wing, where my younger son also sleeps, since he's had it recently and probably does not need to be isolated from me (though we're doing that anyway out of an abundance of caution). She'd sleep on the couch. But I know she doesn't sleep well on the couch, and I sleep well anywhere, including a mishmash of beanbag chairs in our garage, which is where I am typing this right now.

And because I have COVID, there's no judgment from anyone if I just sit here and watch movies. And sports, but movies is what I want to talk to you about today, because this is not a sports blog. (Though I've got to write quickly because my Celtics are scheduled to try to finish off the Nets in about 20 minutes, and I've got baseball after that -- then more movies.)

Yesterday I watched four, and I thought I would write a little something about each of them.

Titanic at 25

James Camerson's Oscar-winning and box office-busting epic is turning 25 this year, though that's not the reason I watched it yesterday. I watched it as the latest in my series of revisiting all my former #1 movies in 2022, in order to rank them at the end of the year. It's the ninth I've watched and I've got 17 more to go.

It's the first time I watched it in ten years since it had that theatrical 3D re-release, and again, it still holds up for me. The visuals hold up, outside of the digital people on the deck of the ship during the "helicopter shots," and they aren't on screen for very long and aren't much of a distraction. But more than that the story still holds up in all its epic romantic grandeur. I still feel like this is sort of the epitome of all the elements of movie magic coming together in one 195-minute movie, and on this, which I think is my fifth viewing, it's still just as good for me as it was the first time. I still get choked up in about the same three predicable spots.

Without COVID, I'm not really sure when I would have gotten the chance to watch this. I mean theoretically if I started just after 9 at night, I'd finish just after midnight, but we all know you have to take breaks in a three-hour movie. Starting at 11 a.m. was much better.

I kind of thought I would half-watch it and do other things on my computer, given the number of times I've seen it and how well I know it. The fact that I didn't is an indication of how much I still love it. I still want to take in all the details. 

I've also been watching James Cameron on MasterClass, and though I haven't seen him discuss anything related to Titanic yet, I did notice a technique that I hadn't previously ascribed to him. In a breakdown of the nightclub scene in The Terminator, Cameron made mention of his use of the POV perspective of his camera, and I noticed that in use a couple times in Titanic

She was only 15 years old

Forgive the bad Michael Caine paraphrase, or at least a paraphrase of their Michael Caine impersonation in The Trip.

I'd planned to follow Titanic with something shorter and lighter and preferably something I hadn't seen, but when I saw Can't Buy Me Love available for streaming on Disney+, I knew it was time to revisit this 1980s favorite that I probably haven't seen in 30 years.

This one also holds up for me, and part of that is the great performance of Amanda Peterson as Cindy Mancini, the puppy dog Ronald Miller's love interest. 

Poor Amanda Peterson, who died of a drug overdose in 2015. (So much for being lighter!)

I had forgotten how she died and thought it was either an accident or a rare disease, but on a check on Wikipedia I noticed it was, indeed, this most depressingly common of celebrity deaths. Not that you could really call her a full celebrity, since she didn't work a lot after Can't Buy Me Love -- though maybe that was the problem.

I don't know why she didn't work more because she's so good in this movie. She has depth and soul and does quite a lot of non-verbal acting. And what makes that even crazier is that "she was only 15 years old."

When I saw that her death in 2015 was only a few days shy of her 44th birthday, I did some quick math and realized she was born in 1971, just two years before I was. And not the start of 1971 either, but in the summer. So that means when the movie was released in the summer of 1987, she had only just turned 16 -- which means she was 15 while filming.

How often do you see an actor playing a high school student who is actually younger than the character is supposed to be? She's playing a high school senior. Far more common is the actress playing her friend Patty, Darcy DeMoss, who was 23 at the time of filming. Yet even at this tender young age, Peterson had an instinct and a maturity that allowed her, for example, to play drunk in this really convincing and adorable way, while also seeming like a grown-up in her other scenes -- an old soul. It's really rather remarkable.

Koo

My April movie for Flickchart Friends Favorites Fiesta, where you are randomly assigned the highest ranked movie you haven't seen from another member's chart, was Kin-dza-dza, a 1986 Russian film directed by Georgiy Daneliya. And what an absurd little oddity this is.

It involves two Russian men in present day who meet a homeless person who tells them he's from another planet. They don't believe it, but when he transports them there, well, they really have no choice. It's a desert planet and they meet the natives, who at first appear only to speak one word: "Koo." They also have this funny tradition of bowing in deferment to each other that they expect to be reciprocated.

The film involves the two men's attempt to return to Earth, but it's so much more. We learn all their terminology over the course of the movie, and then there's even a glossary of terms that appears during the intermission. There we officially learn what a variety of words mean -- and that "koo" means all other words.

I liken it in my mind to what would happen if Tarkovsky, Jodorowsky and Gilliam all got together to make a movie. It's pretty much a delight and it can be watched for free on YouTube if you're interested.

And finishing with Shadow in the Cloud

Maybe because it's been only 15 months since I saw this the first time, I don't have a new takeaway about Shadow in the Cloud, which was among my top 20 of 2021. I guess I enjoyed it about the same amount.

I suppose the takeaway is a reminder that a movie doesn't need to be long to be effective. This is barely over 80 minutes, which is why I needed it to finish the day and get to bed at a reasonable time. I'm supposed to be recovering from COVID, in case I forgot.

Whether this festival will last only one more day, or more than that, remains to be seen. 

Saturday, April 23, 2022

Audient Bollywood: Bajirao Mastani

This is the fourth in my 2022 monthly series increasing my familiarity with Bollywood.

To this point I have operated on the assumption that whatever Bollywood does well, which so far appears to be quite a lot, it probably would never exceed about 75% of what Hollywood could do with the same material -- at least in terms of the core technical components of cinema.

Bajirao Mastani proved that wrong.

Sanjay Leela Bhansali's 2015 historical epic, which was another of the films identified in Time Out's list of the ten best dance scenes in Hindi movie history, is just about as opulent and technically accomplished as any big Hollywood blockbuster. In fact, Lord of the Rings came to mind during some of the (relatively infrequent) battlefield shots, where a digital camera swooped over the soldiers like an eagle. I couldn't tell if most of the backdrops were real or digital, including impressive palaces and their grand interior chambers, and that's most assuredly a good thing. Likely many of them had to be digital, which means they work even better in a way.

I say it was "just about" as opulent and technically accomplished as a Hollywood film, because there were a few minor "glitches" here and there -- edits that seemed a little abrupt, a few moments of close combat that didn't have the advantage of Hollywood fight choreography, that sort of thing. Overall, though, wow -- what a feast for the eyes.

Of course, what Bajirao Mastani lacks in fight choreography, it more than makes up for in dance choreography.

Because the first dance number is a bit delayed here -- maybe not until about 30 minutes into the 158-minute movie -- for a moment I wondered if I might be getting my first Bollywood movie that did not have dance numbers. (Forgetting for a moment, I suppose, that I had identified this movie because it appeared on the Time Out list of memorable dance scenes.) But when those numbers came on, they came on strong -- and with each new number, I had to ask myself if this was the one the writer had been so impressed by, because each had a very strong candidacy.

First I'll tell you a little what the movie is about. It's an adaptation of the novel Rau, which I guess is already a pretty loose take on its subject -- the opening of the film greets us with a lengthy disclaimer about the attempts at historical accuracy, or lack thereof, of the movie we are about to watch. Rau considers the life of Baji Rao I (or Bajirao Ballal), the seventh "peshwa" (prime minister) of the Maratha empire, who was born in 1700, and his second wife, Mastani. Rao was a great conqueror who defeated Mughals at the Battle of Delhi and the Battle of Bhopal, among others, during a 20-year career as peshwa. And that's all the stuff I don't know about that I care to copy from Wikipedia at the moment.

The story touches on his military victories, and includes some really lovely digital artistic renderings of those battles in the opening credits and elsewhere -- the type you would see in similar Hollywood epics. But this is largely a movie about palace and political intrigue, as Rao's career and reputation were overshadowed by the fact that he took a second wife, a Muslim, despite ample evidence that his first wife (Kashi) was a pretty good catch and a pretty good person. The film makes it out to be that he was sort of duped into the arrangement, as he gave Mastani a dagger, possibly as thanks for saving him in battle. (This may be one of the things that didn't really happen.) In her culture, that was a sign of matrimonial intent on his part. As both a sign of his sense of duty and the fact that he's sort of smitten with her, he agrees to take her on as a second wife -- what the rest of the world sees, especially his traditional Hindu family, as a concubine. The story suggests that it's Mastani he really loves, which causes all sorts of problems for him.

I should stop here to point out a big discovery after the movie started: That first wife, Kashi, is played by Priyanka Chopra Jonas, then just Priyanka Chopra, who has subsequently starting appearing in Hollywood movies (and married Nick Jonas). Because I happen to have seen most of the Hollywood movies she's been in, I feel like I know her a bit, enough so that it seemed nice to see a bit of her origins -- even if those "origins" are only seven years ago. (Her actual cinematic origins go back nearly 20 years, so it would not be a surprise to stumble over her again in this series.) 

Anyway, she's really good here. Because she has graduated to sort of "media personality" status -- I believe I knew her that way before I had seen her in anything -- it felt safe for me to assume she probably wasn't that talented of a performer. Again, watch those assumptions. She can act and she certainly can dance, though it doesn't seem like she's doing her own singing. 

The other leads -- Ranveer Singh as Bajirao and Deepika Padukone as Mastani -- are also incredibly charismatic. When they're the center of their own dance numbers, you can't take your eyes off them.

Let's get to those dance numbers. And for the first time in this series, I'm going to do something that I probably should have done from the start, especially with opening film Dil Se -- include some clips for you to watch.

Without going back to consult the Time Out list during my viewing, I finally concluded that this must be the number that had made the writer's top ten list. It's led by the peshwa and is just overloaded with kinetic energy. The song is called "Malhari":


When I went to check the list, though, I found it was actually a song involving Bajirao's two women dressed in similar saris, called "Pinga." I suppose it's a less aggro/more feminine answer to this song, but is no less awesome:


I'd say the degree of difficulty is higher in "Malhari," but they are equally joyous.

And together they get at why I am enjoying this series so much. What's going on in the narrative is not necessarily joyous in both instances, but Bollywood dance numbers are able to step outside of what's going on in the story to give us something ecstatic on its own terms, without the need to be shackled to the narrative. "Malhari" is indeed celebrating a victory -- political rather than military in this instance, I believe -- but in "Pinga," Kashi is really not that excited about having to accept Mastani into her life through her husband. She does make a gesture by giving her this sari, but the song makes it look like they have truly mended fences, when they haven't really. That doesn't undercut the number's effectiveness in the slightest.

Bajirao Mastani was a big critical hit in India, winning all sorts of awards and becoming the fourth highest grossing movie of 2015. Though after watching it, I have to wonder which were the top three, and how they could top this in terms of production design, dance numbers, etc. 

I suppose as a dramatic narrative, maybe it is not always quite what it could be. I'm not sure I quite feel the tragic romance between the two main characters to the extent that Bhansali wants me to, perhaps because she's a bit stalkerish at certain points and he has a perfectly lovely wife already. But one trick the film does pull off, on a narrative level, is to have gotten me sort of interested in exploring Indian history -- about which I know almost nothing. I probably won't, but let's just say I started to go down a bit of a rabbit hole on it today before having to stop myself due to other commitments. 

On to May.

Thursday, April 21, 2022

Star Wars Episode III: Return of the Star Wars

Okay, that subject makes no sense.

We all know that in Star Wars parlance, Episode III refers to a 2005 movie called Revenge of the Sith. We're not up to that in our viewing, and who knows, we may never get there.

But in the parlance of my family, we had our third movie-length Star Wars "episode" this past weekend on Easter, which was finally watching Return of the Jedi -- the third movie made, but Episode VI using the episode numbering that all Star Wars fans, and most other people, are familiar with. 

I say "finally" because it's been an eternity since we watched The Empire Strikes Back, following a similar eternity since we had watched Star Wars. (I won't name the episode numbers for those movies, because when they first came out, they had no episode numbers, and that's the way I like it.) 

Maybe "eternity" is a bit of an exaggeration. It was actually October 4, 2020 that we watched Empire, so only 18 months ago. But my hope had been that Empire would be such a hit with my kids that they would want to gobble up all the remaining Star Wars movies in short order, and that we wouldn't have another gap like we had between watching Star Wars, which we did on December 22, 2017, and Empire.

This gap was shorter, but it was still indicative of my kids' feelings on these movies in general.

However, maybe that's about to change. 

"What did you think of it?" I asked my older son, who is now 11, as the credits rolled. 

"Good," he said. "I finally like a Star Wars movie."

He knew there was something at stake here just as much as I did.

The younger one didn't directly answer the question, but he was making shooting noises and explosion noises in the play he uses to fill up brief moments of downtime, so that may have been answer enough.

The Book of Boba Fett was what gave me confidence to reintroduce Star Wars to these guys now. They're into "Star Wars" as a concept, having watched two seasons of The Mandalorian in addition to Boba Fett, but the movies have never worked for them -- "too old," "too slow," "looks bad" have been the sorts of complaints they've offered. They obviously don't have a geek's relationship to the material, but I had hoped that recognizing a lot of characters/locations from Boba Fett when they watched Jedi would be the kind of thing that would crystallize feelings of excitement about the show and transfer them to the movies.

I'm not sure if that really happened, or if they just liked the movie on its own terms. I didn't subject them to an extensive exit interview and was just happy with the positive reaction. But because they didn't spontaneously emit exclamations like "Hey, it's the Rancor!" or "Hey, it's a Gamorrean Guard!", I wasn't sure they actually felt that excitement of recognition I had been relying on, and wasn't sure if the movie would work for them at all.

They did seem to find the Ewoks somewhat charming, as my wife and I would sometimes produce little laughs at things Wicket W. Warrick (the original www?) would do, and they seemed to go along with that. 

If I had to guess what finally clicked for my older son, I'd suggest it was the happy ending -- the repudiation of the Emperor (I won't say "death," because we now know he didn't actually die), the redemption of Darth Vader, and the survival and celebration of all the characters we love. I think the ending of Empire had left him perplexed, since there were so many open wounds, and he was unaccustomed to watching movies that ended on a down note. Jedi definitely wraps things up in a nice tight bow.

Then I suppose I also must consider the role of the scope of the movie. We watched it on the projector in our garage, which is as close to a cinematic-style projection as he's ever gotten on a Star Wars movie. We've started to watch a lot more things in our garage so it's perhaps less of a novelty, but a Star Wars movie deserves a bigger canvas, and this one finally got one.

I have to say it was not a 100% success. In the context of his positive review, my older son did mention the pacing issues and made a comment along the lines of "For about ten minutes there I was bored to death." But I guess if a movie's slow patch only lasts ten minutes, that's not too bad, and it means something came back along to stoke your excitement after that. (I don't know which ten minutes it was that bored him so much, but in my mind I imagine it's the conversation between Luke and Leia on Endor. Then again, the moment he did call back to a couple days later was when Luke elevates C3PO to prove to the Ewoks that Threepio is a god, which he obviously enjoyed and which was only a minute or two before that.)

Now the problem is, where to go from here. If their interest in Star Wars is, indeed, stoked, we could move on to one of the next two trilogies. The question is: Which one? If we went only in the order the movies were released, it would obviously be time for The Phantom Menace. But it's possible we'd have better luck with the newer (and better) movies, meaning my personal favorite of the most recent six, The Force Awakens, would be up next. That also picks up where the story left off.

The only thing is, I don't know if they're ready for the successive deaths of each of the three main characters in the next three movies they watch. If my son was perplexed by the ending of Empire, I can only imagine how he'd handle a whole movie where Luke Skywalker is irritable and glum, only belatedly redeeming himself at the end. Should Luke Skywalker be a character who requires redemption? (This is what I asked myself, and still ask myself, about The Last Jedi.)

I suppose whichever way we go, if we go, I will let my children dictate the pace this time. I've already force-fed them the three movies I really want them to see, and anything from here is a bonus. We'll watch Obi-Wan Kenobi when it comes out soon, and if they continue to enjoy that, it would make an easy transition into watching the same actor portray that role in the three prequels. 

But I won't push it on them. They need to make the choice now. My indoctrinating days are over.

Part of me thinks that now that they've enjoyed Return of the Jedi, they should try Star Wars and Empire again. But I've got to just let it go. 

Recreating your own childhood with your kids is an enterprise that is always doomed to failure, be it Star Wars, or the books you loved as a kid, or the sports you played. You can make suggestions and point them in directions, but they've got to take it on themselves at some point, or it can't possibly have that value to them.

At least we went 1-3 on the original trilogy, which was much better than a big fat zero. 

Tuesday, April 19, 2022

Retroactively non-fatal

The following post contains spoilers about The Lost City.

When I sided with my one son over my other son and picked The Lost City over Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore for our Easter Monday viewing, I knew I was taking a minor content risk. The film is rated M by the Australian ratings scale, which means it's supposed to be appropriate for children over 15. 

My younger son is barely half that old, so it may seem like bad parenting of the highest order to expose him to this. But you have to consider that movies like Spider-Man: No Way Home are also rated M, and we've pretty much opened the floodgates to all Marvel movies, even for the eight-year-old. I'm still hemming and hawing on the Avengers movies, which get pretty intense as they go along, but he's already expecting to see Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness in a few weeks, and I don't expect to stand in his way.

Besides, an obvious corollary for The Lost City seemed to be Uncharted, which we watched a couple months back, which he handled just fine -- with the exception of the single "graphic" scene in that movie. But even that scene didn't scar him and I would have been happy to accept about that much "graphic" content in The Lost City.

Which is what I was expecting. A parental guide I read online said that there was a shooting, but that it had a "happy resolution." I didn't realize at the time that this was kind of a spoiler, but they were vague about it and didn't even mention who got shot, or what that happy resolution was.

Well, the shooting victim in question was Brad Pitt's Jack Trainer, who appears in what amounts to an extended cameo. (That's also a spoiler, unless you've seen the trailers, which give it away.) And it's actually pretty graphic.

When he disappears from view after being taken out by a sniper's bullet, you don't see him again. But you do see parts of him. Namely, his blood spatters on nearby Channing Tatum, and it's not just blood, but some viscera as well. In fact, the writers could not resist some panicked dialogue from Tatum in which he talks about the character's brains being on his face and in his mouth.

I grimaced. My eight-year-old son did not need this.

But the parent guide had said there was a happy resolution to the issue, and indeed, I was not surprised to see the character pop up in the middle of the closing credits, apparently fine to the naked eye as he drops in on our other two leads during their yoga class. Tatum mentions the brains again, and Trainer quips "We only use ten percent of our brain anyway. I'm just using a different ten percent."

So the movie's one gruesome death was retroactively ruled not to be a death.

I immediately started wondering: Does this change my son's impression of how violent the movie was?

For starters, I should say that my son seemed far more disturbed by the scene where Sandra Bullock picks leeches off Tatum's back and butt. And I don't think the bare butt was the concern. He just finds leeches gross, and I don't blame him. 

He did seem okay with the shooting. At the end he told me it wasn't possible, if someone got part of their brains blown out they probably couldn't survive. He's not wrong, though I suppose some brain loss is survivable.

Knowing right away I might want to write this post, I asked him on our way out of the theater whether knowing that the character survived changed his impression of that moment after the fact. Sure, he was led for the whole movie to believe that he'd watched a man get his brains blown out, but now that he knew that wasn't what happened, and the man was alive making jokes in a yoga class, did that change his impression of the graphic content itself?

He told me that it didn't. He was pretty firm on that topic and couldn't be swayed from it. But it didn't seem to disturb him much either, so that's good.

I suppose if you want to fake out the audience that a character died, you have to reveal the fakeout fairly soon afterward, otherwise the trauma of that moment will live with that viewer for the rest of the movie -- even as he or she may be having fun with, and enjoying, the rest of the movie.

For a great example how to do this, you need to go to another Bullock movie: Speed. This contains one of the great fakeouts in movie history, where the Bullock-driven bus hits a baby carriage as a woman, presumably the mother, is pushing it across the street. You have long enough to watch the carriage hurtle through the air, an instant pit of nausea in your stomach, before the carriage crashes harmlessly to the street, spilling only the aluminum cans it was carrying. You only have to live with the possibility of a dead infant for about five seconds.

"Killing" a character and then bringing him back an hour later during a totally unwarranted and frankly unbelievable end credits sequence is not the same kind of fakeout. If you didn't want us to think of this loveable rogue as having died, don't give us an hour to sit with his death, his brains splattered all over Channing Tatum and our mourning consciousness.

Monday, April 18, 2022

I did watch that cannibalism movie on Disney+ after all

So it was the parental controls we'd set on Disney+ after all. 

That was why I couldn't find Mimi Cave's Fresh on Disney+ when I first looked for it Saturday night. When my son was watching a lot of Simpsons on his iPad last year, we must have set it so he couldn't watch more grown-up things -- I don't know, maybe certain Marvel movies or something. 

That was the only thing we could have had in mind by trying to restrict him, but those efforts were fruitless anyway as we've been able to find all the Marvel movies on there, plus other things that we would definitely be trying to avoid if we thought he'd had any interest in them. For example, I watched The Hand That Rocks the Cradle on Disney+, which starts out with a gynecologist committing suicide after he's accused of molesting one of his patients -- which he totally did do.

I'm not sure what else I can find on Disney+ now that I've lifted the parental controls -- some porn, maybe? -- but Fresh for sure came to the surface once I'd done so.

Now of course, this is not original Disney content. The cannibalism practiced in Fresh is by human beings, not singing animals. Like most streaming giants, Disney does not want to limit itself, even if the intellectual property it genuinely owns is vast enough to sustain a streaming service. 

No, they've branched out to something called Star, on which you can find The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Crimson Tide (just mentioning one other title I've watched) and yes, a decidedly R-rated movie about a cannibal surgeon who kidnaps women and steadily sells off their meet to a black market of customers willing to pay top dollar.

In the U.S., Fresh is on Hulu, which makes more sense. But Hulu isn't a thing in Australia, so the Hulu content gets passed around as parts of other agreements. I don't know if Star generally gets Hulu content, but I do know some of it goes to other Australian streaming services, like Stan. (Not to be confused with the star of this movie.)

I wonder how many children might innocently come across a movie like Fresh because the parents thought "Why do I need to put parental controls on Disney+? If my little girl's not old enough now to process Bambi's mother being murdered by that hunter, she never will be." 

Little Sarah might take a while to get over these nice young women being slowly murdered by Sebastian Stan, though.

You might find Stan any number of other places on Disney+. He's the winter soldier, of course, and there's been so much chatter about him being able to play Luke Skywalker, given his physical similarity to Mark Hamill, that he'll probably turn up in that role eventually, even if Disney has chosen to go with the Hamill deepfakes to this point. 

But as a cannibal surgeon who's also quite the talented chef? Little Sarah wasn't expecting that.

I really enjoyed the movie when I watched it on Easter night (eating the body of Christ being the tie-in? The only body I was eating was that of a chocolate Easter bunny). It's twisted and discomfiting in all the ways you would hope, while also remaining light enough on its feet, with just enough of a sense of humor, to keep from being hopelessly depressing. (In fact, I'm seeing that some places list it as a "comedy thriller," though I wouldn't go that far.)

I'll tell you one thing I couldn't get out of my mind, though, but first I have to give you a SPOILER WARNING -- even if the thing that I'm spoiling happens relatively early on in the narrative.

The character we follow is Noa, played by Daisy Edgar-Jones. She thinks she's finally met a normal guy -- er, bad judge of character I guess -- and after witnessing their courtship for about 25 minutes, we finally learn otherwise with the onset of some very bad behavior and some late-rolling opening credits. The delayed credits were a great touch, and I wish we lived in a world where it were possible to get someone to watch Fresh without telling them what it's about -- because that would be quite the surprise.

Anyway, that's not the spoiler obviously.

Noa understandably makes an attempt to escape early on, and the surgeon, Steve, has to punish her for it. Not that he doesn't plan to be punishing her anyway, as he's already told Noa this is not going to end well for her. So whether this is his idea of an increased severity, or maybe some warped notion of leniency, he makes his first cut into Noa and extracts the following:

Her ass.

I'm sure it's preferable to losing a leg or an arm straight away. Maybe the ass has to be the first to go. But it left me thinking about the logistics of it all.

Can you sit without an ass? And what exactly does not having an ass look like?

We don't get any shots of Edgar-Jones without any clothes on to be sure. But you better bet I looked at that area of her body whenever we got a fully clothed body shot of her. 

For one, I wanted to see if they made any effort to show her as ass-less. The answer is, no, not really, which might have just been because it would look too weird and they needed her to function mostly normally as the lead actress in the film. 

But then I was also curious about how they would use the character given that she doesn't, you know, have any cushioning down there. 

Although she does crawl around a lot in the early stages of her recovery, by later in the story she's sitting with some regularity, and without any apparent pain. 

Maybe it's that even in something that might think of itself as a "comedy thriller," dwelling too much on her ass might have detracted from everything else the film was trying to do.

In any case.

I'm now interested in going on a bit of a hunt in the Star section of Disney+ to see what other sick and twisted treasures I can find. 

The one thing that sort of confuses me, though, is that I thought I might be accessing an American version of Disney+, since I set it up through my American version of iTunes -- which would make anything on Hulu unavailable. When I tried to go on D+ on my phone to search for Fresh the other night, it said I was "traveling," and that the titles might differ from home. Maybe it's that Australia is home in this case, and my phone is the American entity because of my American Google account? That could be it, as the Google Play store is definitely an American version of that.

But now I'm off in the weeds for sure. 

Anyway, Fresh is worth seeing, though probably not over dinner.

Leftover chocolate bunnies, maybe. 

Sunday, April 17, 2022

The one origin story I didn't know

I hadn't planned to watch Fantastic Four -- the original from 2005 -- on the Saturday night of Easter weekend. I wanted to watch the new horror? thriller? Fresh, which was supposed to be playing through the Star portion of Disney+. I don't know if it's just not playing in my region, or if the kid safe settings are preventing me from searching for a movie about cannibalism -- the last shouldn't be a factor, since it looked like some other more adult-oriented options were available. (And too bad, because I would have liked to write a post about watching a cannibalism movie on Disney+.) In any case, I couldn't find it.

As I was doing a tedious scroll through the alphabetical listing of movies, though -- for some reason thinking that maybe the search feature was broken -- I did come across Fantastic Four. All three Fantastic Four movies, in fact, none of which I've seen.

This is a pretty weird anomaly for me. 

It was obviously different in 2005, but nowadays, there just aren't many superhero movies I miss. And if I do miss them, it's more likely the second or third in a series, like when I opted out of last year's Venom sequel. I'm usually on board for at least the first movie in a superhero series, just to see if happens to be my bag.

Not Fantastic Four. I didn't see the original in 2005, nor the sequel in 2007, nor the reboot/remake/reinterpretation in 2015. I think I was considering seeing the last until the reviews were so terrible. 

While I have marveled about this -- no pun intended -- in the past, and thought it was kind of funny to keep it out there as this notable exception to my usual superhero completism, I figured I'd finally see what Fantastic Four was all about on Saturday night.

Now, I should say that I do know a fair bit about the characters -- their names, their powers, the actors who played them. Enough of that has creeped in by osmosis that the movie didn't feel foreign to me. 

I did not, however, remember what their origin story was, and that it involved the characters going to space and being blasted by gamma rays.  

There were a number of interesting differences I noticed between a superhero movie made 17 years ago, before the MCU had started, and one made today. 

For one, I was shocked at how short it was. The running time is listed as 105 minutes, but there are nearly ten minutes worth of credits. The film was in its big climactic showdown before I had a chance to get comfortable on the couch. (And that showdown reminded me of one of my original favorite superhero movies, Superman II, as it occurs at street level in a city -- only the heroes outnumber the villain here, whereas the reverse is true in Superman II.) After Morbius, that's two straight superhero movies that ran shorter than two hours -- almost unheard of.

Then of course I couldn't miss how white it was. Ioan Gruffud, Jessica Alba, Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis are all white, as is Julian McMahon as Doom. The movie does feature Kerry Washington as Ben Grimm's blind love interest, so at least there's that. By 2015 they'd realized they needed to be more inclusive so they cast Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm. (And as a sign of further enlightenment, they don't worry about the fact that he's a different race than his sister, played there by Kate Mara.)

Then there's the comparatively poor usage of Alba, as giving women proper agency was not much of a thing in 2005. Yeah, she can turn invisible and she can control some sort of energy field with her hands, but really, she's more of a pretty face and a sex symbol than a character to be proud of. Part of it is Alba's bad performance; she really doesn't bring anything to the role. But she's wearing a low-cut outfit that features her cleavage in nearly every scene, and the movie doesn't shy away from the titillation factor of Sue Storm needing to be naked to take full tactical advantage of her invisibility. We don't see anything of course, but we see Alba in her underwear a couple times, or quickly moving to shield her nudity from someone.

It's hard to put myself back into the headspace of the superhero world we lived in then, when the MCU was still three years off, and when the only superhero franchises of note were Batman, Superman, Spider-Man and X-Men. So while Fantastic Four might have been fine for 17 years ago, it's a bit limp by today's standards, even with a few fun performances and decent special effects. 

Just to honor my modern completism, I may continue on and watch the other two existing movies, in part because I understand something interesting might happen at the end of Rise of the Silver Surfer (no spoilers in case you care about such things but also have not seen the movie), and I'm always interested to see how they handle things like that. 

Then again, there are still three Spider-Man movies I haven't seen -- the last with Toby Maguire and both with Andrew Garfield -- so I guess I will have to have the philosophical debate about which superhero completism has more value to me. 

Or, I could just, you know, watch other types of movies and take a break from superhero movies for a while, at least until Doctor Strange comes out, which I think might be a lot more gratifying.

This post had nothing to do with Easter, but it's going up on Easter. So, happy Easter.

Saturday, April 16, 2022

A Good Friday of New York favorites

We're on day two of a four-day weekend for Easter, and for some reason, I view these long weekends as a way to take a deep dive back into my collection of personal favorites. I already started on Thursday night with Moon for my 2022 #1s series, then Friday night, it was the double feature of other American DVDs I can suddenly watch now that I've reclaimed my old laptop as a region 1 DVD player, as discussed in yesterday's post. 

I've always made a connection in my mind between Kissing Jessica Stein and The Guru. For most people, it seems, these were throwaway romantic comedies that they immediately forgot about the moment the credits rolled, if they saw them at all. For me, they were sneakily emotional, feel-good favorites that both landed in my top ten of their respective years, which happened to be consecutive years in 2002 and 2003. (Actually, now that I look at it, I can see The Guru was only #11, but I now like it better than all but three of the movies that were ahead of it.)

I'd had occasion to think of both movies in recent months. The Guru, of course, was one of my inspirations for watching Bollywood movies this year, and I name-checked it in my introduction post for Audient Bollywood. Then I mentioned Kissing Jessica Stein in my recent post about Everything Everywhere All at Once, when I talked about movie characters overcoming their prejudices, specifically related to embracing the LGBTQI+ people in their lives. This movie has just about the most moving example of that for me -- not because the gesture is so great or unexpected, but simply because of the performance given by Tovah Feldshuh in that moment.

Other than a new viewing of both being overdue -- I hadn't seen either in more than ten years, and in fact last saw both in a six-month period from September 2010 to March 2011 -- and other than them both being on a DVD format I could now access, I had additional reasons to program them both for a Good Friday double feature on my projector. Let's look at some other similarities between these films:

1) Both are set in New York. That's likely a key to why I loved them so much. I lived in New York from 1998 to 2001, getting out just six months before 9/11. Since these movies both came out less than two years after 9/11, I'm sure they helped me experience a romanticized notion of New York that particularly helped me at that time.

2) Both are sex positive. Heather Graham's porn star in The Guru is not the least bit stigmatized for her career choice, either by the other characters or the film itself, and everyone associated with the porn shoots we see is pretty much a sweetheart. She beats herself up, but nobody else does. Jessica celebrates sex of all kinds -- hetero, gay and lesbian (making a distinction between a gay male couple and a gay female couple in the film). Which leads to ...

3) Both are gay positive. It's right there in the text of Jessica, and as alluded to just now, Helen's also good friends with two men in a relationship. But The Guru has a gay subplot as well, as Graham's character's fiancee (Dash Mihok) doesn't actually want to marry her because he's in love with a fellow firefighter (Bobby Cannavale). Then there's the trans character, long before we were really dealing with that in the culture, who works as a fluffer on the porn shoot. Played by Dwight Ewell, not only is she wonderfully supportive to Graham's Sharona, but she's also got one of the best lines in the movie: "I'm more woman than you'll ever have, pencil dick."

4) Both have exactly one scene that takes place in an Indian restaurant. Seriously! Jimi Mistry's Ramu works at an Indian restaurant when he first arrives in New York, getting fired from the gig when he pours chicken tikka masala over the head of an abusive customer, who denies the authenticity of the dish while speaking to Ramu in an accent that would make The Simpsons' Apu blush. And Indian is where Jessica and Helen go for dinner after the couple drinks they have on their blind date, when Helen finally convinces Jessica not to bolt in the nearest taxi. 

5) Both are directed by people with really long names: Daisy von Scherler Mayer for The Guru and Charles Herman-Wurmfeld for Jessica. In fact, both names have exactly 21 letters. Given their evident abilities, both should have had busy careers but I'm sorry to say that didn't end up being the case.

6) And speaking of that, both films are fronted by an actor -- the title character, in fact -- whose charisma and acting chops suggested they should have had much longer careers. Alas, I can count on one hand the times I've seen Jennifer Westfeldt or Jimi Mistry turn up in another film. Mistry at least popped up in Blood Diamond, Ella Enchanted, 2012 and RockNRolla, but never in a big role. IMDB says he has 37 acting credits overall, but again, no starring roles. For Westfeldt the pickin's were slimmer: only 30 credits, with only one other film credit I've seen, 2011's Friends With Kids -- though she had to both direct and write it to get cast in the main role, and the attempt to reproduce Jessica Stein was not a success. She also had a recurring role in one season of 24, though I've forgotten that.

More informally, both films give me a sense of joy that few other romantic comedies can touch, resulting from a perfect combination of writing, tone, structure and cast. (I haven't even mentioned that The Guru also has personal favorite Marisa Tomei.) The best evidence of this is that even though it was almost 11:30 when I started watching Jessica, I didn't come close to falling asleep.

I used to proselytize for these movies whenever I could, with whoever would listen. But now it's been 20 years since they were made, and I'm not sure if I can easily find either of them beyond my own region 1 DVDs. In fact, it's been more than 20 years, as Jessica has the year 2001 in its closing credits, while The Guru has the year 2002, though they were both released theatrically the year after that.

Well, if you're reading this and you haven't seen either movie, I hope you can find them, because it might be too far for you to travel to come watch them in my garage in Australia. I mean, if you only like arthouse films and documentaries, maybe skip them. But if you think the romantic comedy can be cinema's greatest genre when done correctly, when tweaking familiar tropes to give them new freshness, when finding just the right actors to speak just the right words, then you owe it to yourself to seek these two movies out.

And if you feel a natural fondness for a New York that may no longer be, and maybe never was, then all the more reason. 

Friday, April 15, 2022

A good use for old junk

Near the start of the pandemic it was decided that I needed a new computer. But because I am old school, I wanted a new computer that was like my old computer. I was attracted to such obsolete features as a built-in DVD player, so my wife proactively bought me a cheap-o version of this old computer, a Hewlett-Packard, without us really having said the final word on the matter as far as I was concerned. But when it arrived I was happy enough to see it. I liked this model in theory -- it had treated me well on my previous instance before that one got too old -- and I wasn't ready to be thrust into "the future," where every laptop is small and light and spartan.

The proviso was that it could just be a short-term computer to get us through the next year or so, then maybe we'd pass it on to my older son, who was about to hit double digits. We couldn't have known how short term. 

From the start there was something off about this computer. It would freeze at apparently random times, and I mean a fatal sort of freeze, which could only be cured by a reboot. The mouse just stopped moving and never moved again. 

We thought it was browser-related, but the issue occurred in other browsers as well. I searched possible fixes and toyed with different solutions, at times thinking I had gotten past it, only to have the issue rear its head again. Then the general performance, even when it wasn't freezing, started to suffer.

We might have tried to replace it under warranty, but I happened to discover that my sister had the exact same issue on her HP. That made it seem less likely that the issue wouldn't reoccur on a new piece of hardware. And by this time our circumstances had changed. My mother passed away that June, and within a couple months we started getting access to the money we had inherited from her. It seemed easier just to walk away and to buy the computer I am typing on right now -- a Dell.

I wiped that HP and gave it off to my son, which excited him to no end. But even with a fresh copy of the operating system and no applications I had installed that could have been contributing to the issue, the computer was a sluggish piece of shit. Even my computer-starved son was jack of it pretty quickly. It got placed on a shelf and started collecting dust. It did make the transfer to our new home, but pretty soon after, it could be found in a box of old technology waiting to be recycled. 

Within the last few months, another piece of our technology, this one a long-time stalwart, also fell on hard times. Our region-free DVD player, which had caused us no issues for the first eight years of its life, developed some sort of mechanical issue with its tray. I had to use various methods to force it open, and I'm sure that made it worse. I toyed with the idea of opening it up and seeing if I could set this Doohickey A back to where it needed to go in Slot B, but to be honest, I'm not very mechanical. I suspected I'd just waste a lot of time unscrewing screws. So now I guess we're ready to walk away from it, which is just as well, as we barely ever borrow movies from the library anymore.

But that left all the DVDs and BluRays that I brought over from the U.S. unplayable. Sure, some of those movies can be found on streaming, and others I could rent, or just not watch right now. We live in a world where you can get most of the movies you want at the tap of a finger, but there are some you just can't find at all right now. Take my Settling the Scorsese series, where I just cannot get my hands on a copy of New York, New York. Any precious American DVDs that I can't get my hands on otherwise would just need to wait their turn to get watched, at some point in the near or distant future.

Then on Thursday night, I was planning to watch my next 25th anniversary #1. You may remember I am watching all my previous favorite films of the year, dating back to 1996, in 2022, leading toward the goal of determining my favorite year-end #1 of all time, which I will do at the end of 2022. I'd scheduled Moon, my #1 of 2009, a movie I own on a region 1 DVD that I now cannot play.

I thought about looking for it on streaming services and renting it on iTunes, but I wanted to watch it on our projector in the garage, and for some reason, iTunes rentals are incompatible with our projector. I've complained about this before. 

Then suddenly a solution occurred to me.

Now, a laptop is not restricted to playing DVDs from the region in which it was manufactured -- not that they aren't all manufactured in China -- but you can only change the DVD region a finite number of times. I think it's four or five. So if you are desperate to play something from another region, you can, but that brings you one region change closer to never being able to change the DVD region again. And heaven forbid you mess this up and end up on the wrong region for your last change.

But this doesn't matter at all on a laptop that's sitting in a box of junk waiting to be recycled.

So Thursday night I fished out that old HP, found its power cable and fired it up. By the end of its life, it had gotten so poor in the performance department that you basically couldn't do anything on it. That was how it was starting to look this time too.

But I eventually did get it to get past its various startup issues and maxed out disk usage, the source of which I have been unable to determine. I did disable various game setups my son had put on it during the short time that he had it, and maybe that helped.

I calculated that I could change the DVD region and play my American Moon DVD, because the processing required in playing a DVD was a lot less than various other activities a person might attempt. 

As it turned out, I calculated correctly.

Once I successfully changed it to region 1 -- with still three region changes left after this one should I need them -- and got the movie to start in a native player that the OS recommended to me, it was smooth sailing from there. I connected it up to the projector and watched the whole thing with nary an issue -- beyond the fact that I was falling asleep a bit. Never mind, it was the fifth time I'd seen the movie.

At first I thought the issue would be in having the necessary permissions to change the region. On a bunch of other things I'd tried to do, I was reminded that this was not an administrator account. That was by design, as we didn't want my son to be able to do anything he wanted on this computer. But it was annoying me now. Given the login/startup issues, I didn't want to try to log in as an administrator, which would require me to remember the password I'd set on it as well, some 18 months earlier. 

Turns out, you don't need to be an administrator to change the DVD region. 

The whole thing left me very pleased with myself. I immediately started brainstorming the other American DVDs I might queue up for a viewing, possibly as soon as tonight.

Now, I do still have one practical limitation. I don't believe this computer will play my American BluRays. The computer was old school enough that its internal DVD player did not include that additional capacity. Whenever we'd wanted to watch my American BluRays at my old house, we always had to use the region-free DVD player. 

A possible solution is that I connect my current external DVD player, which I use with my new computer, to the old computer. If the region is determined at the operating system level rather than the hardware level, then this player could just be a vessel for that setting. Then again, I'm not sure if that one will play BluRays either.

Another solution is just to be aware that some movies, as discussed earlier, are always going to be inaccessible for one reason or another. Maybe at some point in the future I will be able to watch those BluRays again. Maybe I never will. Life will go on either way.

The end of physical media has already arrived for most people. It hasn't yet for me. And if I can use some old junk to hang on for just a bit longer, I'll do it.