Deconstructing Harry (rewatch)

Allen’s homage to (and send-up of) Wild Strawberries has its pluses and minuses.  It’s interesting, and in a way refreshing, to see him being so blatantly crass.  It’s one of his darkest movies, and maybe his most cynical comedy.  Some of it is riotously funny, like the confrontation with Kirstie Alley in the middle of a patient’s therapy session, or his version of Hell (with Billy Crystal in one of his most enjoyable roles).  But with all the little sub-stories going on, it comes off like a clearinghouse for unfinished ideas.  Also, the fragmented, jerky editing (because he’s being “deconstructed,” get it?) is an annoying quirk that adds little.  Still, there’s a lots of laughs to be had and it’s an interesting bit of self-deprecation combined with self-admiration.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Take the Money and Run (rewatch)

This was my favorite Woody when I was a young fella.  I guess the rapid succession of quick little gags appealed to me.  Now I’m less amused by it (perhaps partly due to overexposure) but there are some great bits.  The whole “gub” thing is really inspired, and the chain gang scene, and some of the small throwaway jokes like the “disguises” Virgil’s parents wear.  Others fall kinda flat, but there’s nothing truly awful in the entire movie.  Although not one of the greats, it’s generally a fun time.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Zelig (rewatch)

Incredibly inventive idea for a film, and the technical achievement is quite impressive.  The footage matches perfectly, there are very few instances where the illusion falters.  Not as wall-to-wall funny as Allen’s other comedies, but there are some howlingly good jokes in it.  And the film touches on issues like conformity and the cult of personality in clever ways.  At times, however, it just feels like an excuse for Allen to try on different disguises.  I don’t have quite the same fondness for it as I do for Love and Death or Sleeper or a number of other Allen movies, but I enjoyed revisiting it, more than I expected to.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb

Comedian (rewatch)

It’s weird that I have a copy of this when I only rated it a 7 the first time, but I’ve resolved to watch everything I own that I haven’t seen for a while, so here goes.  I won’t be keeping this one, but it was kinda fun to watch Jerry again.  I’d love to see his show, but he doesn’t come to Portland that much.  And how about that Orny Adams?  Wow, that guy is a tool.  I remember them saying on the DVD commentary that they didn’t intend to make him look bad, but he sure ends up looking bad.  It sort of sucks that the movie drops his storyline in the last half hour without any sense of where he’s heading, but Jerry’s the real show here.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (rewatch)

A thorough overview of the director’s career, one that makes me want to watch his movies for the umpteenth time.  I do have a couple of gripes about the documentary, though.  Tom Cruise is a lousy narrator.  Whatever you think of him as an actor, his voice, his intonation is very plain and flat.  Also, the film is almost entirely gushing.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Kubrick.  Everyone loves Kubrick, it’s practically a cliché, like saying you love the Beatles.  But there are valid criticisms that can be leveled at his films, and very few of those are voiced here, and even those are quickly dismissed.  A little less fawning would have been nice.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb

The Criminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz (rewatch)

Again, Bunuel explores the disturbing mentality of a member of the privileged class.  The premise is very amusing: a would-be serial killer whose attempts are constantly thwarted by circumstance.  The film has some wonderful touches like the demented music box theme, the fantasies when Archie gets in one of his murderous moods, and again a focus on the lower half of the female form.  Ernesto Alonso and the entire cast are terrific.  However, the film does have a certain sluggishness to it, and the first two acts in particular seem to contain a lot of superfluous material that doesn’t add much to the whole.  I also feel the ending could use more of a cynical bite to it.  Still, it’s better than a lot of his 50′s work, if not quite as remarkable as El or Los Olvidados.  Rating: Good

IMDb

El (rewatch)

One of Bunuel’s best films, and certainly the finest of his lesser-known work.  An intense, gripping study of a man who goes from merely asshole to outright insane, perhaps driven just a bit by his fondness for feet (the film’s alternate title is “This Strange Passion”).  In a powerhouse performance by Arturo de Cordova, Francisco is jealous, irrational, impulsive, self-centered, paranoid, delusional, megalomaniacal, misanthropic and sadistic.  Bunuel leaves it up to the viewer to imagine what he’s doing to Julia as we hear her tormented screams echo through the mansion… or what he has in mind when he sneaks into her room with a rope, a razor blade and a pair of scissors.  Bunuel isn’t known for flashy cinematography, but he always knows exactly where to place the camera, and the film’s visual style gets more and more noir-ish as Francisco descends deeper into his obsessive madness.  There’s a subversive quality and almost a black comedy to it, like a Wyler melodrama with a perverted twist.  The film begins and ends in a church, a symbol of sexual repression and false ideals, and the brilliant final shot suggests how much it feeds into Francisco’s psychosis.  Rating: Great

IMDb

My Best Fiend (rewatch)

I know this is meant to be about the relationship between Herzog and Kinski, but I really want less of the former and more of the latter.  Kinski was a fascinating, explosive personality and we ought to see more of him outside the context of his work with Herzog.  There’s barely any acknowledgement of his life beyond those five films, either before, during or afterward.  While this makes it a more personal film, it also feels like Herzog is trying to inject himself into the narrative of a documentary that is crying out to be more of a personality profile.  At times it seems like he’s attempting to hitch himself to Kinski’s wagon of crazy.  Also, much of this is duplicated in Les Blank’s Burden of Dreams.  I really didn’t need to see that dreadful Robards/Jagger footage from Fitzcarraldo again.  Rating: Fair

IMDb

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

Yes, this movie is over-sentimental and wears all its earnestness (and its many messages) plainly on its sleeve.  But I’m such an ol’ softie that it got right to me.  I loved watching this family of flawed characters, with a richness and complexity that was just beginning to take shape in Hollywood films.  The story sometimes creeps up to the brink of romanticizing poverty, and each time undercuts it with harsh reality or bitterness.  These aren’t merely simple people finding simple joy in the simple things… they make do, but they ache from want.  And it’s also a movie about decency, and how it comes easier to some than others.  I thought the cast was wonderful, even the little boy never gets horribly obnoxious.  They aren’t necessarily great actors, but their performances are very endearing even in their darkest moments.  A lovely and heartbreaking film that choked me up more than once, a fantastic first effort for Kazan.  Rating: Great

IMDb

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Messy and muddled, but in a loose, playful way.  It’s an enjoyable romp, especially considering the circumstances.  It was fortunate for the production that the tragic loss of Heath Ledger could be solved with a gimmicky casting decision that entirely suits the story.  It does tamper with the emotional core of the film, but as far as a solution goes, it’s pretty clever.  It’s the other cast members who I was more taken with, anyway.  Plummer’s character is wildly uneven, but Tom Waits is a delight, Lily Cole is charming (and utterly fetching), Andrew Garfield is… well, he’s okay, and it’s great to see someone use Verne Troyer as more than a mere prop.  Some of the spectacle on display is stunning, but also the most problematic area of the film.  Gilliam’s predilection for visual overload can be headache-inducing, and far too often the frame is far too busy with dizzying set design and flashy camera moves.  Restraint is not his strong suit… sometimes in his favor, but sometimes not.  Despite the flaws (and really, Gilliam without flaws wouldn’t be Gilliam) I had a fun time with this movie.  Rating: Good

IMDb