The Belly of an Architect (rewatch)

Can’t remember how much I liked it when I first saw it about 10 years ago, but now Greenaway’s pretensions in Belly are far too much to withstand.  And Chloe Webb is horrible.  Half an hour was all I could take.  I think I don’t like Greenaway as much as I thought I did.  I still love Cook Thief Wife Lover and I have a feeling I’ll still love Drowning by Numbers (where’s the damn DVD already?) but as far as the rest of it… feh.  Rating: 5

IMDb

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Had a very cool look to it, though the print was kinda rough and I would have preferred it without the color tinting.  And it was creepy, which I like.  But it didn’t really grab me too much.  Rating: 6

IMDb

The Magdalene Sisters

Good movie, but hard for me to watch.  I always get so riled up when I see really heavy injustices going on.  I wanted the girls to just go wild and kick some nun ass.  On the other hand, as horrible as it was, I also kinda felt that the abuses weren’t as bad as I was anticipating.  I mean, it was dreadful, but I guess I was expecting something more disturbing.  Color me jaded?  Rating: 8

IMDb

Night and Fog (rewatch)

Holocaust documentaries tend to be very detached, holding back judgment and emotion and letting the horrors of the situation speak for themselves.  Night and Fog is somewhat unusual in that the narrator’s outrage is apparent.  Rating: 8

IMDb

Donzoko (The Lower Depths)

I wouldn’t say that I like the Kurosawa better, just that I like it for different reasons.  Kurosawa’s work is bleaker (though not without a dose of humor) which is neither better nor worse than Renoir’s more playful movie — just different.  Kurosawa’s characters perhaps show more depth, but Renoir’s aren’t shallow either (and let’s be honest, they’re easier for me to relate to).  I don’t like the theatricality of Donzoko as much as the more cinematic Bas-Fonds.  The films complement each other well.  I do think I should have watched the Kurosawa first though.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Les Bas-Fonds (The Lower Depths)

So here’s the situation: Criterion (a DVD company which specializes in top-quality releases of “important” movies) had the clever idea of putting both Kurosawa’s and Renoir’s version of Gorky’s Lower Depths in the same package.  Having seen neither, I had to decide which to watch first.  I felt certain that I would probably end up preferring the Kurosawa film; Renoir is far more hit & miss and I had the impression that the Kurosawa was generally regarded as the better of the two.  So do I diminish my enjoyment of it by watching Renoir first, and thus probably spoiling any surprise plot twists?  Or do I watch Renoir first, giving it more of a fair chance than having to be compared to Kurosawa?  I went with the latter.  Fortunately, there aren’t many plot twists to have spoiled.  I thought the movie was just fine.  Nothing astounding, but I certainly prefer it over Boudu Saved from Drowning or The River… maybe even Grand Illusion.  Great characters, loved that baron especially, but I wasn’t as fond of “the actor” as I think Renoir wanted me to be.  Rating: 7

IMDb

Delicatessen

There’s several different kinds of quirky.  In Jeunet’s case, there’s Amelie, which is a whimsical sort of quirkiness… it’s exciting and it’s cute and it services the film rather than dominating it.  Then there’s City of Lost Children, which is annoying quirkiness.  It’s people acting weird in ways that might be curious or novel, but doesn’t quite make sense and is often obnoxious.  Delicatessen is somewhere in between.  Something like the bedspring scene is clever and charming, but at the same time it really does nothing to advance the story.  But on the other hand, there’s stuff like Aurore and her Buckminster Fuller suicide machines, which are not only hilarious but also set up a key plot point.  Other quirks I’m torn about… it’d be nice if Jeunet made more of an effort to explain what precipitated this society the characters inhabit, but then again maybe it’s best left to the imagination.  On the whole, I liked it quite a bit and would enjoy seeing it again, especially if it comes out on DVD (there are some foreign releases, but I don’t like it enough to import one).  Rating: 7

IMDb

Gray’s Anatomy

Not as good as Swimming to Cambodia or Monster in a Box; Soderbergh lays on the conceptual stuff a bit too thick, though I thought the interviews were a nifty idea.  Rating: 7

IMDb

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

Finally got around to watching the whole thing.  Spectacular and supremely entertaining (do I go overboard with the adverbs?  I gotta watch out for that).  Funny, tense, exciting, gripping.  What really amazes me about this movie is the way Leone uses the frame so masterfully.  I am so glad that I never saw a pan & scan version, it would take away all the magic.  I can’t even imagine how someone could watch this film in anything other than the original aspect ratio.

I don’t know why I was so averse to westerns.  I guess it’s because I assumed they’re all the same… a sure sign that someone is ignorant on the topic.  I can’t say I’ll be seeking out a lot more westerns, but I’ll give some others a chance.  Unfortunately, I have to dock GBU a point for all the dubbing.  I can’t let that slide.  I know it was unavoidable in this case, but it’s just too annoying.  Rating: 9

IMDb

Rumble Fish (rewatch)

(Slow movie month for me, eh?)  Coppola’s artistic ambitions cripple what could otherwise be a pretty good movie.  The symbolism is laid on extremely thick, the fish metaphor is as blatant as it gets, the shots are far too stylized and the screenplay is obscenely overwritten.  The performances are rather questionable, too, particularly Rourke’s.  Also, ridiculous ending.  Come to think of it, maybe this couldn’t be a pretty good movie even if Coppola had toned it down.  Well, it may be flawed, but it’s decent.  Rating: 6

I was exceptionally amused to see this tidbit from a clueless iMDB reviewer (emphasis added): “This film was one of the last, if not the last, that was made in black and white.”  Ha ha!  Oh yes, “johnsguay,” you astute viewer, you!  No B&W films have been made since 1983!  Why don’t people even TRY to verify their nonsense before spewing it out on the internet for the world to see?

IMDb