Another Year

I couldn’t resist the sheer novelty value of ending 2011 with a title like this.  Or would it have been more novel to start 2012 with it?  I guess since I was in the middle of the film at midnight (yes, I’m a boring old man who watches movies on New Year’s) I did both!

Although this film didn’t have the intense emotional/psychological impact on me that Naked and Secrets & Lies did, it’s now my favorite of Leigh’s post-90′s work.  I think it’s oversimplifying things to say that the film promotes a “married good, single bad” sensibility but I can also see how someone would walk away with that impression.  Tom and Gerri appear to have an ideal relationship, loving and supportive, while all their single friends and relatives are walking disasters of varying degrees.  But it’s not really about the institution of marriage so much as having someone to lean on.  I also wondered if the light-hearted jabs and quips between Tom and Gerri were signs of a sort of long-developed defense mechanism, or perhaps more accurately a mask for the lack of real communication.  Maybe I’m just looking for things that aren’t there.

Regardless, Leigh gets the usual outstanding performances from his cast.  Lesley Manville’s shabby, almost cruel desperation is heartbreaking, and Jim Broadbent is big and warm.  But the true revelation here is Ruth Sheen.  She has an astonishing presence, you just want her to be on the screen at every moment.  Her face shows hints of what’s being buried, both concern and exasperation.  I looked at her other credits, and it’s almost entirely bit parts and television appearances.  Her only other major roles in feature films are The Young Poisoner’s Handbook and Leigh’s earlier High Hopes — both of which I’ve added to my list.

There are beautiful moments in this film, and it moves surprisingly fast.  It’s hard not to get wrapped up in the lives of these characters.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb

Homicidal

Call it inspiration or homage or ripoff, this is clearly influenced by Psycho from the previous year.  Whether Castle was capitalizing on that film’s success or simply knew a good idea when he saw one, the similarities are all too obvious.  Castle’s take on it has some ludicrous stuff in it, but is a ton of fun.  The film really keeps you guessing for the first half, you’re dying to know the story behind Joan Marshall’s (here credited under the alias Jean Arless) ruthlessly psychotic behavior.  There’s a final reveal that’s telegraphed far too early (who knows, it may have fooled 1961 audiences) but it hardly matters when it’s all so giddily twisted and enjoyable.  Marshall is a delight and the film has pretty good production value.  The score is well done, and although Burnett Guffey’s cinematography isn’t as striking as his noir work, there are some terrific shots.  Oh, and the gimmick this time around?  A “Fright Break” clock that counts down 45 seconds before the climax, giving scared viewers a chance to go out in the lobby and stand in the “Coward’s Corner.”  Hee hee!  Definitely one of the better Castle productions, one that makes you wish there was someone of his showmanship making movies today.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb 

Mr. Sardonicus

Gothic horror in the style of the old Universal thrillers, with a cruel baron who “experiments” on unsuspecting young girls to find a cure for his frozen grin.  An obvious inspiration is The Man Who Laughs, although the make-up here is far more grisly.  Also grisly are the torture scenes, not horrifyingly so (in fact, it’s almost a playful approach to sadism), but definitely creepy.  The performances are generally not that bad, with a memorable turn by Oskar Homolka (the villain from Hitchcock’s Sabotage) as Sardonicus’ mysteriously disfigured Igor-esque lackey.  Guy Rolfe is appropriately menacing in the title role, and Ronald Lewis and Audrey Dalton hold their own as the heroes.  The plot is a tad slow and full of holes, but in general the film is enjoyable.  It also culminates in another delightful Castle gimmick: glow-in-the-dark “Punishment Poll” cards the audience would hold up to decide whether or not to show Sardonicus any mercy.  There’s only one ending, of course (who’s gonna let the bad guy off the hook?) but Castle’s obvious glee in the pretense is a joy.  Rating: Good

IMDb 

13 Ghosts

I started the Castle set with 13 Frightened Girls but after about 15 minutes it seemed pretty stupid and boring (and comments on IMDb suggested it wasn’t going to get any better) so I skipped it and moved on to this one.  Unlike House on Haunted Hill, there aren’t many genuine scares in this.  It revolves around a gimmick (unsurprisingly, being a Castle film) with a pair of glasses: look through the red if you want to see the ghosts, blue if you don’t.  As one discovers watching at home, you actually don’t need the glasses at all if you want to see the ghosts, and besides, who the heck wouldn’t want to see them?  It’s an amusing trick and the film is goofy fun, but if you’re looking for chills, you’ll be disappointed.  No one seems to be taking it too seriously… Margaret Hamilton appearing as the “witch” housekeeper should give you an indication of how tongue-in-cheek it is.  The film isn’t quite campy enough or original enough or anything enough to leave much of an impression, but it has a few charms.  Rating: Fair

IMDb

A Page of Madness (rewatch)

 

One of the very few pre-WWII movies to make my top 100, but I’d only seen it once so I figured I’d better revisit it.  After all, if it’s so great it shouldn’t take me nearly 6 years to see it again, and besides, I wanted to be sure I wasn’t subconsciously adding a token silent to my list.  On the first count, my only excuse is that the copy I owned was shoddy and tough to enjoy.  Fortunately, this new one is a much cleaner print aired on TCM (although sadly, still only the 59-minute version as opposed to the rumored 78-minute version).  This copy I will definitely watch more frequently.  Because there’s no tokenism going on here, this film belongs in my top 100, and maybe even higher up the list.

The story is admittedly hard to follow.  There are no intertitles and it would have originally been narrated by a benshi.  But the relative lack of narrative (and don’t get me wrong, there is a discernible plot) only adds to the unsettling, off-kilter nature of the film.  It’s one of the most dizzying, delirious depictions of insanity I’ve seen, with haunting and bizarre imagery around every corner, an almost complete breakdown of the wall between subjective and objective reality… and a reminder that, in a way, all cinema is a form of madness.  The variety and level of technique on display is not only impressive, but used appropriately.  The avant-garde 1971 score makes for brilliant accompaniment as well.  It’s an exhilarating piece of work, both despite and because of its incompleteness.  Rating: Masterpiece

IMDb

Jindabyne

I have absolutely no idea how this ended up on my “want to see” list.  I know nothing about the director, I don’t particularly care about the actors, it has a rather low score on IMDb, and I don’t remember hearing about it anywhere.  About a third of the way through I had a flash of recognition as I realized that many years ago I’d read the Raymond Carver story it was based on (the same story also makes up a portion of Short Cuts, but apparently I’ve forgotten that segment).

Lawrence expands on the story a bit, at least to my recollection.  I don’t remember there being any racial elements, which add some interesting angles to the themes of guilt.  The characters feel a wide array of guilts, and use them as weapons against each other, so introducing white guilt into the mix gives the film more avenues to explore.  I found the drama rather compelling (after a somewhat sluggish first act) with its dilemmas and interpersonal conflict.  I haven’t read Carver for a long time, but I know he liked to examine the ways in which we justify our actions.  However, the film does lay it on a bit thick at times, despite attempts at subtlety.  Some of the metaphorical work going on is pretty heavy-handed.  I also found the performances not terribly impressive.  Still, a worthwhile endeavor for fans of moral tales.  Rating: Good

IMDb

That’s Entertainment!

Musicals are a relatively weak area for me.  I’ve seen a bunch of the big ones, but certainly not all of them.  Furthermore, my track record is very hit or miss, with a few that blew me away but a number I didn’t like nearly as much as most people seem to.  So I thought this tribute to MGM (the reigning studio of the genre) musicals would be a good way to sample some titles for possible future consumption.  There were many that didn’t appeal to me, but I did manage to put together a decent wishlist… made more difficult because many of the films, annoyingly, weren’t identified.  So now I look forward to checking out: Broadway Melody of 1940, Thousands Cheer, Good News, Two Weeks With Love, Zeigfeld Follies, The Barkleys of Broadway, Royal Wedding, Million Dollar Mermaid, and Summer Stock.

I don’t know if I can comment much on the merits of the film itself, since I was using it mainly as research.  The idea of experiencing a slew of highlights sounds good in theory, but doesn’t entirely work in practice.  Of course it’s fun when you’re enjoying the numbers, but although it has the benefit of whetting your appetite for those films, it also makes you wish you were watching them instead.  There’s a cringe-worthy Twiggy-era comment about “slightly overweight chorus girls” and Liz Taylor looks stoned out of her gourd.  But it’s an enjoyable overview and there’s a candid willingness to discuss their failures.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Wonderland

Structurally, I was reminded a lot of The Vertical Ray of the Sun.  Loose vignettes about three sisters (and a brother who’s kind of on the periphery) and their relationship issues.  But of course, it’s set in London and Winterbottom goes for a very different style than Tran’s languid rhythms.  The film is grainy, mostly handheld camera, that gives it a voyeuristic and often claustrophobic feel, which is occasionally punctured by some stylistic flourish like slo-mo.  The visuals are actually a bit off-putting at times but sometimes it’s to highlight the loneliness or ugliness of life.

However, the film doesn’t wallow in misery.  There are highs and lows… some characters are better at dealing with problems than others, but everyone muddles through and tries to find their balance.  Some do despicable things and we’re not asked to forgive them, but we are asked to realize that there’s more to them.  By the end, there is a sense of contentment despite the knowledge that not all problems are solved, and new ones will surely arise.

The three central performances are quite good, although naturally I would have liked to see more of Shirley Henderson.  I couldn’t find fault with any of the other actors, either.  Winterbottom also lets the camera wander, including strangers and passersby in the mix, any one of whom could be a connection to our protagonists.  Indeed, it’s a while before we’re fully aware of who the protagonists are and their relationships to each other.  It’s a bit frustrating at first before you have your footing, but it’s a reminder that any of these people and their stories are equally significant.  I should also mention Michael Nyman’s glorious score as well as the skillful use of diegetic music.

I was generally engaged throughout the film, although I wish there had been a few more transcendent scenes where it really clicked with me.  Nonetheless, it’s an excellent movie that explores our inner turmoil, need for connections, and precious moments of joy.  Rating: Very Good

IMDb

Crime and Punishment

I’d been wondering if there was a really good adaptation of “Crime and Punishment” out there and my cousin suggested Kulidzhanov’s might be worth a look.  And it’s not bad.  There are some wonderful shots and nice touches, particularly in the tense early scenes.  Taratorkin does a fine job as Raskolnikov, haunted and conflicted.  Most of the other roles are well-cast too, although unfortunately the female parts tend to hysteria, but that’s more likely the fault of the director than the actresses.  It’s quite watchable for a 3.5 hour movie.  However, I felt too much time was spent on secondary characters.  It’s been a while since I’ve read the novel, but I’m certain that many of those terrific Raskolnikov-Porfiry battles of wits are missing.  The scenes involving Sonya or Svidrigailov or Luzhin make for interesting drama, but they’re given too much prominence here.  What we care about is Raskolnikov’s state of mind, and perhaps this is where any adaptation is destined to fail.  Although the action of the story is compelling and the production is generally more than competent, it just feels like there’s something missing.  Rating: Good

IMDb

Android

Very much a “mixed bag”.  The special effects and set design are terribly cheesy, with lots of random flashing lights and odd geometric shapes for no reason (why a trapezoidal water jug? because it’s THE FUTURE!) and a defense system based on the classic Vectrex video game system.  But the cinematography is generally decent (although typically overlit) and I rather liked the synth score, by Mother of Invention Don Preston.  As far as the cast is concerned, Klaus Kinski is of course always a delight, but he’s really not in it all that much and it’s a rather subdued role for him.  Don Keith Opper (credited only under his android name) plays the title character as a rebellious nerd, which is an interesting take but doesn’t always work.  Brie Howard and Norbert Weisser are barely passable, and Crofton Hardesser is downright awful.  The script has some horribly clunky lines in it, but the story is pretty intriguing once you get into it, a kind of Bride of Frankenstein (or Metropolis, which Max 404 actually watches at one point) tale with Blade Runner style commentary on what it is to be human.  It doesn’t run very deep, but there are some nice angles to it, and a neat ending.  If you can overlook a lot of flaws and keep your Kinski expectations low, it’s really not a bad watch.  Rating: Fair

IMDb