Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? hails from 1962 and stars two Hollywood heavyhitters, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. By the 60’s they were aging stars and not getting the calls they used to, but this film revitalized their careers. Directed by Robert Aldrich, it is a psychological thriller about the Hudson sisters. Beginning in 1917, “Baby Jane” Hudson is a child star on the theater circuit while her sister Blanche looks on from the sidelines. By the mid-30s though, their fortunes have been reversed, as studios have found that Jane can’t act her way out of a box, and Blanche has become a Hollywood star. On one fateful night, it is implied Jane, in a fit of jealousy, drives down Blanche. When we see them again in the 60’s, we see that the incident has left Blanche in a wheelchair. She’s protected Jane though, so Jane didn’t do any jailtime, and Jane has been taking care of Blanche, whose residual checks keep the family living well. The film really gets going now. Jane has become a mentally unstable alcoholic, and she begins to mentally torture Blanche, who is confined to the second floor of the house, all while having delusions of revitalizing her career as “Baby Jane.” It’s a great film, tense with an almost-horror flick feel, and two leading ladies who had lost nothing to time. Fun stuff, and gripping to the end. ★★★½

Seconds, from director John Frankenheimer (The Manchurian Candidate back in the day, and more recently Ronin and Reindeer Games), is about an older man who has grown bored of his aging wife and stale life (banker). When he receives a cryptic call from an old friend, who was presumed dead, promising a new life, he jumps at it. He ends up receiving more than he bargained for, realizing too late that the grass isn’t always greener. They give him a new, younger face, new house and career, new life, but he can’t find peace. It’s a psychological thriller, with jarring and close-up shots of our anti-hero losing his grip. The co-leads of older man (John Randolph, who had a long and storied career on TV, in film, and on Broadway) and younger man (Rock Hudson, who needs no introduction) are both great, but the film was too stunted for my tastes. And while Hudson is always great, I like my Rock in his more traditional heartthrob roles. I struggled to get into this one despite the solid reviews. ★★

Something Wild was critically the opposite from above. Receiving middling reviews, I really enjoyed this piece, which again is a psychological film, leaning more on the drama aspects instead of the thriller like Seconds (though there are plenty of tense moments in the final 30 minutes). Walking home from school one evening, college student Mary Ann (Carroll Baker, who is amazing in this role) is brutally raped. The next day, she can’t return to a normal life, and wanders the city, unable to mentally find her footing. Mary Ann abruptly leaves her home and takes a tiny apartment in a seedy part of town, gets a lowly job in a five-and-ten, and spends her nights restless. When Mary Ann finally reaches the end of her rope, she attempts to jump off a bridge but is saved at the last second by Mike, a passerby. He takes care of her at first, bringing her to his place and feeding her, but when he comes drunk home after work, we see that he is up to no good. Mary Ann and Mike are a couple of wonderfully complex characters. Also, the director does a great job of putting us in Mary Ann’s head; you feel her hopelessness as she isolates herself from everyone in her life, and you see how alone she is even though all of New York is bustling around her. Great film that I think was just ahead of its time; if it were made today, it would be a darling of the indie circuit. ★★★½

I was enthralled by Bill Greaves’s pseudo-documentary Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take One, made in 1968 but not released until decades later. Greaves, an actor and documentarian (in fact, a member of The Actor’s Studio in New York in the late 40’s at the same time as Marlon Brando and Shelley Winters, among others) plays an inept version of himself trying to make a film in a park in New York with three film crews: the first is filming his movie, the second is filming the first film crew in a “making of” sort of way, and the third is filming anything that catches their eye in the area. They keep filming the same scene over and over again, from different angles, different takes, and even different actors. It seems no one is in on the joke except Bill himself; the actors and film crew increasingly wonder what the hell they are all doing there and if Bill even has a plan for it all. Of course in reality, Greaves is filming everything to edit together later for a piece about the mayhem going on and the natural, authentic reactions of those involved in it. It is mesmerizing in a reality television sort of way, but far better for those of us who love movies. It gives a real behind the scenes look. Unfortunately the film took 20+ years to get released, and only did after actor/filmmaker Steve Buscemi saw it at a film festival, and brought on acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh to help raise money for Greaves to finally get it done. They even used a lot of the unused footage (Greaves reportedly had shot 55 hours of tape initially) to make a sequel, Symbiopsychotaxiplasm Take 2 1/2. The first 40 minutes of the sequel is old footage, before they get to new stuff later on. It doesn’t have the freshness of the first film, because the counter-culture element of the 60’s shines so well in Take One, plus, we are all in on the joke now. I’d give maybe 2 stars to the sequel, but for Take One, : ★★★★

The Honeymoon Killers is based on a true story, about a pair of serial killers who killed older woman who had placed “lonely hearts” ads. In the film, Martha Beck has just placed such an ad when she is contacted by Ray Fernandez. The two exchange letters for awhile, until they decide to finally meet at her home in Alabama. Ray makes the trip down from New York, but is only there a day or two, managing to swindle Martha out of some money. Realizing she’s been duped, Martha chases him to New York and threatens the police. Placating her, the duo hatch a plan to continue targeting old single women for money, a scheme that eventually turns to murdering their victims once the cash is safe in hand. Martha plays the crazy one, prone to fits of sudden violence, and Ray seems unable or unwilling to reign her in. Lauded in its day for its realism, it’s a good low budget film with tense moments and plenty of thrills for a late 60s historical drama. ★★★½

I usually see newer movies, and Take Shelter isn’t a new film (2011), but I stumbled upon it accidentally, saw it had two fantastic actors (Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain), was directed by Jeff Nichols (before he did Mud and Midnight Special), and dove in. Curtis is a construction worker in a rural community who suddenly one day starts suffering from debilitating fear about impending disasters. He and his wife Samantha are already struggling to make ends meet, with big bills for the special school and needs for their deaf daughter Hannah. First Curtis has progressively worse nightmares, which are vivid and violent, but when it becomes hallucinations while awake, of storms killing his family, strangers kidnapping Hannah, etc., he starts to act on his fears. Accepting his nightmares as premonitions, he borrows a bunch of money from the bank and starts expanding a storm shelter on his land into a secure bunker. This leads to all sorts of problems in his relationship with his wife and other friends and family. As Curtis goes further down the rabbit hole, these chasms grow even wider. Michael Shannon puts in a tour-de-force performance, in an engrossing picture examining mental illness (or is it?) and its affect on the family. ★★★½

The Half of It is a very nice, new take on the classic coming-of-age tale. Ellie is a very smart and talented girl in high school, but she’s shy and ridiculed as the class nerd. She also happens to be the best writer in school, so everyone pays her to write their papers, and she uses the money to help support her single father, who hates his job in the small town where they seem to be stuck. Ellie is approached by a dumb (but nice) jock, Paul, to help him write a love letter to Aster, the prettiest girl in school. The problem is, Ellie has a huge crush on Aster herself. Aster hangs with the cool crowd because of her looks, but she’s smart and artsy and more akin to Ellie. As Ellie and Paul grow closer, this little love triangle grows very complicated. Ellie tells us in the beginning this isn’t a love story, but it is a story about finding yourself. The film is definitely more painful than warming, but it leaves you with a sense that life will be OK in the end. ★★★½

Extraction, starring Chris Hemsworth in his classic manly role, is no sweeping, thought-provoking cinematic experience, but it doesn’t try to be. It is a straight forward action flick, and for what it is, it hits on all cylinders. Tyler Rake is a mercenary with a team that goes to the highest bidder. They’ve been hired to rescue a boy who’s been kidnapped. The boy is the son of a drug lord in India, but he’s been nabbed by a drug lord from Bangladesh. In the mission to get the boy and get them to the people with the most money, all hell breaks loose. There’s no deep plot here, no surprises, just lots of pure action, with Rake killing dozens, if not hundreds of “bad guys” on the way. If you are in the mood to see hand-to-hand fights, lots of explosions, and plenty of gratuitous gore, this film will satisfy. I went in knowing what to expect, and was happy with the outcome. ★★★½

Little Women received a ton of accolades last year, but I just don’t get all the praise. A new telling of the classic Alcott book, director Greta Gerwig brought together an all-star cast of women, including Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Laura Dern, Meryl Streep, and Florence Pugh. The actors are charming, but the characters are a bit pretentious. A family of four girls living with their mother while their father is off with the Union army in the Civil War, they are raised to be sure of themselves, kind to the needy, and strong willed in a time when women were just supposed to get married and be an ornament. Jo wants to be a writer, Amy an artist, Meg an actor/playwright, and Beth a musician, and each pursues their goals in their own way, while remaining tightly connected to each other. The film is about these pursuits, as well as the relationships that come and go. Unfortunately it all comes off as too syrupy sweet, and as the film is told in flashbacks (and even a couple flash forwards), it feels choppy, and honestly this way of telling this classic story doesn’t do justice to the girls. Starting in the present and then going back, we don’t get to see them “become” the women they are over time, it just sort of happens. And (**SPOILER**) when Beth dies, because we didn’t get to know her so well earlier, her death has a much less affect on the watcher as it does on the reader in the book, and does Beth a severe disservice. And the film feels long. It is under 2 1/2 hours, but I’ve seen 3+ hour films that went by quicker. It isn’t bad, and the actors are great all around, but not deserving of the heaps of praise. I think sometimes we go too far to applaud a woman director when she makes a good film, because the industry is lacking in good female directors, and unfortunately that was the case here for me. ★★★

Pain and Glory is the latest from storied director Pedro Almodóvar, who I ashamedly admit I haven’t seen enough of (will rectify that before too long). It stars Antonio Banderas as Salvador Mallo, an aging, successful director who is at a bit of a crossroads. In 4 years he has lost his mother and had major back surgery which has left him in constant pain. On the 32nd anniversary of his breakout film, a local theater in Madrid is screening a restored version of the movie, bringing all kinds of emotion to Salvador. He reconnects to the star of that film, despite a falling out 30 years ago, and also begins to work through his thoughts and feelings regarding his mother. Interspersed throughout the picture are flashbacks to Salvador’s childhood, growing up in poverty. This is a film about healing, both for our main character and, I believe, for director Almodóvar. He’s on record for saying how personal the film was for him, and while it isn’t a true biography, it is also very evident that he is working things out for himself in this film. It’s a beautiful film, with a nuanced and touching performance by Banderas. ★★★★★

I thought it’d be nice to watch some film adaptations of some of these books I’ve been reading. Wise Blood, directed by famed actor and director John Huston and released in 1979, is based on a book by the great American writer Flannery O’Connor. I didn’t read this book, but I did read her famous book of short stories, A Good Man is Hard to Find. This film is about a man recently released from military service, Haze, who has lost all faith in faith, if you catch my meaning. We see in flashbacks that his dad was a charlatan preacher, and after witnessing another man pretending to be a blind preacher as well (basically panhandling), Haze decides to start a new kind of church. He starts the “Church of Christ Without Christ” and tells people they don’t need Jesus, and to only look out for themselves. Along the way, he continues to cross paths with the blind man and his daughter, who is obsessed with getting Haze in the sack, as well as a local boy who finds his own personal Jesus in the form of a mummified corpse at the local museum. Its zany adventures and characters remind me of a Coen Brothers film, so fans of theirs should check this out. I definitely see some inspiration there. Good cast too, starring Brad Dourif as Haze (most well known as stuttering Billy from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), as well as Harry Dean Stanton and a small part for Ned Beatty. ★★★½

I did read The Grapes of Wrath, and this film version came out just a year after the book, in 1940. It stars Henry Fonda in a younger role as Tom Joad, and is directed by the great John Ford. The film is a pretty faithful adaptation of the book, so you can just read my blurb there. Obviously it is a shortened version, and my only gripe is the film feels rushed. And they did move some stuff around, to give the movie a more uplifting ending. In the film, the family finds itself at the government camp near the end instead of shortly after arriving in California. This lets them end on a good note, feeling some hope for the future. The only hope in the book is the hope that man will continue to help each other through even the worst of times. The film completely eliminates the final chapters of the book, when the Joad family hits rock bottom and is starving, as well as Rose of Sharon delivering a dead baby, and the famous, iconic final scene. Still, the movie is very well done for what it is, and is well deserving of being heralded as one of the great classic American films of all time. ★★★½

It’s been awhile, over 5 years and about 100 books ago, since I read Kipling’s Kim. I remember the gist of it, and recall really enjoying it. The film adaptation from 1950, starring Errol Flynn and a young Dean Stockwell, has the look but missing some of the magic of that great novel. The basic premise is the same: a young Irish-born orphan is living on the streets in India, and has absorbed local cultures and customs so much that people think he is an Indian. He falls in with a holy man, a Buddhist lama, who is seeking a river of enlightenment. At the same time, Kim is aiding a horse trader/British spy known as the Red Beard, who is covertly battling against Russian invaders for land in the Afghanistan region. It isn’t long before Kim is recruited by British spies for “the Great Game” in the the battle for control over the area. The film has the basics of the book down, and because much of it was filmed in India (no small feat in 1950), it has brilliance and vibrancy that sucks you in from the opening scenes, but it seems to lose something halfway through. It comes off as a typical Hollywood flick, and doesn’t give its characters space to breathe. And though my memory may be a little fuzzy, the latter half seems greatly different from the book. Whereas the book left the reader thinking about the larger picture, the film is more cut and dry. Certainly not a bad flick, but it doesn’t live up to the source material. ★★★

1984 sticks to George Orwell’s novel pretty closely. In a dystopian time, Winston Smith feels rebellious towards the ever-watching Big Brother, and he knows that much of what he is told is not real at all. He finds a like-minded woman in Julia, and despite relationships like this being outlawed, they begin a covert love affair, meeting above an old shop in the “prole” district, where cameras and microphones aren’t around to capture everything. Just when Winston starts to dig more into a supposed rebellion movement, he and Julia learn that they’ve been under surveillance all along, and Winston now faces torture and, worse, mind controlling changes to force him into party lines. The film is great, led perfectly by John Hurt as Winston, and if it had been an original picture and not based on an amazing book, I’d probably rate it higher. But as good as it is, it isn’t quite as good as the source material. Winston does narrate some of his thoughts to us viewers, but you just can’t get into his head as you can in a book. Still, a very enjoyable picture, that speaks more today than it did when the novel first came out. When today’s politicians say one thing, and then later deny ever saying it, sprouting “fake news” when confronted with proof, it isn’t all that different from the terrible and scary future depicted by Orwell in 1949. ★★★★

A Room With a View is based on the book by EM Forster, and stars a 19-year-old Helena Bonham Carter in her first film role. Lucy Honeychurch is a young woman from a well-to-do family, traveling in Italy with her cousin Charlotte as chaperon. In Italy, the two women meet Mr Emerson and his son George (Julian Sands). Mr Emerson sees George has an instant attraction to Lucy, and implores her to get George to come out of his sullen ways. Out on a picnic one day, George steals a kiss, seen by Charlotte, so she rushes Lucy away. They return to England and Lucy does the proper thing, getting engaged to Cecil (Daniel Day-Lewis), a suit with nothing to offer the world except his money and position. It is to be a marriage for society and not for love, in fact, their first kiss is awkward and lacking the passion Lucy shared with George. Lucy’s mother isn’t fond of Cecil either, thinking him standoff-ish towards the “new money” Honychurchs. Lucy’s little world is thrown in disarray when, seemingly by fate, the Emersons rent a nearby villa, and Lucy must confront George again. The film Howards End was done by the same director (James Ivory) and lead (Bonham Carter), and in that case I liked the book more. Here, while I did enjoy the book very much, the film is absolutely perfect. It is charming, funny (with a lot more humor than I remember from the book), emotional, and richly detailed in both scenes and dialogue. A wonderful film, with a top-notch cast including the above before-they-were famous trio and supporting roles by established stars Maggie Smith, Judi Dench, Denholm Elliott, Simon Callow, and other recognizable faces. ★★★★★

Followed up with another period drama, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, based on a book I was lukewarm to when I read it. Unlike the two previous films above, this one is not a strict adaptation. This is a film-within-a-film with two timelines. In one, we see the story from the novel, featuring the love affair of Charles Smithson and Sarah Woodruff. The other shows the actors playing these characters, Mike and Anna, and their own clandestine tryst. Inside the movie, Charles ultimately ends his engagement to a high society woman to pursue Sarah, a so-called town whore, of whom it is whispered she once slept with a ne’er-do-well Frenchman passing through the village. Outside the movie, Mike is head-over-heels for Anna, but she is married and does not look to be leaving her French husband anytime soon. The correlations between the two narratives are pretty obvious. Though not exactly faithful to the book, the two stories were done on purpose; since the book had 3 endings, they can simulate a similar feel by having 2 distinct stories going on in the movie. I found the book overly wordy and the author prone to long philosophical discussions, and enjoyed the film much more. The converging separate plots come together cleanly in the end, and Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons are splendid in the two leads. Release in 1981, it is early in their long and storied careers. ★★★½

Closely Watched Trains may be one of the finest films to come out of the “Czech New Wave” film movement. Released in 1966 and directed by Jiri Menzel, it follows a young man/late teenager named Milos Hrma who’s gotten his first job as a train porter. It takes place in a tiny town during World War II, while his country is under Nazi occupation. He’s only occupied with the things kids his age are always are, namely, getting laid. He wants to sleep with a pretty young local girl, but is scared to make a move and doesn’t know how to do so, it being his first time and all. After their first awkward attempt, he even attempts suicide but is saved by an onlooker. The doctor tells him he is just suffering from premature ejaculation, and to find an older woman for his first experience, who can “show him the ways.” Through all this, it turns out the other workers at the train station are involved in the resistance movement against the Nazis, all completely oblivious to the sex-crazed Milos. It’s a funny film and typical of the New Wave movement, but also very heartfelt and, in the end, very sad and endearing. A lovely film (it won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film) from a country I’ve had next-to-zero experience from before. ★★★★

Before Milos Forman won a couple Oscars for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus, he made a name for himself in the Czech New Wave in his native Czechoslovakia. On the surface, The Firemen’s Ball is a screwball comedy. A group of local firefighters is throwing a big retirement party for their outgoing chairman, and the whole troop is a bunch of bumbling idiots. The main sources of laughs come from people stealing prizes from the lottery table all night, and the lecherous old men ogling over very young women for the beauty contest to be held. But the comedy is only so light-hearted, once you realize Forman was making fun of the Communist party in control of Czechoslovakia. In fact, the film was banned in his home country for a long time. The Fireman’s Ball was his last film made there before coming to the USA. While away scanning locations for his next film in 1968, Prague was invaded by the Warsaw Pact of countries, including the USSR. He obviously did very well in America, but this was a great film and a lasting piece of that era. ★★★½

I liked Jiri Menzel’s above film so much that I hunted down another. Unfortunately Capricious Summer doesn’t come close. Released two years after Closely Watched Trains, this film is about three middle-aged men, life-long friends, as they relax on a summer retreat. They debate life and poke fun at each other as all friends do, but their relaxing days are thrown into disarray when a traveling circus performer comes to town. The one married man of the trio sees his wife fall for the performer, while the three men all vie for the attention of his lovely young assistant. I chuckled a few times, but found myself bored for way too large of a portion of this picture. ★

Just as I loved and hated two films of Jiri Menzel’s, I loved and hated films by director Jaromil Jires. A few months ago I saw Valerie and Her Week of Wonders and it did nothing for me. I gave him another chance for The Joke, and this one was great. It is about a man who writes a questionable joke to his girlfriend deriding the Communist party, and when it becomes public, he is sentenced to 6 years in a “rehabilitation” army, which is basically prison and manual labor. The movie shows the events of then, and also ten years later when he returns to his hometown to enact a revenge, though on who and for exactly what we are not quite aware yet. The movie is narrated by our main character, and in a cool new wave-y style, we see “current” Ludvik watching events from the past that merge with his modern setting. It sounds weird but makes sense when you see it. The film is very obviously anti-Communist party, and since it was completed just before the Soviet invasion, it was banned and shelved for 20 years. Whereas many directors from the country would flee to continue making the movies they wanted, Jires stuck around and made less controversial films until the party fell apart in the late 80s. ★★★½

Pearls of the Deep is an anthology film, made up of 5 short skits based on a book of short stories by Czech author Bohumil Hrabal. Each part of the film has a different director. Like most anthology movies, it is a bit uneven, but overall it is a nice picture. The Death of Mr Baltazar, directed by Jiri Menzel, shows a group at a motorcycle race, each person one-upping another with wild tales they’ve witnessed, before the eponymous Baltazar crashes in the race. The Imposters (director Jan Nemec) is about a pair of dying old men in a hospital, telling each other of their exploits in life, before we find out later from the coroner that the stories were all made up. The House of Joy (director Evald Schorm) follows a couple insurance salesman who get more than they bargained for when they try to sell man who sees himself as an important artist more than a goat pelt producer. The Restaurant of the World (director Vera Chytilova) takes place in a restaurant one night when a woman is found having committed suicide, while a wedding party celebrates outside. Finally, Jaromil Jires’s Romance is a fun romp, about a beautiful young gypsy girl who offers her body to a passing young man in exchange for some new clothes from the department store, but he gets more than anticipated when they quickly fall in love with each other. Parts of the film were good (some very good, particularly Jires’s finale), and as a whole there is a sense of railing against the establishment. Unfortunately for these directors in 1965, they would lose the ability to openly do that very soon. ★★★

Hour of the Wolf is a bit different from other Ingmar Bergman films. It’s very much a horror picture, and it shows Bergman using different themes than he’s traditionally known for. Johan Borg (Max von Sydow) is an artist of local fame, and he’s brought his younger wife Alma (Liv Ullmann) to a tiny island where he has a summer home. They aren’t there for long before Johan starts becoming distant and surly; he stops sleeping and starts talking about being haunted by demons on the island, people he names as the Birdman, the Meat Eaters, and a lady who removes her face when she takes off her hat. Shortly after Johan starts acting this way, Alma is visiting by an older woman who tells Alma where Johan keeps his diary. Trying to help him, Alma reads through it, and finds out that Johan was once involved in a scandalous affair on the island, before their marriage, to a married woman named Veronica. Johan also admits to Alma that he killed a young boy on the island once, a story that repulses Alma. A local baron invites the couple to his castle for dinner, at which Johan’s past is brought up, and allusions are made that Veronica is still around. Before the conclusion, Veronica’s ghastly visage does indeed show up, and the demons are unmasked. It’s a very different feel from what I’m used to from this director, but it is good nonetheless. Bergman’s longtime cinematographer Sven Nykvist (look up his impressive list of films!) creates a gloriously dark miasma which permeates through each successive scene, getting bleaker and bleaker until a stunning conclusion. ★★★½

Released the same year, von Sydow and Ullman return together in Bergman’s Shame, another film very different from his usual fare. It is the most political film he ever made, and also very antiwar, as a look at the legacy of World War II and probably eyeing the ongoing Vietnam conflict as well. Jan and Eva are a married couple, violinists in a local symphony before a Civil War broke out recently, but they’ve stayed on their farm and away from the conflict. Eva is a strong willed woman and the defacto head of the house, while Jan is submissive and prefers to avoid conflict. They can’t forever though, and war finally comes to them. Nearly sent to a labor camp, they are saved at the last second by a local politician and supposed friend, Jacobi (another Bergman stalwart, Gunnar Bjornstrand), who became a conspirator for the (so far) winning side of the war. I didn’t enjoy this first hour of the film, to this point; it is almost an action film, which seems neither Bergman’s nor von Sydow’s forte, but the second act found them both in their element. Things have settled down a bit, but Jacobi has used his power over the couple to his advantage. Showering them with gifts (food and supplies, in a time when such things are hard to come by), he’s seduced Eva into granting sexual favors in exchange. The mousy Jan is unable to stop it, but when the political tides turn against Jacobi, Jan is finally able to grow a backbone. The problem is, will Eva like the man he becomes? There are some stunning moments in the second half, some heartfelt and heartbreaking dialogue and emotional peaks and valleys that only Bergman could produce. Sit through the first half, because the payoff is fantastic. The second half is 4+ stars, but I’m docking it just a bit for the first half. ★★★½

Having just finished The Passion of Anna, I’m just going to freewrite a bit on my thoughts about it. I went into this one blind, and probably should have read at least a synopsis to know what I was getting into. Without it, I didn’t know what to think for quite awhile. It starts with an almost New Wave-y feel, with a voice narration describing events to the viewer, and the film is interspersed with interviews with the four main actors, breaking the fourth wall and discussing their individual views on what makes their character tick. Ultimately, I think the film deals with one of Bergman’s favorite subjects: loneliness, and its entwinement with humanity. Andreas is a man who has cut himself off from others, figuratively and literally, but he seems to give in to others’ needs when they require companionship. This flaw (if it is one, it seems to be for Andreas) leads him to two love affairs, first with the married Eva, and later with the widowed Anna. Each of these two women have their own issues, as does Eva’s husband Elis. The film closely examines each of these four people. There are a whole lot of movies out there where characters are one dimensional, but certainly not here. These four are complex, flawed human beings, not always aware of want they want in this world, only that they don’t have it yet. Bergman’s monologues in this film are truly exceptional, and will have you thinking about the greater world around you, and your place in it. It’s an exceptional picture, probably one of Bergman’s lesser known gems, and one I’ll need to revisit one day now that I know what to look for. ★★★★

Like many high profile directors, Ingmar Bergman was a bit of a narcissist; he loved glowing praise but was condescending to unfavorable critics. For a time he led the Swedish Royal Dramatic Theatre, and when one of his productions was not warmly received, he made The Rite. It’s basically a filmed stage play, featuring a cast of just four. A traveling threater trio is brought in on charges of indecency in their latest act, and they are being investigated by a local judge, who interviews them. A short film at just 75 minutes, it is basically satire with Bergman making fun of the sensor process, pointing out perceived hypocrisy in how content can be accepted in one situation and derided in another. He also has the judge do some terrible deeds himself, which are not persecuted. I’m sure Bergman had a big laugh at it all, but it doesn’t make for a great film. Just sort of felt like showing off what he could get away with, while thumbing his nose at his detractors. ★½

The Touch is the first truly bad film I’ve seen of this director, and at this point, I’ve seen quite a few. At least with the above The Rite, I get where it’s coming from and, while I didn’t enjoy, it at least has some artistic merit and I can see how some would get into it. I don’t see anything in The Touch. Bergman’s first film in English, and with a bonafide American star (Elliott Gould, just a year removed from MASH and two from his first Oscar nom), it is the least “Bergman” Bergman film he probably ever did. Bibi Anderson plays Karin, a woman torn between two men. Her husband Andreas (Max von Sydow) isn’t the warmest partner around, and he is absent due to work, but he obviously loves her. Karin wants something more though, and ends up in the arms of displaced American David (Gould). As the common phrase goes, I don’t know what she sees in him. David is childish, and prone to angry outbursts when he doesn’t get his way, i.e., if Karin doesn’t drop everything and come to his apartment when he calls. Their love affair is just poorly done too; it’s the worst kind of melodrama where the couple says and does things that don’t even make sense from an adult relationship point of view. Since the above films had great second acts, I stuck around until the end waiting for a big “ah-ha” moment. I’ll save you the viewing: it doesn’t come. ½

Trolls World Tour is a sequel to the popular film from a couple years ago, starring Anna Kendrick and Justin Timberlake voicing the leads of Queen Poppy and Branch, a couple of, you guessed it, trolls (the cute kind, like the 80’s toys, not the ugly living-under-a-bridge kind). Having dealt with the bergens in the last film, their new nemesis is one of their own. Turns out Poppy and her village are pop trolls, since they love pop music and sugary-sweet lifestyles. Different trolls who are in to other musical styles inhabit other villages, and the queen of the rock and roll trolls, Queen Barb, is going to other villages stealing their magic string, the source of all their music. She wants to unit all the tribes into a love of one music, rock. Poppy and Branch set off to meet Barb and see what if they can talk her out of her quest. The film lacks some of the catchy songs that the first one had, and with a different director and story team, it has a very different feel. Namely, it suffers a bit from “quick take” syndrome, almost like a Michael Bay fast cutting-like feel. You can tell this picture was made for the Instagram generation, and at times, it was a bit much for me. But it does have a decent story, a good message of inclusion, and while it might not have the same level of charm as the first film, it is still enjoyable. And just like the first go-around, I’m sure they’ll make a killing on merchandise. You can’t go in any store without seeing a Trolls face on something. ★★★½

Little Joe is sort of a modern version of Little Shop of Horrors, unfortunately minus the entertainment. However, it’s not entirely bad. Alice is head scientist researching new plants. Specifically, she’s been trying to breed a plant with a pleasant, endorphin-raising scent which will make people happy. She thinks she’s found just the right blend with “Little Joe,” named after her son. Little Joe requires more care than any other plant, living only in the right environment and needing constant watering and care, but it does indeed some to make people pleasant. Unfortunately it seems to be doing more than that too. Made without the ability to pollinate (so as to not interfere with other indigenous flora), Little Joe starts using its spores to make people take care of it, and since doing so makes them happy, they are more than willing to comply. Anyone who seems to raise fears about what is going on is eventually brought into Little Joe’s posse, until only Alice is left fighting it. I feel the soundtrack really helps this film; it is disjointed and jarring in a way that would fit in a classic horror flick, and manages to ratchet up the tension here, even though we are only talking about a plant. But if you take that soundtrack away, the film is a bit of a bore. Does have solid performances from its co-leads, Emily Beecham and Ben Whishaw. ★★

I finally had a chance to see Parasite, the film that took all of the awards world-over last season. Like many film-goers, I was introduced to director Bong Joon-ho by Snowpiercer, and then later Okja, both of which I loved. Much like Snowpiercer, Parasite is a film about disparity in the social classes, between the haves and the have-nots. The Kim family is dirt poor but have plenty of street smarts. The Park family is wealthy, but Mrs Park is gullible and doesn’t know how to do a thing for herself. Bringing all their conniving and intuition to bear, the Kims are able to infiltrate the Parks, playing the roles of tutor, driver, housemaid, and art therapist. Events go drastically wrong when the Parks come home early one night, in the middle of a drunken party by the Kims, on the same night that the Kims find another hidden, secret guest in the house. This film has it all: darker-than-black comedy, thrills and chills, a lot of suspense, and most importantly, timely themes on the inequality between classes in today’s modern society. In the film, the poor like the Kims literally live in basements, trying to decide between paying the phone bill or buying food, while the Parks live on a hill looking down over everyone else, and throw money away on fake tutors and therapists with no credentials or skill. Brilliantly acted, brilliantly directed, and an engaging plot all come together for last year’s best film. As the director said when accepting his Golden Globe award, “Once you overcome the 1-inch barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” Parasite is an accessible film that everyone should see. ★★★★★

Sword of Trust is a cute comedy-drama about an adult couple, Cynthia and Mary. They are going through the effects of Cynthia’s recently dead grandfather when they find an old Civil War era sword, with paperwork claiming the sword was surrendered by Union General Sheridan in defeat to the grandfather at the Battle of Chicabauga, and in so doing, the grandfather is claiming the North actually lost to the South. The two women don’t believe it, but they understand it might have value, so they take it to the local pawn shop, run by Mel. Mel scoffs at the story, but later finds online come conspiracy theorists who are hunting for proof that the South won the war, and are offering big money too. Mel brings Cynthia and Mary back in, and the group go on a bizarre adventure to sell the sword to some crazies. Much of the dialogue is obviously improvised, and the film has a very mumblecore-like feel to it, albeit with people closer to their 40’s instead of 20s. I’m not a big fan of the mumblecore subgenre (with a few notable standout exceptions), but this film isn’t bad. It’s quirky and funny, and has enough going on that I could look past some of its faults. It’s a short, sub-90 minute excursion too, so easy to squeeze it in if you want some light comedy. ★★★

Tigertail is a really lovely film on Netflix, but it left me wanting more. It tells the tale of the full life of Pin-Jui. Born in Taiwan, his father died young and was then raised by his strong-willed single mother, who worked in a factory. His life-long love is a girl named Yuan, who he first met as a child living with his grandmother away from the city for a time, but who fate brought back to him as a young man years later. However, Pin-Jui has dreams of moving to America, and as a poor young person, the only way he sees to get there is by marrying the daughter of his mother’s factory boss, who will then fund their move to New York. Pin-Jui takes the chance with nary a goodbye to Yuan, but spends the rest of his life regretting that decision. His marriage to Zhenzhen is cold, and after their children grow and leave the house, she leaves him. Pin-Jui then needs to finally connect to someone again, after years of being closed off, and the person he needs to connect to is his estranged daughter. The film is told in 3 separate time lines, often moving back and forth between the younger Pin-Jui and him as an old man. It is a reflective, moving, contemplative picture, but it felt too short at 90 minutes long. I would love to see like a 2 ½ hour long director’s cut in the future, if one exists. The movie has some wonderful moments, and excellent cinematography, but it feels like a lot was left on the cutting room floor. I would have liked to see more of Pin-Jui’s growth, what made him into the man he became. It is hinted at, but for a touching film like this, I wanted more. Still, it’s a beautiful picture. ★★★½

Starting off with a great film. Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a French period film taking place in the late 18^th century, with two all-star performances by Noemie Merlant and Adele Haenel. Excellent artist and painter Marianne arrives to an isolated estate to paint a portrait of Heloise, a portrait which will be gifted to Heloise’s husband-to-be. The rub is that Heloise doesn’t want to get married; it was her sister who was to be married, but she killed herself, letting the responsibility fall to Heloise to marry for the family. Consequently, Heloise refuses to pose for the portrait, so her mother has hired Marianne to pretend to be Heloise’s companion, to study her, and then to paint from memory at night. After a week, the portrait is finished, but Marianne isn’t happy with it. She comes clean to Heloise and destroys the painting, and promises the mother to start fresh. Heloise agrees to model this time. The mother leaves to attend to other business, and the two women spend a week together, with increasing emotions for each other. The simmering sexual tension between the two women in the first half is a wonderful slow burn, as they begin to read each other, and then finally, connect on a deep, intense, emotional couple days. Richly filmed, sparse but warm, the film pulls you in and doesn’t let you go until the very end. It’s odd how a film where all of the action is in the raise of an eye, the tilt of a head, the lingering touch, and yet it is as gripping as the most explosive action flick. ★★★★★

The Decline, a French Canadian film produced by Netflix, follows a man named Antoine, who is convinced the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Between global warming, global powers, failing economies, and mass migrations, he is sure that it is only a matter of time before the only people surviving will be the survivalists. Though inexperienced, he’s been watching videos online of a survivalist named Alain, who teaches how to preserve food, build bunkers, etc. Antoine and a half dozen other like-minded people sign up for Alain’s “class” at his remote, self-sufficient getaway. There, they learn how to grow everything they need, live off the land, and defend it from invaders, including how to make bombs and booby traps. An accident one evening though separates the hard-cores from those not willing to do everything for this lifestyle, and the film becomes a suspense between the hunters and their prey. Nothing groundbreaking here, but it is a better-than-average action thriller, with a couple twists you won’t see coming, and passable performances from mostly unknown actors. ★★★

I thought I would really dig Leviathan, a 2014 Russian film from director Andrey Zvyagintsev. Reviews I read made it sound like the kind of slow-moving, heavy-thinking film that I often enjoy (re: Nuri Bilge Ceylan). But I couldn’t get into it. It is basically about a man, Kolya, who fights the system and loses at every turn. The mayor of their tiny fishing town wants to take Kolya’s house (and adjacent business) by eminent domain to build a communications tower, but Kolya is convinced he really wants the land to build himself a seaside mansion. At the same time, Kolya’s wife is running around on him with his own lawyer. No one seems to be on Kolya’s side, including the cops and even the town priest. Many reviewers point out that the film is like a modern telling of the Biblical book of Job (the filmmaker himself hints at this near the end), but I don’t see the connection. Job was a faithful man who stayed true to God through all the evils done to him; Kolya has faith in nothing but himself, and ultimately the film seems to say even God is against him. It is a Ceylan film without any of the enlightening moments, which ultimately makes for a long, boring movie. ★½

Danish film The Hunt stars Mads Mikkelsen, whom you may recognize from his roles as bad guys in films such as Bond’s Casino Royale or Marvel’s Doctor Strange, but he has a lot of versatility too (I LOVED him in Arctic last year). He doesn’t get any better than in The Hunt, for which he won Best Actor at Cannes in 2012. He plays Lucas, a 42 year old kindergarten teacher, who loves and is loved by his kids. One particular girl, Klara, has a schoolgirl crush on him, even rushing in to steal a kiss when Lucas is rough-housing with the boys. Lucas calmly sits her down and tells Klara that was not acceptable, and as kids do, she doesn’t take it well. To get back at him, Klara relates a story to the head of the school, something she heard in passing from her older teenage brother, about an erect penis. Immediately Lucas is of course suspended, and the police get involved. Without even knowing who is accusing him or what exactly he is being accused of, Lucas is left out in the dark as the little community explodes around him. His best friends leave him, he ex-wife withholds their son, and he gets asked to stop shopping at the local grocery store by the owner. Before Lucas knows what’s going on, the situation becomes a witch hunt. The head of school asks other parents if their kids are exhibiting “strange” behaviors like acting out, being quiet or sullen, or nightmares, which of course all are, so more accusations start popping up. Lucas rightfully gets angry and lashes out against those who confront him, but even these actions are misconstrued as guilt. It is a brilliant and eye-opening film about how a lie can destroy someone’s life, but the film does a good job of not blaming anyone in the process. Klara is just a little girl, the teachers are just doing what they think is right, the parents and citizens are just trying to protect their kids, and through it all, Lucas is shattered. It’s a very uncomfortable film to watch, but an important one. ★★★★½

Sometimes I watch a movie that the critics loved, and I can only scratch my head and wonder what people see in it. Timbuktu is hardly a movie; it is more a glimpse into the way of life in a harsh village in Africa which has been overrun by extremist Islamists. The new rulers have imposed strict religious rule about what people can wear, how they can act in public, etc. There seemed to be a very loose plot about a shepherd’s family living just outside the city, who runs afoul of a local fisherman when one of their cows stumbles into his nets in the river, but honestly I didn’t stick around long enough to see what developed there. The “film” really is mostly just scenes of jihadists walking through the city harassing its inhabitants and arresting women for not wearing gloves, young men for playing soccer, and other such things. On the news we see all the evil over there, and it is easy to forget the average people like you and me are just trying to go about their lives, but if you want to turn that into a movie, at least give me a plot to get behind. If there’s a good plot in this one, it didn’t start before the 45 minute mark when I peaced out. ★

Somehow Pixar always hits it out of the park. Their latest is Onward, which has a different setting and thus may appeal to a smaller audience, but everyone should see it anyway. This one takes place in a world filled with mythical creatures (elves, sprites, centaurs, etc), but without magic. In a modern-day setting full of technology, all magic has disappeared, until teenager Ian Lightfoot is bequeathed a magic staff and directions to enact a spell which will bring his father back for one day. Ian’s and his brother Barley’s father died when they were kids (the older Barley has just a couple memories of him, Ian has none). Unfortunately the uninitiated Ian screws up the spell on the first attempt, and only brings back “half” of dad, namely, from the waist down. Ian and Barley thus go on a quest to find another magic gem to bring back the rest, before their 24 hours is up. Lots of laughs, but as you’d expect from Pixar, an equal number of tears, it is a wonderful, loving, heartfelt picture (featuring their tremendous animation as always) about family, love, and moving on. One for all ages, I adored it. ★★★★★

Waves is great too. From director Trey Edward Shults (whose last film It Comes at Night I absolutely loved), it’s a film about a family shattered. The first half focuses on high school senior Tyler. He’s a star on the wrestling team, has a pretty girlfriend, and seems to have it all going in the right direction, but under the facade, he’s living on the edge. His domineering father is extremely hard on him, and the stress is building up on Tyler. He keeps pushing himself to meet expectations, despite a worrisome shoulder injury which is only getting worse. Things crash on Tyler all at the same time; first he seriously hurts the shoulder in a wrestling meet, and then his girlfriend gets pregnant, and then dumps him when she refuses to get an abortion against Tyler’s wishes. Drunk and having a breakdown, Tyler confronts her and, when he pushes her, inadvertently kills her. The second half of the film deals with the “waves” his action leaves on the rest of the family. Tyler’s dad has to take a long hard look at himself, his mom distances herself from the family, and the film’s focus now shifts to Tyler’s younger sister Emily, and how she can move on with friends and relationships. Tyler’s section of the movie has much the same kind of psychological tension that I loved about Shults’ previous film, and the second half carries that emotion in a new direction. The film doesn’t offer easy explanations, doesn’t lay blame on any one person, but simply shows each person’s actions and reactions to events, leaving interpretation to the viewer. An amazing cast helps, including Kelvin Harrison Jr (from last year’s Luce), Sterling K Brown, indie-film darling Lucas Hedges, Taylor Russell (from Netflix’s Lost in Space), and Hamilton’s Renee Elise Goldsberry. ★★★★

When I initially saw Zombieland awhile back, I thought it was good but not spectacular, and didn’t see what all the rave reviews were about. So I went into the new sequel, Zombieland: Double Tap, a bit skeptical. Maybe I need to go back and rewatch the first, because I thoroughly enjoyed this one. It brings back the quartet of stars for some new post-apocalyptic good times: Tallahassee (Woody Harelson), Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). They’ve moved into the White House, but the group becomes splintered when Little Rock leaves to find people her own age, and Wichita freaks out when Columbus proposes to her. When Wichita returns, she finds Columbus already in bed with a new girl, a dumb blonde named Madison (a hilarious Zoey Deutch). The new group heads out to find Little Rock, and have to fight newer, smarter, less easy-to-kill zombies along the way. I’m more of a drama film lover myself, rarely do I re-watch comedies, but this is one that I’d see again and again. The original Zombieland propelled Eisenberg and Stone into superstardom, and now that they are established, I feel like they shine more than they did in the first. Thoroughly enjoying film. I’m on a roll with the good ones today! ★★★★

Queen & Slim has a startling premise, but I just couldn’t get into this one. It stars Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya and newcomer Jodie Turner-Smith as a couple on a blind date when they get pulled over by a cop for failure to signal. The black couple is immediately racially profiled by the white cop, and the situation escalates when he wants to search the car. Queen is a lawyer and starts screaming for the officer’s badge number, and the cop starts roughing up Slim. A struggle ensues, the cop shoots Queen (just a flesh wound), and Slim wrestles the gun away and shoots the cop. Though obviously in self defense, the black duo knows how it will look, and they go on the run. The next 2ish hours is them trying to get away, finding refuge with family and even strangers, black people who have lived with racial profiling and help them on their way. We also delve into family matters in Queen’s history, growing up with serious issues, as well as ramifications of their “celebrity status” among minorities. As a middle class white man from a stable upbringing, I know I can never understand the situations Queen and Slim found themselves in. I’ve been pulled over plenty of times (including times when I was doing nothing wrong other than driving late at night with college friends in the car), but I’ve never mouthed off to a cop or escalated the moment. Thus, it’s hard to relate to a film like this. And even, God forbid, I accidentally killed someone, I still think my instinct would be to explain what happened and face the consequences, and certainly not to try to run. The film features solid performances by the two leads, but I couldn’t connect with them. Plus, there are some truly unbelievable moments in the film. I’m all for poetic license, but come on. ★★

Uncut Gems is the latest from the Safdie brothers (I loved Good Time). It’s a rare serious role for Adam Sandler, but if you’ve seen his other non-comedies (Reign Over Me, Punchdrunk Love), then you know he’s got the acting chops for it. He plays a high-strung, fast-living jewelry store owner named Howard, who lives large and likes to spend money, on his family and his girl on the side. He borrows from everyone, blows it all on gambling, and has run his credit lines to their end. He’s now got everybody after him for payment, but is betting heavily on a new scheme. He’s landed a seriously valuable rock from Ethiopia, a black opal which he hopes to sell for 1 million. True to his baller status, he shows it to basketball player Kevin Garnett when he visits Howard’s store. Garnett falls for it immediately and wants to buy it, but Howard needs it to go auction to get his million. Garnett convinces Howard to let him borrow it for a day, as Garnett sees it as a good luck charm for that night’s playoff game. Howard concedes, but afterwards, has a hard time getting it back. As more people wanting money back come out of the woodwork, and some get violent, Howard keeps putting them off until his big score. This is a hectic and chaotic picture. The actors are constantly talking, and mostly yelling, over each other, so it creates a whole lot of tension. I almost felt my blood pressure rising with the constant screaming. People who don’t feel comfortable with so much angst may not enjoy this picture, but the suspense is top-notch, and Sandler’s performance is as good as he’s ever been. ★★★★

Blow the Man Down is very original-feeling film from a pair of new director-writers, Bridget Savage Cole and Danielle Krudy. Taking place in the tiny fishing village of Easter Cove, Maine, it has a cast of characters as varied and quirky as the plot. Sisters Priscilla and Mary Beth are mourning the death of their mother. Mary Beth goes out that night to get drunk, and ends up in the car of a local hoodlum, Gorski. After wrecking the car, she opens Gorski’s trunk and sees blood. She freaks out and runs, and when Gorski chases her down, she kills him. Mary Beth runs home to Priscilla, and the two try to cover up the murder by dismembering Gorski and throwing him in the ocean. Of course it doesn’t end there, and the next day a body washes up on shore. To the sisters’ surprise, it isn’t Gorksi, but is instead a girl from the local brothel, dead of a gunshot. The seedy underworld of this tiny part of the world comes out, and all are involved, even the town’s little old ladies. Morgan Saylor and Sophie Lowe received top billing, but really it features an ensemble cast, with quite a few recognizable faces from both the small and big screens, though no bonafide “stars.” And for once, I really liked Morgan Saylor. She was the snot-nosed brat in Homeland as a kid, and I didn’t care for her much in We the Coyotes last year, but she shows us a much more nuanced approach in this film. All of the characters are fleshed out and multidimensional, and it’s a great piece showing how a great story, solid acting, and strong direction can combine in a low budget film for a memorable impression. ★★★

I’ve been wanting to see Harriet, a biopic based on the life of real hero Harriet Tubman, from as soon as I’d heard of it. I’m a nut for historical films. Portrayed by Tony and Grammy award winner Cynthia Erivo, it shows Harriet’s life as a slave, through her career rescuing others to freedom. Born Araminta “Minty” Ross, Tubman made the brave journey north by herself the first time, then made many more trips to Maryland and surrounding lands to rescue family, friends, and others. When new laws allowed hunters of fugitive slaves to go north and bring their “property” back south, Harriet continued to work to bring people all the way to Canada. Unfortunately a whole lot of the film feels forced. Don’t get me wrong, there are some good moments, but in an effort to make the good guys “good” and the bad guys “bad,” the majority of characters come off as caricatures rather than fleshed out people, and the soundtrack does nothing more than force emotion. I don’t like feeling like I’m being told what to feel, I prefer filmmakers let those emotions come naturally without being hit over the head with them. They also relied a little too heavily on Tubman’s intuition to get the out of tricky situations, so much so that when things got bad, I waited for the slow pan of her face as she took on a deep contemplative look, while she awaited divine intervention. ★★

The Lighthouse on the other hand, is incredible, and lives up to all the hype. This one features two indelible actors (Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson) who seem perfectly matched to their roles. Wake is an aging lighthouse keeper, who has hired the younger Winslow as a helper for their four week stay on the isolated lighthouse island. While alone there, Winslow or Wake (or both) start slipping. We learn Wake’s previous assistant went crazy on the island, and Winslow isn’t exactly who he claims to be. As Winslow starts hallucinating, and the pair start drinking more and more heavily (especially after they run out of food), things get weird and scary in equal measure. Shot in black and white, and an aspect ratio of just 1.19:1, it has the look and feel of an old-school horror picture, but it is twisted in a way that would never get made 60 or 70 years ago. It also, surprisingly, has a lot of humor, and though the idea of a horror/comedy might sound strange, it works. Young director Robert Eggers has really made a unique picture here. It isn’t going to be for everyone, but film lovers will eat this one up. ★★★★½

Gemini Man could be an amazing film, with strong actors (Will Smith and Clive Owen, backed up by a solid Mary Elizabeth Winstead), often mind-blowingly good fight scenes, and (usually) amazing tech, but unfortunately the movie suffers from a poor story and shoddy writing. It’s an odd miss from historically good director Ang Lee. The film follows Henry (Smith), an aging assassin working for a secret government agency, and probably the best assassin they’ve ever had. However, he thinks he’s finally losing a step, and is ready to retire. Unfortunately they won’t let him go quietly, and when he asks the wrong question, he becomes a target himself. The government group, headed by Owen’s character, sends a new hotshot assassin, Junior, after Henry. The big twist is Junior is a young version of Henry, and is actually a clone, though Junior himself doesn’t know it. The car chases and hand-to-hand fights between these two are really impressive, and the CGI making Will Smith look young is mostly incredible, though there are moments where the facial expressions look false. However, the great moments can’t hide all the warts in the film, and it comes off as a poor man’s Mission Impossible, albeit if the poor man still had a huge budget for everything except the writing department. I’ll give it a couple stars just for the action sequences. ★★

Uncorked is about a young man named Elijah, who works at his family BBQ business in Memphis, a business started by his grandfather, and which will fall to him one day. However, his love isn’t in BBQ, but in wine. He holds a second job at a local wine seller, and has dreams of becoming a master sommelier (basically a wine professional, who would work at a fancy restaurant suggesting the right wines to patrons). The school that classifies sommeliers is very expensive though, and Elijah doesn’t have his dad’s support, who wants Elijah to carry on the family business. Elijah is backed by his mom, but when she grows sick, she is unable to continue to be the bridge between Elijah and his dad, forcing them to come to terms with each other. It’s a decent enough film; there isn’t anything groundbreaking here, but what it has, it does well. There’s a comedic character who provides most of the laughs, and for myself, he grated on me too much and I could have done without his character, but that’s a minor quibble. In the end, the film is about the love of a father and son, and the sacrifices both are willing to make for each other. ★★★

Going to look at some of controversial director Roman Polanski’s films. In my mind, probably a piece of shit as a human being, but he can make some fine films. Up first is Chinatown, considered one of the 2 or 3 best films he ever made. Its a neo-noir featuring a younger Jack Nicholson as Gittes, a private investigator and a good one. After Mrs Mulwray hires him to follow her husband, Gittes becomes embroiled in a mystery when the husband turns up dead, and the real Mrs Mulwray shows up to sue Gittes for his involvement. The mystery goes deeper than just a shadowy death, involving big money and government contracts, and Gittes can’t help himself but to keep pulling at strings to see where they lead. Excellent writing and superb acting with Nicholson and Faye Dunaway in the leads, the film is a fantastic look at the time and collective mind of 1974, when the USA was growing increasingly cynical, what with the failing of the government, our involvement in Vietnam, and a bleaker outlook on life in general. I loved it. ★★★★

Knife in the Water was Polanski’s first feature film, released in 1962, in his native Poland. It follows a simple premise, but the director is able to do something with it. Andrzej is a middle-aged man with a much younger wife, Krystyna. They are on the way to their sailboat for a weekend on the lake when they pick up a hitchhiker, a young man who never gives his name. What follows is a tense weekend full of pissing contests between the two men, who vie for the attention of Krystyna. Andrzej uses his knowledge of boating to ridicule the younger man. Though inexperienced, the man has a youthful exuberance for life that is infectious to Krystyna. Overall I thought the film was very average. I appreciated some moments, creating psychological tension with very little to work with, but I just wasn’t enthralled. Solid, but unremarkable. ★★½

Next up is Macbeth, obviously based on the famous Shakespeare play. I’m ashamed to admit I was unfamiliar with this one. Outside of its reputation as one of the top 3 of his plays, which is saying something of course, I honestly knew nothing about it. Maybe for that reason, going into it blind, I absolutely loved this film. How did I stay away from this story for so long?! The eponymous Macbeth is a Scottish lord and a legendary fighter. After (purportedly) fighting back a horde of enemies single-handedly, Macbeth and his longtime friend Banquo are returning home when they come across a trio of witches. The witches prophesies that Macbeth will become king, and it isn’t long until he is given that opportunity. King Duncan visits Macbeth’s house to celebrate his recent victory, and during the night Macbeth and his wife murder the king and pin it in some of the king’s entourage. The popular Macbeth is indeed named the new king, but almost immediately, he becomes paranoid that others want to take his power for their own. He has Banquo and other former friends and colleagues of his killed, and eventually he is surrounded by thieves and murderers, alone on the throne with no true friends. Things do not end well for old Macbeth. Grisly and sometimes disturbing, Polanski’s telling feels very real and modern (though it came out in 1971 and seems to use the text to the original play faithfully). It is easy to follow, lyrical to listen to, and entirely mesmerizing. A brilliant film. ★★★★★

Overall, I generally enjoyed Tess (based on Thomas Hardy’s classic work Tess of the d’Urbervilles). I have to say I liked it more a couple days later than I did immediately after viewing. It does offer for a lot of reflection. Tess is a beautiful young woman from a very poor family, but her parents have hopes that she can raise herself and them up from their situation. Tess’s dad has recently learned that his family name Durbeyfield is actually a crude version of an old aristocrat family, the d’Ubervilles. He sends Tess off to the surviving members of that ancient family in hopes that she can make an impression, but it turns out that the current d’Ubervilles are nothing more than a rich family who bought the name for its prestige, and aren’t d’Ubervilles at all. Tess’s situation doesn’t get any better, in fact, the whole film is basically one wrong turn after another for our heroine. She is pursued by a man she loathes, and is in love with a man who won’t have her. From the opening scenes, the viewer is struck by absolutely gorgeous cinematography, but what I can’t stop thinking about, is the care Polanski took to making this film. There are movies where directors make things happen, and others where the director lets things happen naturally. Tess goes at a leisurely pace (at nearly 3 hours long), but it never feels slow. And after Tess’s trials throughout, the ending seems very fitting. ★★★½

Cul-de-sac was the first dud that I’d seen of Polanski’s. It was his third film, after the above mentioned Knife in the Water and Repulsion. Honestly I don’t get what anyone sees in this film. A supposed black comedy, it is about a couple gangsters who are fleeing a botched job, who end up at a villa inhabited by a rich effeminate man and his sexually charged wife. What follows is a weird display of sexual tension, absurd wordplay, and over-the-top acting and dialogue. I wasn’t amused, I wasn’t engaged, and I couldn’t wait for it to be over. I kept waiting for some big “ah-ha” moment which never appeared. ★