Éric Rohmer was an influential director who came up late in the French New Wave. He first gained attention for his Six Moral Tales, a series of films about relationships. Four of those are reviewed below (the first 2 were shorter films, which I watched but did not write about), in addition to his heralded film The Green Ray.

La collectionneuse (The Collector) was released in 1967. It is about a trio of people vacationing at a large beach estate on the French Riveria. Adrien is there to relax, having seen his fiancée leave for a prolonged trip to London. Adrien and his friend Daniel are supposed to have the place to themselves, but find that they have an unwanted third, Haydée. Haydée is just hanging around, after having slept with the house’s owner before he left. Adrien wants to enjoy morning swims in the sea, going to bed early, and no drama, but the young and sexy Haydée has a different man over every night and keeps the household up with her amorous noises. Adrien can’t help himself but be attracted to her, but refuses to give in to his desires, and instead devises a set of tests to make sure Haydée really likes him, or if she just wants to add him to her “collection” of lovers. He gets Daniel to sleep with her, and later, an art collector and business partner of Adrien’s as well. I think the character of Haydée was done very well; Adrien keeps trying to paint her as a slut, but if he would just stop and listen, he would see that she is trying to seek a partner in life just like everyone else, in her own way of course. Adrien’s narcissistic attitude is tough to bear at times, especially at the end, but it all comes out OK, for everyone involved. Though was this on purpose, or merely by chance? A very well written picture. ★★★½

I really shouldn’t have liked Ma nuit chez Maud (My Night at Maud’s). I’m a “story” kind of man and love a good plot I can sink my teeth into; this film has none of that. But what it does have is an extremely engaging delve into the complexities of a man and what is important to him in finding a partner. Jean-Louis is a loner with few (any?) close friends, but he seems to know what he wants in a life partner, if he can only find her. While not especially devout, he’s attending Catholic mass one day when he is smitten by a pretty blonde woman, and tries to follow her afterwards until he loses her in traffic. Later that day, he runs into an old high school buddy, Vidal, and is roped into going with him to a girl’s apartment to hang out. The girl is the epynomous Maud, and she spins Jean-Louis’s head right around. She challenges his way of thinking about religion and moral beliefs vs finding love, fate vs chance, etc. She’s everything that he shouldn’t want in a partner, but her sexual allure is more than Jean-Louis can take. He ends up staying the night (chastely sleeping at the edge of the bed, as far away from Maud as he can be, because she delights in stating she can only sleep nude). The next day, he by chance runs into the blonde from church again, and so his adventures continue. Virtually no story to follow, or at least, not one that can’t be told in 2 sentences, but the film is more about the philosphical discussions that take place between Jean-Louis and Maud on that long night, and their repercussions for his life moving forward. As I said, I shouldn’t have enjoyed this one, but I did. Incredible film, just have the patience to sit back and dig into the enlightening conversations. ★★★★

Le Genou de Claire (Claire’s Knee) is very similar to My Night at Maud’s, in that the dialogue between two central characters carry most of the film. In this one, Jerome is vacationing at Lake Annecy when he runs into an old friend, Aurora, who is a writer. Aurora is staying at another friend’s, Madame Walter’s, house, and she invites Jerome over. He meets Madame Walter and her 16-year-old daughter Laura, and the perceptive Aurora sees that Laura is instantly smitten by the older, rugged Jerome. As such, Aurora proposes making Jerome her guinea pig in an experiment, to see if Laura will profess her love if egged on. Jerome is hesitant at first, not only because of Laura’s age, but because he is engaged to be married, but he relents and has fun with it. Laura does take the bait eventually, though nothing untoward happens, but shortly thereafter, the eponymous Claire (and her infamous knee) come into the picture. Claire is Laura’s step-sister from their parents’ previous marriage, and whereas Laura is a bit awkward and gangly, Laura oozes sex appeal. Jerome is enraptured by her long legs, and wants to shift his game from Laura to Claire, but Claire isn’t interested. Maybe because I just saw the previous film and I wasn’t ready for a similar one right away, I didn’t get into this film as much. Still interesting, but it hasn’t aged well, what with the whole grooming young girls thing, which was very off-putting. And yet again, the male lead is very narcissistic, but at least this time, Aurora is there it knock him down a peg. ★★★

L’Amour l’après-midi (literally Love in the Afternoon, but also called Chloe in the Afternoon) is the best one yet. In this one, Frédéric is a busy worker at day and a homebody at night, deeply in love with his wife Hélène, with a child at home and another on the way. The idyllic life, and Frédéric is happy with it, until Chloe shows up unexpectedly one day. Back in his college days, Frédéric and Chloe ran in the same circle of friends, and Chloe was dating one of Frédéric’s good friends (and there are whispers of the poor guy ending up in a very bad emotional state after the break-up). While Hélène is fairly boring (supposedly one of the things Frédéric likes about her), Chloe is strong willed, sexy, and commanding. Frédéric’s head starts spinning with the possibilities, as the two start hanging out in the afternoons during his lunch breaks. Unlike the other films, which revolve around the male as the dominant figure, Chloe is most certainly in control of this relationship. She keeps leading Frédéric along, tantalizing him and getting him to come around to the idea of an actual affair and not just flirting. The final decision is Frédéric’s to make, but does he? It’s a great film. Though Hélène’s character is unfortunately very one-dimensional, Chloe and Frédéric are fantastic, and the movie offers a lot of discussion about faithfulness in marriage and the definition of true love. ★★★★½

The final film today came in another series Rohmer did, called Comedies and Proverbs. Unfortunately it seems I saved the worst for last. Le Rayon vert (The Green Ray) is a complete and utter snoozefest. It’s about a woman, Delphine, who’s just getting over a break-up and had a girls’ vacation planned with a friend, but the friend drops her to go hang with her new boyfriend, and Delphine is left alone in Paris. The film follows her as she goes from place to place seeking something to do, but for Delphine, the old adage of “wherever you go, there you are” holds very true. Delphine goes with a group to a villa, but she’s the only single there with a bunch of couples, and feels left out. She next heads to the Alps where her ex has a ski house that she’s been allowed to use, but she only stays a day since she doesn’t know anyone well. Finally, Delphine goes to the beach, and does make a friend with a Swedish woman, but the new girl is there to party and hook up, and Delphine wants something more lasting. The film is 90 minutes of people watching, and if I wanted to do that, I could go hang at a park and do it myself. There is a cute little ending relating to the Green Ray, referenced as a book written by Jules Verne, but it doesn’t make up for the rest of the picture. ★

The Swerve is one of those hidden gems, with a relatively unknown cast, a first-time director, a tiny studio, and which took a couple years to finally find a path to release. Well worth it! I loved this film, about a woman, Holly (new-to-me Azura Skye) who is suffering from severe insomnia. She’s the modern-day working mom, a teacher, with two teenage boys (one involved in school activities) and a husband who works long hours while seeking a promotion at the local grocery store. This busy home and work life keep Holly very busy, so when she goes a few nights without sleep, things snowball quickly. I think the whole film only takes a week or so, but so much happens in that week! We learn about Holly’s strained relationship with her parents and younger sister, the “black sheep” of the family, and as Holly’s sleepless nights pile up, she begins to hallucinate. What’s great about the picture is that, like Holly, we as viewers don’t know what’s real and what isn’t. Skye’s character Holly is completely believable as a woman descending into almost-madness, in one of the better performances I’ve seen in awhile in a “newcomer” (though the actress has been around awhile apparently). Her husband Rob and sister Claudia are equally fantastic. I love finding movies like this. ★★★★

Major Arcana is another solid film made on a shoestring budget. It’s about a man (not sure I even caught his name?) who returns to his parents home after the death of his father. You get the impression that he left because of his mom, and his relationship with her is still strained. In fact, the dad left all of his land (52 acres) and house to the son, along with a sum of money, leaving his widow bitter. Our main character has been away for 4 years, doing odd jobs up the west coast and Canada, and learning how to work with his hands. More than anything, he’s been away to straighten out his life, and returns home thinner, sober, and more at peace than when he left. As part of his grieving/recovery process, he starts building a cabin out in the woods, felling the trees, cutting the boards, all by himself. Unfortunately, in this tiny backwater town, his old demons try to lure him back to his previous lifestyle, mostly in the guise of his ex-high school girlfriend. This is a quiet, somber film, with subtle but profound acting by lead Ujon Tokarski. The movie’s pace will test some viewers, but it is well worth the trip as a character study about a man moving past addiction. ★★★½

My run on small indy film hits comes crashing down to earth in Make Up, the first feature film from director Claire Oakley. There’s some great moments in here, but great moments don’t always come together to complete a great (or even good) movie. 18-year-old Ruth has just joined her boyfriend in working at a holiday park. It is the offseason, so the workers are tasked with maintenance on the empty park, doing mountains of laundry, and cleaning the campers where visitors would stay. Ruth and her boyfriend Tom share one such camper, and the very first day there, Ruth starts to think something’s up with Tom. She finds some long, bright red hairs in with his clothes, and what looks like the impression of a woman’s kiss on his mirror. Over the course of a few days, she also begins to hear strange sounds under her camper and out in the wind outside. She makes a few friends, notably the feisty Jade, who has a bad reputation among the workers, and Ruth also starts to have hallucinations (or does she?). The movie’s got a great, creepy vibe to it for a good chunk of the picture, but it flips on a dime in the end, and not in a good way. The finale isn’t completely out of left field, but let’s just say, it’s not great. It’s the first feature film from director Claire Oakley, and it has plenty to build on;  some of the camerawork and overall feel is quite good. Here’s to future endeavors. ★½

I’m really torn on I’m Your Woman, a new film starring Rachel Brosnahan. She stars a woman named Jean, who knows her husband Eddie is involved in organized crime, but no other details. Unable to have a baby to this point, Eddie shows up with a baby one day, to make Jean happy. That’s the last happy day for awhile, because shortly after, a man named Cal mysteriously arrives and tells Jean she has to leave, suddenly and without packing, taking only the baby and some cash around the house. Eddie did something to get the family into trouble, and the loyal Cal is trying to help Jean get away safely. At first hiding in a suburb until her cover is blown, and then at a secluded cabin, Jean unravels the mystery of what Eddie got himself into, and she has to become more than just a trophy wife. Much like director Julia Hart’s last picture, Fast Color, this movie plods along for a long time. It has a cool 70’s vibe and powerful music, which makes you think something big is just around the corner, but outside of a couple short scenes here and there, nothing really does until the last 20 minutes. Yes, that finale is great, and like Fast Color, I like giving the powerful lead to a woman, against the grain for this genre, but what a slow journey to get there. Brosnahan is great, and it’s worth watching for her alone. ★★½

Safety, to put it bluntly, straight up sucks. I’m a sucker for feel-good sports movies, but this movie, currently on Disney+, is just a poor made-for-tv flick, and is more Hannah Montana and The Suite Life than McFarland USA or Miracle. It’s a biographical film about a college freshman and Clemson football recruit, Ray, who struggles in his first year of school, because of problems at home. He’s a smart kid, but with the busy practice schedule of a division 1 football team and a full course load, he’s barely getting by. And that is before he is forced to sneak his 10 year old little brother on campus for a month, because his mom is in a rehabilitation program. That’s the first half of the film, at which point I checked out. The acting is rough, the dialogue worse, and the jokes are as hokey as they can get. Strictly kids fare, and even for that younger audience, there’s better stuff out there. ½

We know fear can be contagious in a group. What if a person was certain they would die the next day, and that fear passed on to every person they discussed this with? That is the premise behind She Dies Tomorrow. Amy is a single woman and a recovering alcoholic, and she is absolutely positive that today is her last day on this planet. As she drinks the night away, she talks of her fear to her friend Jane, who tells her brother Jason, who tells his wife Susan, and so on and so on. Each person becomes convinced that they too will die the next day. The film becomes a story of people’s reactions to irrational fear, and what they do with that fear. Honestly it’s a silly movie. I guess it’s a psychological thriller, but I wasn’t thrilled. The acting outside of Amy (Kate Lyn Sheil) and Jane (Jane Adams) is pretty rough, and the characters are unbelievable. The film is super low budget, and while not a bad thing when there’s a good story and strong characters, this movie just feels amateurish. ★

The only thing good about The Broken Hearts Gallery is lead actress Geraldine Viswanathan (from Bad Education and Hala) (and Broadway legend Bernadette Peters, in a minor role). She’s fun, funny, charming, and the camera loves her. Everything else in this picture is a bore. Viswanathan plays Lucy, a woman who has a hard time moving on from past relationships. She keeps little mementos from all of her ex-boyfriends, from neckties to rubber duckies to shoe laces to nail clippings. When she loses her latest boyfriend and job in the same night, in spectacular social media viral fashion, she stumbles upon an idea: open her own gallery dedicated to the objects people need to finally cast off to emotionally move on from their ex’s. Her gallery space is on the balcony of a new friend’s, Nick’s, renovation hotel project. He seems to stay away from relationships with anyone, devoted to his dream of opening the hotel. Yep, you can see where this is going. Lucy is a hoot, but this is about as predictable as it gets, and unfortunately it doesn’t set itself apart from other films of the rom-com genre. ★½

In Out Stealing Horses, Trond (the incomparable Stellan Skarsgård) has just moved to an isolated house in rural Norway, content to spend time by himself after his wife died 3 years ago. One night he meets his new neighbor, Lars. As soon as Trond hears the name, he becomes troubled, and later that night as Trond lays in bed, we find out why. In flashback, we see Trond as a 15 year old with his dad at a cabin along the Norway/Sweden border. His dad apparently comes out here every year, but this summer, Trond is old enough to join for some father-son time, and the two do some logging. Trond befriends Jon, a boy who lives at a nearby farm. One day, Jon comes home from hunting and leaves his gun out, and Jon’s younger brother kills the youngest brother. The little boy who killed his brother: Lars. In present day, Trond immediately knows that the Lars he just met is one and the same; despite it being a common name in their country, he knows it in his guts. The rest of the film plays out as Trond and Lars carefully poke at each other, as there is obviously some secret that they prefer to keep buried, and in the past, we see how the rest of that summer went for 15 year-old-Trond and his dad. With World War II raging to the south, and jealousy and marital affairs raging in the woods, this is a very good, borderline great, foreign film drama. You might not like it if you want all the little storylines tied up in pretty bows by the end; the film feels very real and real life is not so tidy. But there are some beautiful moments of tenderness and heartache. Skarsgård is great, though the role is a bit heavy, and the character seems like he still hasn’t moved on from events that happened decades ago, which makes the current-day timeline a bit unbelievable at times. However, the story in the past is fantastic, and it does all blend well, with suspense built properly between the timelines. ★★★½

The Short History of the Long Road is an apt title for this film, which seems to go nowhere fast. It stars Sabrina Carpenter (in her first leading role) as Nola, a teenager who’s lived her life out of her dad’s van. Homeschooled and sheltered, she’s spent her life traveling from point A to point B, and they’ve never settled down anywhere. When her dad dies suddenly of a stroke, Nola gets behind the wheel with no seeming destination. It isn’t too long before the old van breaks down, but luckily it is close enough to a kindly mechanic, who allows Nola to work off what she owes for parts and labor. She then goes on a trek to find her mom, the woman who seemingly walked out on Nola just after she was born. It leads to some answers, though maybe not what Nola wanted to find. The film’s premise isn’t bad, though it’s been done before (and better), but, and this is as delicate as I can be, Carpenter just isn’t very good. We see 90 minutes of the same 3 facial expressions, and whether it is her acting or the paper-thin backstory, but I could never bring myself to root for her to find her balance in this world. She’s comes off as a spoiled brat who should know how to handle adversity, yet doesn’t. ★½

Finally, Christopher Nolan’s Tenet. I’ve been looking forward to this one for, what seems like, years, since I saw a preview in a theater a very long time ago. I love Nolan’s films, and went in with such high hopes, that I had to be let down. For the most part, I wasn’t. If you’ve seen the trailers, you know the movie deals with things going both forward and backward in time. The premise set up is this: there’s some person or some group in the future that is sending technology backwards in time. So far, it has been simple non-mechanical items like gears and bullets, and these items move backwards instead of forwards. You don’t shoot the bullet out of the gun so much as catch it in reverse. But the fear is that more advanced weapons can find their way back, and that whatever nefarious person in the future is doing it, may seek an armageddon-type event to end the world. Our unnamed hero, played by John David Washington, is recruited by a group called Tenet, who has tasked themselves with finding out where the weapons are coming from, for what purpose, and how to stop it. In typical Nolan fashion, that’s all I can say without giving away some of the fun. This movie is intense from the get-go, maybe a little too intense. After about 30 minutes of frenetic pacing and little plot development, I started thinking maybe I should wait for a hoped-for director’s cut to add about an hour onto the length, to better explain what’s going on. Unfortunately I don’t think it would help. The movie is, I think, too smart for its own good. The visuals are fantastic, that’s to be expected at this point from this director, but the film is very convoluted. There’s no way you can pick up on everything going on in one sitting, there’s just too much happening. They try to explain it in dialogue, but even the explanations come with twists and turns. It’s very good, and after a second (or third, or fourth) viewing, I may grow to like it more (I did after a couple extra viewings of Interstellar). But unlike Memento, The Prestige, or Inception, I wasn’t immediately blown away. ★★★½

David Fincher’s latest picture, Mank, is brilliant, but it isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea. I went into this one a little blind, purposefully so after hearing about some Oscar buzz. I knew it was a behind-the-scenes look at the writing of Citizen Kane, often called one of the best movies ever made. The focus of the movie is screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz, a larger-than-life man portrayed perfectly by Gary Oldman. As the opening titles tell the viewer, RKO has just given carte blanche to Orson Welles to make his first film. Only 25 years old but already a star for his radio and theater work, Welles was ready to make the leap to Hollywood and just needed the right deal. He assembled just the team he wanted to make his first picture, including Mankiewicz as writer. Mank, as he’s called by his friends (and enemies) is an alcoholic who lets his mouth run too much, even when he’s sober. This hasn’t made him welcome in many circles, and his leash has been getting shorter, but Welles insists on him, knowing the talent is there. Mank is given just 60 days to write the script that would go on to become Citizen Kane, and the film Mank shows these 60 days as well as the 10 years leading up to it, so we know the writer’s mindset in what goes into his craft. Obviously you should see Citizen Kane before watching this, and it helps if you know some of the familiar names in Hollywood and politics of the mid 1930’s; names that pop up include Louis B Mayer (of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer fame), Charles Lederer, Mank’s brother Joseph, Ben Hecht, and David O Selznick. News tycoon William Randolph Hearst, his mistress Marion Davies (a career-defining role for Amanda Seyfried), and political writer/politician Upton Sinclair all figure importantly in the film too. Though the picture delves hard into politics, which is going to turn off some people, I think it was important to the story, and it all fleshes out well. I think lovers of classic film will find plenty to like here. I have no idea how much of the film is factual, but I was enthralled the entire time. ★★★★½

What if music is your entire life, and suddenly you lose your hearing? That is the crux of the Sound of Metal, starring Riz Ahmed as Ruben, a drummer who very suddenly loses 80% of his hearing. A recovering heroine addict, who found sobriety with the help of his musical and life partner Lou (Olivia Cooke, whom I loved in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl), Ruben is thrust into the deaf community, fighting to stay sober and needing to learn not only how to communicate with others, but how to process the emotions he is going through. Ruben is able to find a group who helps people in his exact situation, led by a man, Joe, who lost his hearing in Vietnam and has battled alcoholism. However, Joe’s house rules include Ruben staying by himself (Lou cannot), and he must turn over his keys and phone, giving up contact with the outside world. Lou and Ruben were there for each other through each of their’s darkest days, so this emotional hit is almost more than Ruben can bear, but he does, and the rest of the film sets up his path to correcting his life. It’s a powerful film with a superb turn from Ahmed. As someone who listened to far too much loud music as a teenager and young adult, and now suffers from occasional tinnitus, this is a stark film showing the real consequences of these behaviors. The movie really puts us in Ruben’s head, sharing in his loss and frustrations, as he struggles to adapt without his ears in a world of sound. ★★★½

Summerland takes place mostly in the 1940’s in England, where a single woman, a writer named Alice, is living by herself in a tiny seaside village. Many children from London are being sent to rural communities for safety, as London is being bombed by the Germans. The reclusive Alice, who scorns (and is scorned by) the other villagers, unwillingly takes on a young boy named Frank. Frank’s dad is serving in the war, and his mom has remained in London helping with the war effort there. As Alice and Frank get used to each other, we see flashbacks to Alice 10 years prior, when she was in a relationship with a woman named Vera. It being the time that it was, such a relationship was obviously not accepted, so they eventually split, but Alice has never gotten over Vera. The film was ok, except for a wildly implausible final act that damn near ruined the whole experience for me. If anything, the film is just a bit too dull, and neither Lucas Bond (Frank) nor Gemma Arterton (Alice) really stand out. Based on her past films, I’d have to say Gugu Mbatha-Raw (Vera) is the best of the lot, but she’s only in about 10 minutes of film. It’s a fine enough historical drama, but nothing too remarkable. ★★

The Garden Left Behind is about a woman, Tina, living in New York. She faces prejudices everywhere she goes, because she’s trans and a Mexican immigrant too, so she gets the double whammy. She’s living in an apartment with her grandma, who doesn’t speak any English and still calls Tina “Antonio,” and doesn’t understand what Tina is going through. The movie revolves around Tina but also others in her circle: her friends, who are protesting the recent killing of a trans woman by police; Tina’s medical workers including her psychologist (played by Ed Asner); and a worker at the local convenience store, who is also struggling a bit with gender identity, but is scared to come out to his friends (or even himself). There’s a loose plot about Tina trying to raise money to begin her sex reassignment, as well as her sexual relationship with a man, but mostly the film just shows what people like Tina are living with in their day-to-day lives. Does the movie present a powerful and important message? Without a doubt. Does it make for a good movie? That’s debatable. I learned something, so that’s important, but I can’t say that I think it was a great film. Just a little too predictable, and its message is awfully heavy handed. ★½

Spontaneous is an interesting film with an (on the surface) absurd question. What if high school students started spontaneously combusting, blowing up in a puff of exploding gore that drenched those around them? I saw obvious correlations to school shootings, but this film turns into a lot more than that. The co-leads are Katherine Langford and Charlie Plummer (whom I just saw), as Mara and Dylan. Mara is the centerpiece, an irreverent girl who likes to put her middle finger up to the world and especially to authoritative figures. When seniors at the school start exploding, she uses humor to escape, and is genuinely funny. With the ever-present fear that there will be more and any day could be their last, classmate Dylan takes the opportunity to tell Mara that he’s had a crush on her for a couple years now. The two start dating, as more students start fantastically dying, and the government swoops in to try to find the cause. Equal parts gorefest, satirical comedy, teen drama, and with a splash of impending horror thrown in, this genre-defying film is a lot better than you might think. For one, the two leads are great; Plummer I’m quickly coming to expect great things from, but I’ve only seen Langford in supporting roles before, and she shines here when given the chance. The film turns into lesson in living life to the fullest, because you never know when it will end. Something we can all be reminded of from time to time. ★★★½

I’m finishing off my journey through Federico Fellini’s filmography with his last 5 films, and it will mean I’ve seen all but 1 of his movies. Except for some standouts, like Amarcord, I generally liked his earlier stuff much more consistently, but I’m hoping for some gems here in the end!

Well, we aren’t starting off on the right foot. City of Women is overly long, downright silly, and honestly a pretty terrible movie, which is funny since it combines Fellini and (arguably) Italy’s most famous actor of all time, Marcello Mastroianni. It begins with his character, Snàporaz, on a train. He spots an alluring woman and makes a move on her, but she gets off at the next stop. He follows, and she leads him to a feminism seminar at a hotel in the middle of nowhere. The building is full of women hating on men, decrying fellatio, etc., the far end of the spectrum kind of stuff. The women eventually chase Snàporaz out, and he has further adventures in the countryside, including a run-in with a horny farmer and a car chase full of young lesbians. He ends up at a mansion owned by a man living on the other side of the coin from his earlier experience, a man who is celebrating tonight his 10,000 “exploit.” In fact, he has a shrine to all of the women he’s slept with. Oddly enough, Snàporaz’s wife is in attendance at the party. The whole film is strange and over-the-top, and has hardly a plot in sight. A major farce and nothing worth spending time on. ½

And the Ship Sails On righted the ship (as they say). After a slow start, this film was great. It takes place in 1914 on the eve of the first World War. Europe’s most celebrated opera singer, Edmea Tetua, has died, and it was her wish to have her ashes spread near the Mediterranean island of Erimo. A cruise ship is going to transport her remains, and all of her biggest fans have turned out, including aristocracy like counts and princes, as well as fellow singers and artists. The first hour of the film introduces everyone to the viewer, and there is a big cast. They all have weird idiosyncrasies, and after City of Women, I thought, “Here we go again…” But then the third day of the trip dawns. During the night, the captain of the ship took on a whole ship full of Serbian refugees, whose own ship was floundering. They were fleeing their country after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the event which would ultimately start the World War, for fear of the impending doom. At first, the high class Italians don’t want to mingle with the refugees, but slowly the two groups come together, culminating in a party where everyone shares food, dances, and has a great time. Just when you think things may be good, an Austro-Hungarian battleship approaches, demanding the Serbs be handed over as prisoners. The ending is not expected, and beautifully sad. It’s a touching and endearing film about humanity, our differences and similarities, and the wrongs that come in separating by class. I’m giving it 3 1/2 for my first viewing, mainly because I was unprepared after the slow start, but will watch this one again one day and probably rate higher. It’s great social commentary from nearly 40 years ago, which is still timely today. ★★★½

Ginger and Fred brings back Marcello Mastroianni again, and pairs him with Fellini’s longtime wife, and star from his earlier films, Giulietta Masina. I adore her, she always had an infectious smile, and she hadn’t lost anything from this film and La Strada, made 30 years prior. The duo play a pair of entertainers who had a successful 15 year run imitating Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire, but that was 30 years ago. They’ve been apart for decades, went their own ways, but are now being reunited to participate in a variety television program. Amelia is excited from the get-go, but Pippo is more reserved, and he seems to be holding something back. The first half of the film is a lot of jokes that Fellini throws at the state of television entertainment, of which he obviously held little regard. It’s a lot of outlandish, foppish fake celebrities doing stupid tricks to gain attention, not much different than what you can see on social media these days. Which is all the more stark when Amelia and Pippo, true entertainers, take the stage. Leading up to their show, as Pippo shows more anxiety, we learn what happened between the two all those years ago, and the consequences from it. It’s a delightful film, though a bit melancholy in the end, only because the page has turned on our star duo, and it doesn’t seem like that way of life will ever be felt again. Outstanding performances from both Masina and Mastroianni. ★★★★

Intervista (“Interview”) is a very interesting film, and one that you should only watch if you are very familiar with Fellini’s films. Since I’ve seen so many, I was well prepared. What makes this film different is, it is basically a film within a film within a film, and the lines between them blur quite a bit. Fellini, who plays himself, is making a film at the Cinecittà film studios in Rome. During production, he is being interviewed by a Japanese crew, who are making a documentary about Fellini and his film-making process. Throughout this process, Fellini and his friends are reliving moments and memories from their past, and here is where lines are really blurred. For instance, Fellini hires a young actor to play himself in these memories, and the actor takes over during stories Fellini tells to the Japanese interviewers. It can lead to some chaotic moments where I didn’t know exactly what timeline they were in, but it is a fun, wild ride. Fellini is also visited by actors from his previous films, most notably by the famous Marcello Mastroianni, who is at Cinecittà filming a commercial. Marcello and Federico ride out to the country to visit Anita Ekberg, and Marcello and her sit down to reminisce about their famous scenes in Fellini’s La Dolce Vita from 25 years prior. It’s maybe a bit self indulgent, but it is a very touching scene. Moments like this make the film and cover up some of the chaos found in other places. I consider Fellini one of my overall favorite directors, and I ate it all up. ★★★½

I’m a bit torn on The Voice of the Moon. I don’t think Roberto Benigni does a very good job in the lead role; he has that kind of face where you keep expecting him to crack a joke, but it’s not that kind of movie. But there are some great moments, mostly from the supporting cast. In the movie, Ivo has just been released from an insane asylum, and finds himself wandering a field at night under the stars and glow of the moon. He is drawn to a well, where he is recognized by a passerby and bluntly asked if he still has a thing for wells. Ivo can only shrug and admits to the viewer that he hears voices calling him there. That sets up a surreal, sometimes dreamlike picture, where Ivo isn’t the only one living on the cusp of sanity. Ivo finds a man living in a cemetery; once a successful musician, he decided that his oboe needed to be buried, and now he can’t live without it. Another man, Nestore, relates to Ivo his conquest of Marisa, the town hottie. In love (or at least in lust) with her for a long time, he finds that once married, he can’t handle her sexual appetite. Then there’s Gonnella, the former magistrate in town who was fired when he started getting caught up in conspiracy theories. Ivo listens to anyone who will tell him their stories, but his ultimate goal is the love of Aldina, a pretty young woman who seems to not know Ivo exists. These secondary characters are much more interesting than Ivo himself, who just sort of meanders along. I did enjoy the the bizarre ending (not giving that away!), but it’s a fairly forgettable movie. This was Fellini’s final film, released just 3 years before his death from a heart attack in 1993; he was 73 years old and had just celebrated his 50 year wedding anniversary with Giulietta Masina. ★★

Il bidone (doesn’t translate well from the Italian, but often called The Swindle in English) was released in 1955 and was director Federico Fellini’s followup to La strada, which I absolutely adored. This film follows a trio of con men, who run a racket swindling money out of the poor with various setups and schemes. Augusto is the venerated leader of the group; as the oldest, he’s been “in the business” a long time and has a reputation among the thieves of the city. Roberto is a young hotshot without any scruples, he’ll steal from anyone. And Picasso is a thief with a heart; rather than blow his money on parties and girls like the other two, he gives it all to his wife, who thinks he is an honest salesman. The film is mostly about the seedy underworld around Rome, following these three in their cons, and particularly Augusto’s (maybe?) change of heart in his game after he reconnects with his daughter Patrizia. Like any Fellini film you’ve ever seen, it is beautifully shot, with playful, fun music and an easy story to follow, though it is overall more straightforward than some of his “dreamy” poetic films. Maybe for that reason, it’s probably not my favorite, but it is still an entertaining piece. ★★★

Roma (not that Roma) is a strange film. In fact, I didn’t really know what it was about until about 45 minutes in, when Fellini directly laid it out for the viewer. It’s a movie literally about Rome and its people. Narrated by Fellini, it is a film with a documentary feel, as he looks at Rome in its current day (1972) and also in flashbacks when he was a younger man, coming to the city for the first time in the 1940’s. In typical old man fashion, he bemoans the state of the younger generation (I think there was even a moment where he said something like, “Kids these days.”), and looks fondly back at his younger days in the city, though he does gloss over Mussolini’s regime a bit. In the old days, we see a younger Fellini visit a brothel, a theater, and in present day, we see a construction crew unearth old abandoned tunnels under the city. The film is interesting in a time capsule sort of way, but without any central characters to get behind (even “young” Fellini is only in maybe 5% of the film), and no story to follow, it is more like watching snapshots of Italy at different points. And as you know, I like stories! ★½

Amarcord is called a semi-autobiographical film about Fellini’s young life, and revolves around the Biondi family in a provincial Italian town in fascist Italy in the 1930s. While the “main” character is teenager Titta, his mother, father, uncle and aunt, and the other eccentric villagers, all play important roles in the film. In the little town, where everyone knows everyone, several events are shown, such as a yearly bonfire where they burn a witch in effigy; the schoolboy crushes amongst the kids; and the increasing presence of the fascist military, to whom the villagers show an almost reverence. The film is made up of a lot of events in Titta’s life over the course of a year, but equal screen time is given to other people, including Gradisca, the town’s most beautiful woman; Volpina, the town slut; and Giudizio, the town idiot, who occasionally breaks the fourth wall to give viewers some narration about the village and its people. And it wouldn’t be a Fellini film without a couple dream sequences mixed in. What this film does so well, and what sets it apart from a lot of coming-of-age pictures, is the feeling of “realness” of the townspeople. Even though they are eccentric, they feel tangible, and we get to know so many of them throughout the course of the movie. When the Biondi family visits Uncle Ted at the insane asylum, we laugh and cry with them. When Biscein starts telling a story, we know he’s talking out of his ass. When the puffballs start blowing through at the end of the movie, we know exactly what that means. I feel like I could walk down the streets and greet everybody, and be welcomed. ★★★★

I’m not sure what to make of Fellini’s Casanova, the director’s take on the famous womanizer Giacomo Casanova. With Fellini behind the helm, it is more akin to his Satyricon than a historical drama, which isn’t a bad thing (I did enjoy his wild and bizarre Satyricon), but it is a bit out there. Casanova stars Donald Sutherland as the title character, and portrays his life bouncing around Europe in the 18th century. His dalliances and exploits are shown in outlandish fashion, and Fellini takes the debauchery to extreme levels. Throughout it all, Casanova cannot find true love for himself. Those times that he does find a woman he is intrigued by, she never reciprocates his advances. He’s also constantly trying to land himself a job at court, in either sciences or math, and fancies himself an educated man, but his lifestyle keeps him in company with the lowest of the lords, who only like to keep Casanova around for his reputation. As was Fellini’s custom, dating back to his early days in the Italian film industry, the international cast has all of the dialogue dubbed in post-production, so while Sutherland is acting, it isn’t his voice we here (as far as I know, he doesn’t speak Italian). The fact that the lips don’t match doesn’t bother me, it is common for Italian films, but I have to think that it hampered Sutherland’s acting skills, as he seems very wooden in many scenes. Also, there’s little flow, and the film as a whole is very choppy. I will say the period costumes and sets are extraordinary, and in fact it won an Oscar for costume design. Some good moments, but unfortunately it is bogged down by the bad. ★★½

I wasn’t into Orchestra Rehearsal for a good portion of the film. A made-for-TV movie from 1978, it’s sort of like Roma in that it is a fake documentary, following members of an orchestra as they come together for a rehearsal, to be filmed by a camera crew. The movie begins with the players all arriving at their rehearsal space, and various individuals being interviewed by the crew. Immediately, we see the individualistic nature of the musicians, as the orchestra represents people from all walks of life: young and old, rich and poor, outgoing and shy, etc. They get down to brass tacks once the conductor comes to the podium and the rehearsal begins. He berates the group constantly, pointing out flaws even if there are none. After the run through of a tune, he calls for a break, and goes back to his dressing room to freshen up. While he is away, the orchestra devolves into chaos. Young, brash members call for the end of a director, saying they’d be better served to have an unemotional metronome run things, while the older musicians sit uncomfortably by. Some people go to spraying graffiti on the walls, while others engage in sex acts under the piano. When the conductor comes back, things do not settle down right away, until a tragedy finally wakes everyone up. The tagline of the film was “The Decline of the West in C Major,” and understanding the film as a piece of political satire does make it much more enjoyable. I’m not saying I’d watch it again, but it is an interesting piece. ★★½

I’m cheating on the first “film,” because it’s not a film at all. Followers of my blog may think all I do is watch movies, but I also read a lot of books (a couple a month, anyway) and watch a lot of tv series (no, I don’t know where I find all the time). But it’s hard to do a “quick take” on a 13 or 26 episode season. However, The Queen’s Gambit is just a 7 episode limited series. It stars Anya Taylor-Joy (of Split and The Witch fame) as a chess prodigy named Beth Harmon. An orphan in the 1950’s, she is raised in a religious orphanage when she is exposed to the game of chess by the custodian. She takes to it immediately, and is beating the local boys’ high school team (and its coach) very soon thereafter. The rest of the series shows her grow up into a young woman and one of the best players in the world; however, she cannot seem to beat Borgov, the world champion out of the USSR. Besides the Russians, she has to fight her internal demons, struggling against drugs and alcohol. Beth is a complicated person and it isn’t always easy to root for her. She’s arrogant and condescending, and it takes awhile before she “grows up” and starts treating others with respect. There’s some good acting and quite a few recognizable faces from tv and film, as is typical of Netflix dramas. Among the seven episodes, there are great moments, slow moments, but overall it is a decent enough coming-of-age story featuring a strong (and strong willed) female lead. Maybe not as envelope-pushing as it could have been, and it does get predictable a little too often, but it is entertaining. Taylor-Joy’s performance is fantastic, and she shows the real making of a star. ★★★½

I always skip movies like Happiest Season, i.e., sappy Christmas movies that come out every year that take a well-known cast and mash them together to make some money. I took a flier on this one because it substitutes a man with a woman and gives us a gay couple, and one of them is Kristen Stewart, who I love. Should have gone with my gut. From the first 10 minutes, the viewer gets plenty of the cheese you can expect. The twist in the story is that, when they go to visit one of their parents, they don’t know their daughter is gay, so they have to pretend to be straight until the right moment comes to out herself. The whole “taking my partner to my parents, who don’t know I’m in a relationship” is about the oldest retread of a holiday movie as they come, and the gay twist only slightly changes it. All the old plot elements are here: old flames that the parents love, unearthed secrets that threaten the relationship, etc. ★

Betany Bledsoe, or Beth as she prefers to be called, is growing up in a tiny town in South Carolina, emphasis on the South. In 1969, she’s a freshman in high school and her family revolves around the larger-than-life grandfather patriarch, “Daddy Mac.” However, Beth’s favorite family member is Uncle Frank, who tells her that she doesn’t need to get married out of high school and start having kids to be a successful woman, no matter what her family and friends tell her. 4 years later, she gets accepted to NYU, where Frank teaches, and begins school there. Very soon, when hanging out with Frank at a party at his house, she finds out that he is gay, a closely guarded, hidden family secret, that even Frank’s brother Mike (Beth’s father) doesn’t know. When Frank’s and Mike’s father Daddy Mac dies, Frank and Beth make the car trip from New York, with Frank’s longtime partner Wally in tow for support. Along the way, and once they arrive to the funeral, we learn about Frank’s growing up, and the rift between him and his father, who’s word in the family was law. For a gay young man in the south in the 1940’s, it was more than just about anyone could bear, and it hadn’t gotten much better by 1973. It’s a beautiful film about growing up with heartbreak, but ultimately acceptance, especially of yourself, and Paul Bettany’s standout performance is about as good as you will find on television. He’s had some tremendous performances in his career, maybe this is the one that will finally get him some long-deserved recognition. ★★★★

Words on Bathroom Walls stars Charlie Plummer as 18-year-old Adam, who starts seeing visions and hearing voices. He keeps them to himself until he has a psychotic episode at high school, which gets him kicked out of school and a diagnosis of schizophrenia. His single mother and her boyfriend enroll him at a private school to help him finish his degree, so that he can meet his goal of going to culinary school for college. His new school is contingent on keeping his grades up, which is impossible with all the voices in his head. Despite reservations over longterm health effects, Adam starts on a new trial medication, and his parents get him a tutor, the brightest girl in school, Maya (Taylor Russell). The new drug works to a degree; the not-real people Adam sees disappear, but there are side effects, including tremors in his hands and legs and loss of taste, which obviously affects his cooking. Adam learns a big secret of Maya’s and the two grow closer, but he still cannot confide his past to her, and with the side effects of the drugs getting worse, he stops taking his medicine. The hallucinations return, and so does a sinister voice Adam has been able to ignore up to this point in his life. It all sets up to an explosive ending, as Adam’s paranoia ramps up, and his illness takes control of his life. The conclusion is just a little too perfect, as mental illness very rarely lets things be so tidy, but what a fantastic picture. It presents a very frank, honest portrayal of something with an illness which is still, to this day, very misunderstood by the general public. I first saw Plummer a few years ago in King Jack, and that is a dude with a future. ★★★★½

After a couple serious films, it was time for some brevity. After decades off, Bill and Ted are back in Face the Music. I don’t know what I hoping for, it was just as goofy and silly as you’d expect. 30 years after their first adventure, Bill and Ted still haven’t written the song that was supposed to have united humanity. After a one-hit-wonder, their musical career has tanked. In the future, the entire space and time reality is starting to collapse, and time is running out for the Wyld Stallyns to perform their world (and reality) saving tune. In proper sequel fashion, there’s a boatload of stuff going on simultaneously: Bill and Ted have their trusty time-jumping phone booth, and keep jumping ahead to future versions of themselves to learn the song to save everything, while their wives (in true Hollywood stereotypes, have been replaced with new actresses 15 years younger than the originals) are being led by their future selves to see how big of disappointments Bill and Ted have become, and also their kids are jumping to the past to make up a band of history’s all-star musicians. And don’t forget the robot from the future trying to kill Bill and Ted. Just a completely dumb movie. I liked the original, but I was also 9 or 10 at the time. Maybe my 9 year-old-self can time jump to 2020 and try to enjoy this stupid movie. ½

I saw Jim Jarmusch pop up as a cameo in a recent film, and it got me to thinking how I haven’t seen many of his (especially earlier) films. Time to catch up on those missing pieces, starting with his first, Permanent Vacation. It was made during Jarmusch’s final year at film school in 1980, right before he dropped out. This film is very much an inauspicious debut. It’s about a young man named Aloyisious Parker who dresses and stylizes right out of the 1950’s (and in fact, wants to name his future son Charlie Parker after the famous saxophonist). “Allie,” as he goes by, wanders a bleak and decrepit New York landscape, interacting with various eccentric personalities. He talks about growing up in a building that has since been bombed out in “the last war,” but whether he’s off his rocker (his mother is in an institution, and they discuss the bombing), or if the film takes place in some sort of dystopian world, is unknown to the viewer. We hear guns and explosions, but that could be in Allie’s head, and the people he interacts with are just as crazy as he is. There isn’t much of a plot, just Allie exploring around decaying parts of the city. Honestly it was a chore for me to get through, even though it’s short at 75 minutes long. Next up is Jarmusch’s big breakout film, so I’m obviously hoping for better films ahead! ★

Stranger Than Paradise was Jarmusch’s first hit, and arguably his greatest achievement to this day. Musician/actor John Lurie had done the music for Permanent Vacation, and became the star of this film. He plays a Hungarian immigrant who has completely assimilated American culture, even going by the nickname Willie and forgoing his birth name. He’s living in New York when he gets a call that his cousin Eva is on the way to America, and will stop by his apartment for a night before heading on to Cleveland to live with their aunt. Willie is not welcoming to her, and derides her for her Hungarian accent, and not knowing much about America. When the aunt gets sick and has to go to the hospital, the single night stay turns into 10 days, and over that time, Willie warms up to Eva. Eventually, they are getting along quite well, to the point that he doesn’t really want her to leave. She does though, and there the film jumps ahead a year. Willie and his friend Eddie (long-time actor Richard Edson, in his first role) decide to head to Cleveland to visit Eva, but once there, they find the city boring and cold (it being winter). So all 3 pile in a car for Florida, where their adventures are just beginning. It’s a film that goes places without every going anywhere, if that makes sense, but it is all done wonderfully. For one, it is really funny, and the story is told in short segments, most no longer than a couple minutes, bookended by fade-to-blacks. You’d think that this would break up the film and it’d get old after awhile, but it doesn’t; if anything, the end of each vignette made me sit up straighter and look forward to the next. Lurie, Edson, and Eszter Balint (Eva) are fantastic and so much fun, and as for the aunt in Cleveland, pretty much everything she says is laugh-out-loud funny. Great film. You can take it at face value and just enjoy the dialogue, or look at it deeper as accepting what you have or taking the “grass is always greener” approach. ★★★★

Down by Law is also very much heralded, but I couldn’t connect with this one. Everyone talks about how funny this film is too, but I didn’t get it. Lurie returns as a pimp with a heart named Jack, living in New Orleans. He is set up by an associate for propositioning a young girl, and is arrested. Simultaneously, a radio DJ, Zack (another musician and actor, Tom Waits), is set up himself, being found in a borrowed car with a dead body in the trunk. Zack and Jack meet in prison. This whole set up takes a solid 30 minutes, and we don’t really get to know our characters as much as you’d think. Enter their newest cellmate, Bob (Roberto Benigni in his first English film role). An Italian immigrant who is actually guilty of what he has been charged for (murder), Bob’s English isn’t great. After he comes into the picture 45 minutes in, Benigni steals the show for the rest of the way out. His lines and interactions are the best. Behind the camera, celebrated cinematographer Robby Müller is the other key member of the film; his long all-encompassing and gorgeous shots are stunning, but those shots and Benigni’s humor only take the movie so far. Zack and Jack are dull, one-sided characters, and I had a hard time rooting for them. ★★

Mystery Train follows a group of people over one night in Memphis. Split into three segments with each covering a different, seemingly unconnected set of individuals, the film slowly brings connections to the fore by the end. We start with a young couple from Japan, touristing in Memphis because of their love of Carl Perkins and Elvis Presley. After getting off the train, they wander the city for a bit before settling in to a cheap hotel in a rough neighborhood. The next segment follows an Italian woman stuck in Memphis for the night, awaiting a plane the next day which will take her and her deceased husband home to Rome. She finds herself at the same hotel, roommates with a Jersey girl unable to afford a room on her own. The final clip is a trio of men, 2 of whom recently let go from their jobs, drinking the night away in their despair. Yep, you guessed it, they find their way to the hotel too. That is not the only connection between all of our characters, but to say more would ruin the fun. Fantastic film; everything comes together wonderfully in the end, while avoiding too-clean of an denouement so that the picture still has a real, un-Hollywood feel to it. Unlike Down by Law, the characters are fully developed and each is intriguing in their own way. Jarmusch does a great job of controlling the large cast and giving equal time to everyone, so that you are invested in how each of them turn out. ★★★★½

Night on Earth is a story of 5 separate, unrelated vignettes, told over the course of one night in five different cities, all involving taxi drivers around the globe. A rough-around-the-edges young woman picks up a well-to-do casting agent at the airpot in LA, and takes her to her mansion in Beverly Hills. A black man in New York has a hard time getting a taxi to take him to Brooklyn, until an immigrant who barely knows how to drive picks him up. In Paris, a cabbie has had a crummy day, but he’s intrigued by his latest fare: a blind woman, who wants neither her driver’s curiosity about her life with a disability, nor his charity. Next we bounce over to Rome, and an eccentric driver driving recklessly through an abandoned city in the middle of the night, talking to himself until he picks up a priest, and then providing subtle and not-so-subtle jabs against him. Our final stop is in Helsinki, where a taxi driver picks up 3 drunk men, 2 awake and one passed out, in the wee hours of the morning; the 2 humorously relate the ordeals of their friend on the worst day of his life, but the driver then puts their story to shame with a heartbreaking story of sadness. The film as a whole may be a bit uneven, but overall I really enjoyed it. It has an amazing cast of veteran actors and up-and-comers in 1991, including Winona Ryder, Gena Rowlands (IMO one of the best actresses of all time), Giancarlo Esposito (of Breaking Bad fame, among others), Roberto Benigni, and Matti Pellonpää (famous for his roles in Aki Kaurismäki’s films). I’ve noticed how the setting is just as important to Jarmusch’s films as the actors. Just like the apartment in Stranger than Paradise, the jail cell in Down by Law, and the Hotel in Mystery Train, each city in this film is almost a character of its own, with both its splendors and warts. ★★★½

Dead Man, released in 1995, is ok I guess, but it didn’t blow me way or anything (pun intended?). It’s a post-modern western, starring Johnny Depp as William Blake, an accountant from Cleveland who goes to the far west, to a tiny frontier town called Machine, on the promise of a job at a large metal works company. When he arrives, the job has already been filled. He spends the last of his money on booze, but the day gets worse from there, as he ends up in bed with a woman when her husband comes home. The husband shoots at Blake, but the girl steps in front. The bullet kills her, goes through to lodge in Blake’s chest too, and he returns fire, killing the husband. Blake steals a horse and flees into the surrounding woods. Unfortunately for Billy, the girl was the metal company’s boss’s daughter, and the horse was his horse. The rich man sets a bounty on Billy’s head. Near death in the woods, Blake is found by a Native American, who nurses him back to health. As William learns the ways of the wood, he is better equipped with killing those who come hunting him. The film is entertaining in spots, but I generally like my westerns, especially modern westerns, a little more realistic, and this film is outlandish to the point of absurdity. Blake goes from a city boy to a cold blooded crackshot killer in a single night, and while the bad guys definitely submit to the “no honor among thieves” mantra, they take it to a whole other level. The film is shot in black and white, which doesn’t generally bother me, but there were scenes in this film that I think could have been best served by beautiful, rich colorful landscapes and its people. Would have been a cool juxtaposition with the muddy, dreary town and its folk. ★★

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is much different than, say, Night on Earth or Stranger Than Paradise. Whereas those films are very grounded and “real” feeling, this one is almost a fantasy in a far-out-there, almost Tarantino ridiculous kind of way. I say that as a person who is not a fan of Tarantino (sacrilegious, I know), but I liked Ghost Dog. It stars Forest Whitaker as a contract killer in modern New York, who lives by the code of honor of a Japanese samurai. His life was saved a few years ago by a mob man named Louie; as such, Ghost Dog has named Louie his retainer, and will do anything asked of him. When a fellow mob man, Frank, starts sleeping with the head boss’s daughter, Louie has Ghost Dog take him out. Unfortunately, there are consequences for killing a made man and leaving a witness (the daughter), so the remaining mob members decide Ghost Dog needs to die, despite Louie’s protestations. Louie knows he’s probably next, for his role in the killing, but Ghost Dog goes to work, protecting himself and Louie and mowing down the rest of the mob, which he’s able to do because of they are humorously inept at getting anything done right. Though the scenario is weird, and some of the characters are off-the-chart cuckoo, the action is great and the film is a lot of fun. There’s also some smart references to other great classics if you are paying attention (like Rashomon, which is mentioned, but you might miss the connection if you aren’t looking for it, and others). I don’t think it is meant to be taken too seriously, and as such, it’s a good diversion and just an enjoyable action flick, with some fun nods to other films that came before it. ★★★½

After appearing in minor roles in Jarmusch’s Night on Earth, Ghost Dog, and Coffee and Cigarettes (not reviewed here, I’d seen it before), Isaach de Bankolé gets the lead in The Limits of Control. This one is a maddeningly obtuse film, but for my tastes, an extremely fun one, right up to the very end (of course, this is coming from a person that loves Last Year at Marienbad and Finnegans Wake; I have a thing for films and books that are (close to?) impossible to decipher). A very non verbose, unnamed man is on an unknown mission, seeking a target that we don’t know or understand. To reach his goal, he travels around Spain meeting other secretive individuals, who pass him clues inside matchbooks, always after confirming his identity with the password, “You don’t speak Spanish, right?” While meeting these individuals, some phrases are repeated a couple times in the movie, like, “The universe has no center and no edges.” Other mystic messages lead him directly to the next clue, like, “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend,” or, “The guitar will find you.” The clues can come from anywhere, even someone he passes randomly in the street. They each want to chat about different things, but our loner just sits quietly and listens, until it is time to swap matchbooks. For most viewers, they may be ready to check out after the second or third such encounter, but they keep on coming. I was hooked line and sinker from the opening moments. Our (hero? antihero?) person was fascinating to watch. His body language and demeanor ooze menace, even though we have no idea what his ultimate goal is. Unfortunately the ending was a big let down for my expectations, but still, the journey is worth it if you like mysterious, slow burns. ★★★

Peninsula is the followup to the critically and commercially successful zombie flick Train to Busan a couple years ago. After a quick intro to the new characters, on the day of the virus breakout, the film jumps ahead 4 years to the present. The entire South Korean peninsula has been quarantined off and the rest of the world has moved on. Scavengers have started to try to get into the former South Korea though, knowing that people died leaving gold and jewelry and US dollars just sitting around. Former Korean citizen and marine captain Jung-Seok has been eking out an existence in Hong Kong, but the public there distrusts people from Korea, obviously scared of the zombie virus. He and his brother, Chul-min, are recruited by a scavenger group to sneak into the former South Korea and get out with a truck full of money. The big reward (should they survive) will set them up for life. Does the film suffer from “sequel-itis?” Of course! The villains are off-the-walls unbelievable, the car chases are straight out of The Fast and the Furious, and cliched plot elements abound, including a deus ex machina, but damn if it still isn’t entertaining. If you love the absurdity of the Mad Max films (including the sequels), you’ll enjoy the ride here too. ★★★★

Run is a suspense thriller starring Sarah Paulson and Kiera Allen as mother Diane and daughter Chloe. Chloe was born with a multitude of physical disabilities, including heart problems, asthma, diabetes, and paralysis of the legs, leaving her tied to a wheelchair. As a teenager, she’s grown very bright and is looking forward to college, waiting every day for acceptance letters. Somehow it is this waiting that first makes her start to have suspicion that her mom Diane is hiding something from her, as none of the expected letters ever come. Chloe also finds that a medicine she’s been taking all of her life actually is prescribed to her mom, and when she sneaks into the pharmacy without her mom’s knowledge, Chloe learns some life-shaking news. When Chloe awakes the next day, she’s been locked in a room and Diane isn’t around, leading Chloe to attempt her escape. There’s some great thrills and tight suspense, even from early in the film, but unfortunately most of it’s been done before. The one great aspect of the film is that actress Kiera is herself really in a wheelchair, which is extremely uncommon to see a lead role in any film or show. Kudos to her and the filmmakers for making it happen, but the film itself is just average, and the ending is pure cheese. ★★½

About 5 minutes into Alone, I thought, “This is very familiar.” It’s because I just watched this movie last month. Well, not exactly this movie, but the Korean version. Both movies used the same source material, and while #Alive was released first, Alone was actually made first, but its release was delayed because of COVID. Being in English doesn’t make this version any better. There are a couple differences. Our male hero is the real star and badass and the girl is just a damsel in distress, which makes sense since Tyler Posey has some name power and Summer Spiro is a relative newcomer. Also, the virus here spreads through any blood contact, not just bites, and the zombies continue to repeat phrases they were saying when they died, so that ups the freakiness factor. Other than that, I disliked this movie for all the same reasons I disliked #Alive. Nothing new for the genre, rough acting, worse dialogue, and uneven execution. Better to go back and watch the Busan zombie films. ★

It seems like ages ago when I first saw the trailer for The New Mutants (filming was done way back in 2017). But then Disney bought Fox and the X-Men series fell under Marvel Studio’s purview. And The New Mutants went into post-production hell. Now it has finally been released as the last in Fox’s X-Men film series, before they will be rebooted later under Marvel’s umbrella. When I first saw that trailer, it looked super exciting, as a dark, almost horror film. The final cut, whether due to re-writes or editing, is more like horror-light, with a fair amount of super hero action. Danielle Moonstar is the sole survivor from a catastrophe at her Native American town, and is brought to a facility with young teenage mutants who have also faced tragedy. She’s the only one there who doesn’t know what her powers are, and the others, with the exception of Rahne (who can turn into a wolf), don’t take kindly to her. The group of kids are under the watchful eye of Dr Reyes, a seemingly kindly person but with a Nurse Ratchet undertone. Upon Danielle’s arrival, bad things start happening to the others: their nightmares become very real and very dangerous. As the nightmares more real incessant and Reyes’ motives become clear, the teens need to band together to fight. This movie has a lot of detractors, and some of those bad reviews have a point. Character development is very poor, which is the most glaring problem, but honestly I enjoyed this film a lot more than I thought I would. Could it have been better? Yes, definitely, but I was entertained, and it is a much better conclusion to the X Men series than the awful Dark Phoenix. The New Mutants was originally planned as the start of a new trilogy, which will now obviously never happen, but it would have been exciting to see where it could have gone. ★★★½

Another maligned recent release is Disney’s live action Mulan, and unfortunately, this time I have to agree. The original Disney cartoon came out when I was 18, so no longer young, but still young at heart, and I enjoyed it. This remake is a pale shadow of the original. The story is relatively unchanged: there’s an uprising headed by an evil man, who wants to take down the Emperor of China. A call goes out for every family to supply one male, and in Mulan’s family, that means her ailing father must go, as they have no sons. Mulan is a tomboy and despite her parents’ repeated entreaties, she longs to be treated as an equal to the men in the village. She clandestinely takes her father’s place in the army, disguising herself and pretending to be a young man. She is able to keep the subterfuge up through training and into battle, when she unmasks herself and goes on to show everyone what women are capable of. What should be a rousing tale lands with a huge thud. All of the characters in this film are paper thin with no dimension or fleshing out, and sadly that goes for Mulan too. Also, especially with how the world is now as compared to 1998, more could have been done to show the culture and uniqueness of the Chinese people, but you can take this film and put it in any setting, and no one would know the difference. The battle scenes are OK I guess, in their heavy CGI way, but even those became boring after awhile. It’s a “pretty” film but that’s about it. ★★

Wim Wenders is an accomplished and renowned German director, who got his start making films in West Germany during the New German Cinema movement. He’s made many narrative and documentary films (which I hope to get to one day!), but I’m starting with some of his earlier films, beginning with 1974’s Alice in the Cities. This is a “road movie” unlike any other. It follows a German writer, Philip, who’s been traveling across the USA in search of a story, but having no luck putting his finger on the story he wants to write. He’s depressed and aimless, and can’t seem to find his muse. He ends up back in New York with an irate publisher and not much money left on him, so he has to return to Germany. A strike at the airport in West Germany makes him detour to Amsterdam, and while waiting for that flight out of New York, he meets a woman and her 9-year-old daughter, Lisa and Alice. Lisa is just coming off a bad relationship and wants to return home to Germany too, but on the morning of their flight, she leaves Alice and a note for Philip asking him to take her to Amsterdam, and Lisa will meet them there after talking to her ex one more time. Philip has no choice, since Lisa is gone, and takes Alice off with him. The problem is, Lisa never shows up in Amsterdam. Alice remembers her grandmother’s home in West Germany, but can’t remember what city it is in, or even her grandmother’s name. So the unlikely duo set off in a rented car with an ever-dwindling wallet to try to find the house. Both actors are amazing in their roles: Yella Rottländer as Alice, a girl struggling with the reality that she’s not high on her mother’s priorities; and Rüdiger Vogler as Philip, a man who thinks he is seeking something special, when really he needs to find something missing within himself. It’s shot in start black and white which works so well here, and the movie is touching in the all the right moments, without being sappy or overly sentimental. It’s the rare film that is full of emotion without being emotionally charged, and it is also fun to see the picture flipped, in that you think Philip will be the star, and it ends up being Alice. ★★★★½

The Wrong Move takes a similar character as Philip, this time Wilhelm (portrayed by the same actor), but this time our struggling writer continues to seek isolation in all that he does. In his journey, he comes across others with secrets and idiosyncrasies: a beautiful actress, Therese (Hanna Schygulla, whom I recognized instantly from her roles in Fassbinder’s films); an old man, Laertes, with a story he doesn’t want to tell; a mute street performer, Mignon; and a socially awkward and terrible poet, Bernhard. Each person in this motley crew wants something out of someone else in the group. Therese and Mignon both love Wilhelm, but he is unwilling (or incapable) of reciprocating; Laertes wants to unburden his soul of his dark secret; Bernhard just wants someone to validate him. They hop in a car and end up at a nearly-abandoned mansion, whose owner was just about to kill himself when they pulled up. That little happy scene just about sums up the feeling of this picture. Don’t expect any happy endings. Everything and everyone is just so dreary, and ultimately, no one finds what they want. It’s all extremely depressing, and while the acting is decent, there was nothing to make me care about any of the characters. ★½

Kings of the Road is another road movie with an unlikely pair, this time a couple adult men from different backgrounds. Rüdiger Vogler returns a third time, this time playing a loner named Bruno. For a couple years, Bruno has been living out of a large truck, traveling from small town to small town, repairing and maintaining movie projectors at the local single screen cinemas, cinemas which are struggling with declining attendance as movie goers are traveling to larger cities for the experience. Bruno doesn’t seem to mind the lonely, nomadic lifestyle, but his routine is interrupted when Robert attempts suicide in front of him, by driving a car into a river. Robert walks out of the river with a wet suitcase and meets Bruno at his truck, and the two form a kinship from their solitudes. Robert tags along as Bruno visits a couple towns along the East Germany border, and the duo meet some like-minded down-and-out “lost souls” on the road. Each has a healing process to go through; for Robert it is visiting his estranged father, whom he hasn’t seen in 10 years; and for Bruno, realizing that (just maybe) there is a world of people outside of film. The movie is a bit slow to get going and honestly, felt a little pretentious in the beginning, but the visual poetry throughout is amazing. It’s a very good film depicting the alienation people can experience. ★★★½

The American Friend is a tale about Tom Ripley, the same Ripley from the Purple Noon, The Talented Mr Ripley, etc. In fact, this film was the first adaptation of the novel Ripley’s Game, later redone and starring John Malkovich. In this version, Ripley is portrayed by Dennis Hopper, and he’s a rich career criminal living in Hamburg. He’s got a con going with an art forger, and is auctioning the fake pieces for big bucks. The forgery is spotted though by a local art framer, Jonathan Zimmerman. When a local French criminal, Minot, approaches Ripley about murdering a rival gangster, Ripley declines but suggests Zimmerman. Zimmerman has been fighting leukemia, and Ripley falsely tells Minot that the disease has spread and he doesn’t have long to live. Thinking Zimmerman could use a stack of case to leave his wife and son, Minot approaches him about the job. Zimmerman begrudgingly accepts, and the job goes as well as it could for an amateur killer, so Minot hires him again for a more dangerous mission. The second hit doesn’t go as swimmingly, and Ripley gets pulled into the scheme after all, to cover Zimmerman’s butt. It’s a good premise, but for my tastes, this film felt all over the place. The other film adaptations of Ripley’s escapades seem tighter and more cohesive, and Zimmerman’s leap from average man to cold killer is quite unbelievable. Honestly the whole film felt like a bit of a mess. Even though I didn’t care much for The Wrong Move, at least the wayward feel of the film worked there, and it obviously does so in the other 2 films above too. Here, in a film which relies on a tight plot and well constructed, linear paths for the characters, when that is missing, that omission is glaring. ★

Paris, Texas is one of those amazing films that makes me reevaluate how I rate movies. I can only give this one 5 stars, so I guess I need to go back and lower my ratings on other films. It’s that good. The setting is simple on the surface, yet intricate underneath: Travis (the late great Harry Dean Stanton) is found wandering through the desert in west Texas, and he won’t speak a word to the people who find him. They call a number found in his wallet and connect with his brother Walt (Dean Stockwell), who admits that he hasn’t seen or spoken to his brother in 4 years. Walt and his wife Anne (Aurore Clément, who I just saw in Lacombe, Lucien) thought that perhaps Travis and his wife Jane were dead, as they disappeared suddenly those years ago, leaving their son behind. Walt and Anne have been raising Hunter as their own, and now Travis showing up puts a wrench in their family. But the mystery remains: where has Travis been, why is he so quiet and guarded, and whatever happened to Jane? All of the questions get answered by the end, but the plot, while great, isn’t even the best part of this film. The performances by Stanton and, later, Nastassja Kinski as Jane, are off the charts. Also, filming in the wide open spaces of rural Texas creates this feeling of a huge, enveloping world, of which we are just tiny isolated beings bumping into each other. It is a deep, emotionally taught film that slowly builds over the course of its 2.5 hours to a supremely satisfying conclusion. One of the best films I’ve seen in awhile. ★★★★★