Clara is an independent science-fiction movie about a scientist/researcher who is obsessed with finding life on other planets. Dr Isaac Bruno has been teaching at the university level to gain access to their research tools, including access to powerful telescopes around the world. The TESS telescope has just launched and the James Webb telescope (successor to the Hubble) is getting ready to, so Isaac is on a time crunch to find a planet viable of having life, to be the first candidate ready when the newest telescope is ready to search. However, Isaac has been in a depressed state for two years, since his wife left him (and other pains, which we learn in the course of the film), and it has been affecting his teaching, leading to him being put on leave and thus losing his assistants and research access. He puts out an ad to find a person to help him work from home, and Clara answers. Clara doesn’t know anything about science, but she’s homeless and needs a place to stay, and she’s smart and quick to learn. Bumps in their research and relationship ensues. I don’t know about director/writer Akash Sherman, but this movie has the feel of a first feature. Decent enough plot (though very predictable), but rough dialogue in spots, which is odd because it has so much scientific jargon. Maybe it’s just the subject matter, but the movie has the look and feel of being written by a person who knows the science but doesn’t know how average people talk and act around each other. And Isaac is too much of a loose cannon, giving up too easily when he meets resistance, for someone who is supposed to be dedicated to a life-long goal. It reminded me a bit of a movie I saw several years ago, I Origins, which is another film that was grounded in science in the beginning, and strayed to science fiction in the end. ★½

Maybe it’s because I don’t watch scary/horror films very often, or maybe I was just in the mood tonight, but I watched The Dead Center, and absolutely loved it. It starts with a John Doe being brought into a morgue after a suicide. As soon as the attendant leaves though, our John sits up and lets himself out. He ends up in a hospital bed down the hall, and the next morning, a nurse finds him catatonic. Not knowing where he came from, she calls the psych ward, where they take him. As a caring doctor there tries to get him to open up, the medical examiner at the morgue starts hunting for his missing body. It isn’t long before our mysterious Lazarus starts behaving very strangely, and people on his ward start ending up dead, of very sudden and peculiar circumstances. This is a slow and steady thriller, with only one “jump scare” that I recall. It is almost all in your head, and the word creepy doesn’t do it justice. Maybe fans of the genre wouldn’t dig it as much, but I was all in. Minor point deduction because some of the actors in this super low budget film aren’t all that great, but some others are actually quite good. ★★★★½

The Ground Beneath My Feet is an Austrian film about a woman, Lola, trying to balance home and work in today’s fast-paced, highly competitive world of business. Her sister Connie has had a life full of psychiatric problems, and her latest suicide attempt comes at an important time at Lola’s work. As such, Lola doesn’t let on at work what she is dealing with at home, trying to keep it hidden. Connie calls her incessantly, telling Lola she’s being mistreated at the hospital, while Lola is working long hours with no sleep. She’s also having a clandestine relationship with her boss, and being promised a big promotion if she does well on this latest project. The film has the feel of a thriller, and I kept thinking something big was going to happen, but it never does. It ends up being a pretty straight forward drama. It is well acted, but honestly there isn’t much to it. If it had gone for a different feel, less menacing, I may have ultimately liked it more. ★★

Ordinary Love is a very sweet movie starring Lesley Manville and Liam Neeson as a couple who’ve been married for decades, and remain best friends. They are alone, having buried their only son years before, but content, and very obviously still very much in love. Their latest tribulation comes when Joan feels a lump to the side of her breast. Trying to be supportive, Tom says it’s probably nothing, but to get it checked just in case. The tests come back positive though, and the film plays out as the next year of chemotherapy treatments, surgeries, pain, and anguish. They get to know other people in the cancer ward fighting their own battles, and through it all, Tom and Joan go through the gamut of emotions. Neeson and Manville do an amazing job of portraying a couple who know, from a lifetime of being together, what to say and how to say it, and are completely at ease around each other, anticipating each other’s movements and speech. It might be an “ordinary love” but it is one which we should all hope to have in our lives. ★★★★

VHYes is a film unlike any other that I can recall. The premise is simple (as is the movie): in 1987, a 12 year old is given a video camera (the old school big ones!) and spends a week filming everything with his new toy. Unbeknownst to his parents, the first tape he picked up was their old wedding video, so intermittent throughout is clips of the wedding as it is getting recorded over. There’s a loose plot of Ralph and his best friend Josh exploring a town legend, and there are also glimpses of the troubled marriage of his parents (as much as the young Ralph can understand), but the majority of the “movie” is snippets of TV shows that Ralph records at night: porn with the “good” parts edited out, a Bob Ross-style painting show by a woman with strange fetishes, an antiques roadshow, some home shopping network, and the like. The clips are, for the most part, extremely funny, and I laughed a whole lot. Anyone my age or older who lived through the 80’s will get a lot of nostalgic laughs out of it. For the most part, the cast is made up of people I didn’t recognize, though there are some familiar faces (not any big “leading men” or “woman” kind of people, but actors you’ve seen before), but at one point Tim Robbins showed up on screen, and a little later, Susan Sarandon, so I thought, “Wait a minute…” And sure enough, the film was made by their son, Jack Henry Robbins. It’s a strange picture, not for everyone, but it’s short (72 minutes) and, I thought, entertaining. There’s also some good creepy moments and even some dark thrills. ★★★

Just Mercy is a timely movie, and an incredible one, with the great actor Michael B Jordan, who I see as a young Denzel, with all of his charisma and charm. Based on a true story, Jordan plays freshly graduated lawyer (from Harvard) Bryan Stevenson. Instead of seeking a high profile, high paying job, Stevenson, who came from a humble background, makes the decision to help people who haven’t been given a fair shake in the criminal system. Specifically, he heads to death row, and convicts who couldn’t afford good representation, in attempting to get them new trials, appeals, or pardons. The film mostly focuses on the case of Johnny D McMillian, who was convicted in the 1986 murder of a white young woman. The conviction was a joke, based entirely on the testimony of one man, under very shady circumstances. Stevenson sets out to prove McMillian’s innocence before it is too late. The film also shows others on the death row, and attempts to portray the brutality of the system. Even the older man who is definitely guilty of his crime, and admits as much, is painted as a sympathetic case: a man who is extremely remorseful for his sin all those years ago, and wishes he could take it back, not just because he is afraid of his impending death, but because of true remorse. I don’t think the movie will change anyone’s mind; if you are for or against the death penalty, you will most likely still be after, but it is a thought-provoking picture with supremely good acting by Jordan and Jamie Foxx (as McMillian). ★★★★★

Ever have those movies that start great, and fizzle out far too quickly? The latest example is Human Capital. The opening scene is a bicyclist going down a dark road at night, and he gets hit by a car. The film then flashes back to a different, seemingly uninvolved character named Drew (Liev Schreiber) and his events leading up to and after that night. Drew is an average guy whose daughter is dating a boy from a very wealthy family, including Quint (Peter Sarsgaard) and Carrie (Marisa Tomei). Quint is a hedge fund manager, and Drew sees an opportunity to make a lot of money quick. He gets a risky $300k loan from the bank, lying on the appropriate SEC forms about his income and wealth to pass their checks, and gives the money to Quint to make a quick fortune. He doesn’t know that Quint’s firm is on shaky ground. Sounds great doesn’t it? And it is, until Drew’s story comes to an end and we switch to another character. Other stories are told, including Quint’s, Carrie’s, and each of the teenagers involved, but none are as intriguing as the opener’s. Of course all blend together and it is supposed to end on a big reveal on how they weave in and out, but by then, I had stopped caring very much. The film devolves into a series of clichés and tropes; a lot of wasted potential. ★★½

Richard Jewell is the latest from director Clint Eastwood, and it is exactly what you expect it to be; whether that is good or bad is up to the viewer to decide. It tells the true story of Jewell, first the hero that found the bomb at the Atlanta city bombing during the Olympic Games in 1996, and later the prime suspect as the FBI centered on him despite absolutely zero evidence. We see all sides, including the media who rushed to sensationalize the story to sell papers, the lead FBI agent who refused to admit he could be wrong, Jewell’s friend and lawyer, and he and his mother, who became victims of the entire system. The acting is fine enough (Paul Walter Hauser as Jewell, Kathy Bates as his mom, and Sam Rockwell as the lawyer Watson), but the story is too dry and generic. Maybe a younger generation who wasn’t aware of Jewell would get more out of it, but being an Olympics junky (I was actually in Atlanta at the start of the games, though gone by the time the bombing occurred), I knew most of the story already. For me, the film was just “ok.” ★★½

A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a story about Mr Rogers, but as he lived in life, so is the film, meaning, Mr Rogers isn’t the focus. The main character is a journalist named Lloyd, who is given an assignment to do a fluff piece on Fred Rogers in the late 90’s. Lloyd has made a name for himself by looking for dirt on his interviewees, but he is unable to find an angle on Mr Rogers. Rogers really is as nice as the character he shows on TV, in fact, he is taken aback when Lloyd asks how he is “in real life,” like he’s different on TV. The theme of the film is growing as a person. Lloyd hates his father, hasn’t spoken to him in years, and rightfully so after the father did what would be for most people an unforgivable sin. But Rogers gets Lloyd to see past that, and look for the peace at the end, and Rogers doesn’t do it with words or lectures, but through example. It’s a wonderful movie about forgiveness, and trying to be the best person you can be, with tremendous acting by Matthew Rhys (from The Americans) as Lloyd, Chris Cooper as his father Jerry, and Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers. Hanks had his mannerisms and way of talking down cold. And as good of a person Rogers was in life, the film does point out that he wasn’t perfect, and that he tried every day to be better. I think the only people that wouldn’t enjoy this film are true cynics who, like Lloyd in the beginning, are only looking to tear people down. ★★★

I just watched The Tree of Life a couple years ago, and it was a profound experience for me at the time. I went into Terrence Malick’s newest film, A Hidden Life, with high expectations. Unfortunately this one was a let down. Let’s get the obvious out of the way: it is a beautifully shot film, with Malick’s trademark scenic shots, meant to invoke thoughts of the grandeur of life and nature, are again absolutely gorgeous here. The film takes place in the hills and mountains of Austria in the 1930’s, and the scenery is breathtaking. But that’s the highlight of this film for me, and you can’t just watch that for three hours (yes, three!). The movie is based on a true story about a conscientious objector who refused to fight for Hitler in World War II. Franz is a farmer with wife and kids in the small community when war begins to break out. He goes through training, but when France surrenders and everyone thinks the war will be over soon, he is sent home. When the war lingers on, Franz and his fellows are called back, but he resists. This brings turmoil to the family, making them the target of neighbors who fear Germany’s wrath on their community, and even his kids are bullied. Franz finally relents for fear of safety of his family, but at the roundup, Franz refuses to swear fealty to Hitler. This lands him in jail for the next couple years, and the film becomes a series of letters written back and forth between Franz and his wife. If you’ve seen the last 10 years of Malick’s films, you know about his famous pacing (or infamous, if it isn’t to your taste). I often don’t mind a quiet, slow film, but this one will test anyone. I watched through it all waiting for a moment of profound clarity, but it never arrived. A couple stars for the cinematography, but that’s it. ★★

Desert Hearts, released in 1985 but set in Reno in 1959, is based on the book Desert of the Heart by Jane Rule. Vivian is a 35-year-old in search of a quick divorce from her husband, so she’s come to Reno to establish residency, by staying for 6 weeks, after which divorces are easy to get in the 50’s. She’s staying at a ranch with other women awaiting the same thing, a ranch run by Frances. While there, Vivian meets 20-something Cay, who’s been raised by Frances (Cay’s father’s previous mistress). Whereas Cay is a free spirit, Vivian is an English professor at Columbia University and has run in high society circles because of her profession (and admits even her marriage was a “professional” marriage). They are immediately attracted to each other, but this is a dangerous feeling for Vivian. In the 1950’s, lesbianism was more than frowned upon, it could get you ostracized, something Cay is fine with, but Vivian is afraid to accept. The acting is so-so, but the story is good, about a woman overcoming fears to live the life she wants. The film was ahead of its time too. Even in the 80’s when it was being made, director Donna Deitch had a hard time securing funding to make such a risqué film, much less actresses willing to play lesbians on camera. ★★★

Watership Down is an animated film based on the famous children’s book by Richard Adams. It tells of a group of rabbits who leave their home (warren) together, after one of their own, a young rabbit named Fiver, sees a vision of their home being torn up. Fiver’s older brother Hazel leads them away, past the human signs talking about a future development for new homes, in search of a safe, new warren. The group faces trials along the way, including deaths, farmers, and hunters. When they finally find a picturesque hill away from other predators, you think their adventure is over, but they find that a cruel rabbit leader nearby keeps his clan on a tight leash in a totalitarian system. Hazel and his group want to free the rabbits from under this terrible rule, but it is a dangerous mission. For me, it was refreshing to see a truly hand-drawn animated picture, made me think about my childhood pictures. It is well done, though I think it is probably a little slow for today’s YouTube-era child. The violence is also very violent, with bloody battles, and the film doesn’t shy away from the dangerous and vicious world in which our rabbits live. The final confrontation at the the very end of the picture is as tense as you’ll see in a “kid’s movie.” ★★★½

Fail Safe comes from 1964, based on a recent book of the same name, and brings together again director Sidney Lument and actor Henry Fonda, who together had previously made one of my favorite movies. This one is nearly as thrilling as that courtroom drama, but brings the suspense to the cold war of the 60’s. The USA continually runs planes in the sky, loaded with nukes, ready at all times for the word to head straight for Moscow. An increasingly complex computer program cycles them in and out, but when a system fails one day, a group of 6 fighters get a message to proceed with the attack, rather than turn back. What follows is an hour of tense exchanges between our government and Russia. Our president is able to convince his counterpart that it was indeed an accident, and the two countries share classified information in an attempt to shoot down the bombers before they reach their target. Frightening because it is plausible, this is a suspenseful film that will keep your attention. Excellent performance by Fonda as the calm and collected president, with a cast of familiar faces including Walter Matthau and Dom DeLuise. ★★★★

Celebrated director Ang Lee’s The Ice Storm stuck with me. Released in 1997 and taking place in 1973, when the USA was at a crossroads, what with Vietnam and the Watergate scandal, it follows two neighboring families with a whole lot going on, over a long Thanksgiving weekend. Ben and Elena are on the rocks, and their kids Paul and Wendy are left to their devices. Next door, Jim and Janey, and kids Mikey and Sandy, are in much the same position. In a barely-kept secret, Ben and Janey are having an affair. Paul is the oldest of the kids and is at a boarding school, weaving his way through burgeoning sexuality, while his 14-year-old sister is doing the same while still at home. As the film plays out, we see that the parents are just as sexually confused as their kids, and maybe more so, since as adults, you’d think they’d have it all figured out. At least the kids’ endeavors have a certain innocence that comes from unknowing, but as the film points out, adults don’t always have the answers to important questions in life. The film has humor, love, loss, and longing, and even a sense of foreboding as the eponymous storm approaches. I was absolutely enchanted with this film from the opening minutes, loved every scene. It paints a beautiful picture of flawed people, but people made more beautiful because of their imperfections. A great cast too: the adults were established actors in 1997 (Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, Jamey Sheridan, and Sigourney Weaver), but the teenagers were mostly as-yet unknowns (Tobey Maguire, Elijah Wood, Katie Holmes) with one exception (Christina Ricci). ★★★★★

If you’ve been reading my blog for awhile, you know my stance on Roman Polanski as a person, so I won’t delve into that again. But I enjoy his movies for the most part. I finally watched one of his most celebrated, 1968’s Rosemary’s Baby. This is a great psychological thriller, about a young woman and her husband moving into an old apartment in New York City. Guy and “Ro” (John Cassavetes and Mia Farrow) have a good marriage and are looking into starting a family. Rosemary meets a fellow young woman in the building named Terry, who has glowing things to say about Minnie and Roman, who took her in, but shortly thereafter, Terry kills herself when she jumps from the building. Rosemary then meets Minnie and Roman, an older couple. She doesn’t take to them, thinking they are kooky and nosy, but after a little reluctance, Guy takes to them pretty well. Rose starts having nightmares about Minnie and Roman and their older friends, but when she airs her feelings about the couple, Guy puts her off by agreeing to have a baby. Rosemary gets pregnant pretty quickly, but something is wrong from the getgo. She starts having pains, but the doctor (who was recommended by Minnie) doesn’t seem worried. A film which already had a sinister feel gets darker as it goes along. It is a deliciously grand thriller; I kept going back and forth on whether this was real, or all in Rosemary’s head. Say what you will about Polanski, but he’s made some great films. ★★★★

Like most, I’m very aware of the scandal with American Catholic priests, but unfortunately, I did not follow the path it took around the world. By the Grace of God is a French film, based on the true story of a group of men who, molested as children by the same priest, band together to make sure the world becomes aware of what he did, and what the church did to allow it to keep happening. Alexandre comes forward first, and for awhile, he fights the fight alone. Bernard Preynat led the local boy scouts when Alexandre was a kid, and molested him several times. Now 40 years old, the statute of limitations has expired for Alexandre, but he is driven to find fellow victims, and especially, ones who may have been molested more recently, so as to go after Preynat legally. Alexandre also wants to hit the higher-up priests who protected Preynat all those years ago, and who continue to do so to this day. Over the course of the film, Alexandre’s work does reach others, notably François and Emmanuel, who join the movement for justice. It’s an all right movie, emotional without being heavy handed, but has a little too much of the paint-by-numbers feel for my tastes. So much of the picture is just a stream of dialogue, letters spoken to the viewer, etc., and since it is French movie, as an English speaker, I felt like I was reading a book more than watching a movie. But that’s my problem and not the fault of the filmmakers. ★★★

What We Do in the Shadows isn’t a recent film (comes from 2014), but it was recommended to me (shout out to The Conductor) and it looked very interesting. Directed by Taika Waititi (and later made into a series on FX, which I definitely now have to check out too!), it is a fake documentary film following a quartet of vampires sharing a flat in New Zealand. A film crew is doing a doc on them (protected by crucifixes and guaranteed safety by their subjects) as the big, annual Unholy Masquerade is approaching. That event does happen towards the end, but the film is more about the daily, modern lives of our undead antiheroes. And it is fantastically funny. Starring a few unknowns (to me) as well as Waititi himself and Jemaine Clement (a few films, but most recently as Oliver in FX’s Legion – seriously go watch it if you haven’t), our vampires are lovable despite going out and killing people every night. Viago, Vlad, and the others detail the problems with “living” as a modern vampire, such as finding the right outfit when you can’t check yourself out in the mirror, being outcasts because they keep a human friend, and not being able to go in a nightclub because they haven’t been invited in. It’s a great comedy with high re-watch merit. ★★★★

Clemency is a powerful film, about the people surrounding a man on death row and nearing the end of his life. Tony Woods has been on death row for 15 years after being convicted of killing a man. Tony admits he was there that fateful night but has always denied he pulled the trigger, and there is proof that he may be telling the truth, in that forensics say the shooter was left handed and Tony is not. Despite that, Tony is just about at the end of his rope. The film’s main character isn’t Tony though, it is the warden of the prison, Bernadine (played by Alfre Woodard). Bernadine has just overseen her 11th execution, one that went bad when the drugs didn’t work as intended and the subject was in obvious pain for several long seconds before his life ended. Bernadine is wracked with guilt and depression over his death, as well as the others that came before, and is slowly creeping with dread toward’s Tony’s day, despite outwardly trying to appear calm and collected for the safety of her staff and inmates. The film does a fantastic job dealing with a touchy subject in a matter-of-fact way which shows the sides of all involved, from Tony to Bernadine, the prison’s chaplain to Tony’s long-suffering lawyer, who is set to retire after this last case, tired and worn down from a lifetime of fighting against the system to save people from execution. Tony is a man who has power over nothing, who has lived 15 years with little hope, and the movie does a tremendous job of letting us glimpse how that can feel to a person. The only subplot I didn’t dig was the strained relationship of Bernadine and her husband. It was introduced to show the pressure she’s under, but Woodard’s acting did a good enough job of that without those added and oftentimes unnecessary scenes. That’s a minor quibble though; the film is fantastic. ★★★★

Bombshell is based on the downfall of Fox News exec Roger Ailes, centering on allegations against him of sexual misconduct brought by women at the channel, specifically from Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly. Carlson has refused his advances for years and has found herself demoted within the organization and on her way to being fired. Kelly also has denied Ailes for years, but her popularity with the public has kept her safe, until now, when she’s been butting heads with Donald Trump on his campaign trail for president. Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron are solid as the two leading ladies (though I was distracted by Theron forcing her voice lower to impersonate Kelly’s deeper tone; I don’t think it was necessary for the role). The third of the trio of women front and center is a “Kayla” (Margot Robbie, who’s been on a roll here lately), a character who is an amalgamation of young women at the station who find themselves having to decide between sex with Ailes or looking for a new job. I enjoyed the movie overall, though I suspect it is one of those that is good when you watch it the first time, but doesn’t have much replay value. The movie is just a bit too sensational for me as well, I feel it could have dug deeper into the support system women need to feel safe at work. ★★★½

Films like The Vast of Night are reasons why I love watching movies. Obviously done on a miniscule budget, with believable performances by actors you’ve never heard of, yet it is gripping, tense, and utterly enjoyable. It is a creepy-esque sci-fi film that takes place in a tiny town in New Mexico in the 1950’s. With nothing to do in the town, high school sports reign supreme, so on the night of a basketball game, everyone in town is at the school, except for our focal characters. High schooler Fay has a single mom who struggles to pay the bills in 1950s America, so Fay is working the switchboard for the tiny town when she hears a strange noise coming first from the radio, and then over the phone lines. She tries to call the few people she knows aren’t at the game, but the line is cut off inexplicably. So she calls slightly older (and object of desire of all the girls in school) Everett, who hosts a nighttime radio program and also, thus, is not at the game. The two spend the rest of the evening trying to sourse this noise, and its origins. As listerners call in to the show talking about strange happenings outside of town, the mystery slowly starts to unfold. To say more than that would ruin it for you. Go watch it, it’s free on Amazon Prime, and well worth your 90 minutes. ★★★★½

Sacha Guitry was a playwright and director in the early 20th Century in France. He wrote and produced several successful plays in Paris, but avoided making movies during the silent era (after watching a couple of his pictures, I see that he loves quick and counterpointed dialogue, which would be impossible to pull off in intertitles) but embraced talkies once they became standard. Today I’ll look at 8 of his films from the 1930’s, culled from the nice sets put out by Arrow Films and the Criterion Collection.

The New Testament is based on a play of his and is pretty much a filmed play, mostly on one set. It follows Jean, a successful doctor, his wife Lucie, and their circle of friends and servants. One day Jean doesn’t come home to a dinner party, but a stranger appears at the door with his jacket. Lucie worriedly goes through its pockets, and they find his last will and testament. Frantic for a clue to his whereabouts, they open it, and find a shock. Jean confesses to having an affair with a woman who (coincidentally?) shares the name with his new secretary, and more than that, admits he knows of his wife’s adultery too, with a (very young) friend present for the dinner party. When Jean swoops through the door, those present hide the will and pretend nothing is amiss. The film is a bit dated, but a lot of the quick dialogue is still funny today. But in an old-timey way, the “play” is entirely spoken, with no real action to break it up. As such, as a non-native language viewer, you are stuck reading constantly. I like foreign films, but it’s hard when you don’t get to actually watch much of what the actors or doing because you are tied to the text at the bottom of the screen. ★★

The Story of a Cheat (aka Confessions of a Cheat) is leagues better, and also, I think, way ahead of its time. It starts with Guitry, in voice-over fashion, introducing the actors and film crew who are involved in making the picture, including the composer of the music, the film editors, the producer, etc., a technique that Orson Welles would later famously do as well, and an outside-the-box idea that you can envision inspiring a young Truffaut or Resnais during the French New Wave 20 years later. When it gets going, the film is also very uniquely done. It is entirely narrated by “the cheat,” who is writing his memoir in a café, even going so far as to speak for his actors when they have a line to deliver. He begins as a young man, when he is grounded from eating the mushroom delicacy which was prepared for dinner (grounded because he was caught stealing from the till at his parent’s store), only to become the sole survivor after said mushrooms killed the other 11 members of the family. From then on, our narrator tries to go the straight and narrow path of honesty, but always seems to be pulled into schemes by less scrupulous people around him, from coworkers to beautiful femme fatales. Though we only hear one voice, his, through all of the film, it never gets stale. For one, it is truly funny, not dated at all, and is beautifully written. For two, the story has some fabulous twists and turns that keeps the viewer on his toes as we go through the peaks and valleys of our antihero’s life. I loved every minute of it. ★★★★

Like The New Testament, My Father Was Right is also based on a play of Guitry’s, and unfortunately the other thing they have in common is being a total bore. There’s even less going on in this film than there was in the first. The overall gist is about learning to live life to be happy and not to worry about what may or may not happen to destroy that happiness. A wealthy man raises his son on his own, after the mother flew the coup 20 years previously, and as a young man, the son has a distrust of women for fear of betrayal. It is up the father to assuage his fears. That’s really it, and it takes nearly 2 hours to get through it. There are some moments of brevity but the whole thing is pretty monotonous. The Story of a Cheat was based on a book Guitry had written, but so far, the two film adaptations of his plays have been a struggle to get through. ★

And uh-oh: another play-based film. Let’s Make a Dream comes from a play of Guitry’s from 1916. I settled in with little hope for a pleasant film. Maybe it was the low expectations, but I enjoyed this one! It’s another simple story: a husband is most clearly planning to run around on his wife one night, so she goes off to sleep with a new man of her own. What should have been a quick evening tryst goes awry when they end up sleeping through the night. The next morning, she is distraught about how to go home to her waiting husband, so her new lover plans how to get them off scott free. The big twist is yet to come though! The best part of the film is the long monologues delivered by the lover, both alone to the viewers and to his new girl later. Witty and engaging, it’s a clever and funny picture. I’m not entirely sure today’s average moviegoer would dig it, but the banter is top notch. ★★★

Pearls of the Crown is another original work of Guitry’s, not based on a previous play of his, and it was his most ambitious film to that point. It is the (fictitious) story of 7 pearls, four of which would go on to adorn the crown of England, and the other 3 which seem to be lost to time. Told in flashback over the course of 400 years, the tale jumps countries constantly with a revolving multitude of cast members, and involves kings, queens, mistresses, and popes. Guitry, always playing the leading man in his films, plays 3 or 4 of them here, including King François of France and Napolean III. He brings his trademark irreverent dialogue to this film, but that’s the only highlight. There was so much going on, I felt a bit lost at times. And frankly it’s all a bit boring for too-long stretches. The film has good moments, and some chuckles, but it felt really long, and wasn’t even 2 hours. ★½

Man oh man, I’m up and down with this director. I really liked Désiré, the story of a butler (with the title’s name) who takes a job with a well-to-do society woman named Odette. Odette is dating a politician and runs her household in the strict, time-honored fashion of delineated boundaries between servants and master. Though she is kind to Désiré and the maid, Madeleine, she makes sure to keep them separate from herself and her boyfriend Felix. Désiré comes from a family of valets and knows his place, and he is very good at it, but for some reason, he and Odette share some kind of subliminal attraction to each other: each night, they dream about each other and even call out their names in their sleep, much to Felix’s chagrin. Désiré is aghast at this breach of protocol, as is Odette for much the same reason. The movie is comedy, but also strays towards satire in poking fun at the differences in class. The best scene is the second-to-last act, a dinner party involving Felix, Odette, and a deaf friend, with Désiré waiting on them. It is pure laughs throughout. The ending drops the comedy though, and becomes quite poignant as Guitry screams for equal treatment for the “lesser” class. ★★★

Let’s Go Up the Champs-Élysées is alright I guess. It is very similar to Pearls of the Crown, in that it is a “historical” story, in this case, about the famous venue in Paris and how it came to be, but that is just the backstory. Mostly the film focuses on a few key players, kings of France and whatnot, because the person telling the story happens to be distantly related. The storyteller in this case is a teacher, who is 64 years old today, a significant age in the history of his family. It seems his ancestors always fell in love at 54, and died at 64, so on this special day, he tells the tale of his lineage to his class. It is a long and winding story, made by head spin a bit at times. While not a complete dud, it wasn’t as engaging as the better Guitry pictures, and distinctly lacked the comedic wit of the films I’d enjoyed to this point. I have one more to go to finish this set, I’m hoping to finish with a good one. ★★

Did indeed end on a good note. Quadrille came out in 1938 (can you believe Guitry made all 8 of these films in a 3 year window, 1936-’38?!) and is about a long quadrangle. Philippe is a decent enough guy; he’s always stayed faithful to the woman in his life, though his first marriage ended after she cheated. He’s been with a successful actress, Paulette, for a number of years now, and they are discussing marriage, when her eye strays to a popular (and young) American actor named Carl. She goes and has a one-night fling with him, and the next morning, is torn between returning to Philippe or latching on to Carl for good. When Carl goes off to do his own thing, Paulette begs Philippe to take her back, but for how long? It seems she can’t control herself whenever Carl is around! Tired of her antics, Philippe starts eyeing his own young plaything, Claudine, whom he’s known since she was young but who is now a dashing young woman. As verbose as any of Guitry’s pictures, it was just clever enough to keep my attention. After seeing all these films, I’ve definitely come to know his style. While dated, some of these pictures can still be entertaining if you sit back and enjoy the wordplay, because ultimately, that’s really the focus of all of these films. ★★★

One actress I’ve done a complete 180 on is Kristen Stewart. I used to think she couldn’t act her way out of a paper bag, but I adore her these days. Her latest is Seberg, where she portrays the actress Jean Seberg, made world famous for her role in Jean-Luc Godard’s breakout picture of the French New Wave, Breathless, in 1960. Seberg details her later life, starting in the late 60s, and centers around her relationship with Hakim Jamal, a black man and activist. This relationship, as well as Jean’s giving of money to civil rights groups, draws the attention of the FBI, who start monitoring and even harassing her. These intrusions produce a lot of anxiety and paranoia for Jean, and she spirals down a dark path. The film has some great actors including Anthony Mackie, Jack O’Connell, Vince Vaughn, and Colm Meaney, but the stars can’t save the picture. It’s a bit of a mess, despite Stewart giving it her all. She is convincing as a woman losing her grip on the reality around her and sinking into depression, but the picture feels superficial, and I felt like it could be more. Having said that, Stewart fans should still see it, just to remind yourself how good she is. ★★½

Birds of Prey follows the fabulous Harley Quinn, in a standalone picture of the antihero introduced in the DC film universe in Suicide Squad. When I saw that film a couple years ago, I wrote that I would like to see some characters get their own picture, so here we go! And the film is actually really good. It helps that Quinn is such an outlandish, cartoonish villain, and Margot Robbie portrays her insanity to perfection. Harley is fresh off her breakup with the Joker and looking to establish herself as more than just a side piece. Unfortunately, without Joker’s protection, she’s become the target for anyone she’s wronged over the years, and that list is long. To add to her troubles, she’s become entangled in the hunt for an extremely rare diamond, being chased by cops and supervillain Black Mask (a wonderfully insane and diabolical Ewan McGregor). The film stretches reality and leans heavily on the comic book elements of its origin, which is most evident in the bizarre and over-the-top fight scenes, but because Harley has set the stage for the nutty feel of the film, it all works. The film is a lot of fun, may be the best DC film I’ve seen yet (in regards to the interconnected films anyway, Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker was spectacular but not connected to the others). If you too have seen this film and liked it, you should also check out the recent DC adult cartoon. It is a heavy R rating, like the film, and features an all-star voice cast. It is more humor and less heart than this picture, but has plenty of great laughs. ★★★★

Jojo Rabbit comes from director Taika Waititi, who is famous for Thor: Ragnarok but who also had previously done Hunt for the Wilderpeople. This newest picture has more of the feel of the latter, though I enjoyed Jojo a lot more than that one. The premise is a bit ridiculous, but like Birds of Prey, it works, this time due to a wonderful story (a bit tried-and-true, but well done) and excellent direction. Jojo is a 10 year old in the final months of Germany’s part in World War II. A young German boy, he idolizes Hitler, and even sees and talks to him as an imaginary friend (portrayed by Waititi himself). Jojo’s faith in the Nazi party’s direction is tested one day when he finds that his mother has been hiding a teenage Jewish girl in their attic. As Jojo gets to know Elsa, and also realizing his mother doesn’t share his own love of the Nazi party, Jojo has to look inside and ask some hard questions about his country and friends. For a story like this, it would be easy to make it a very dark picture, and there are heavy moments which the camera doesn’t shy away from, but Waititi is able to lighten the mood with humor, often at his own expense in his portrayal of a whimsical, goofy, and borderline flamboyant Hitler. I usually loath child actors, but Roman Griffin Davis is endearing as Jojo in this coming-of-age picture. Great supporting work from Scarlett Johansson, Thomas McKenzie, and Sam Rockwell (one of my favorites) as well. This is one of those pictures with a high re-watch value. ★★★★½

I liked the premise of Frankie enough to see it, but I had some trepidations. It is about a family reunion in an idyllic area of Portugal, a reunion put together by the matriach, François Crémont, because she is dying of cancer and wants to see everyone in peace. Frankie is a renowned actress (and played by renowned actress Isabelle Huppert herself) and she wants to see her adult son Paul married, and so has invited a long-time friend on this family vacation to set them up. The film takes place over a single long day, with the focus being on the relationships within the family, some strong, but most of which are splintered, or at least, splintering. My trepidations were well founded; as expected, it unfortunately comes off as a lot of self indulgent tripe. It’s the kind of art film where the actors speak to each other in ways that real people don’t normally converse, the kind of picture that critics eat up and average moviegoers leave bored out of their mind. I was in the middle: not bored, because I do not mind the pacing for a film like this, but ultimately there’s nothing rewarding or memorable about it. The best thing I can say about the film is the setting of the Portuguese Riviera is breathtaking. But that’s really the best thing I can say. ★

Dark Waters, based on a true story that started in 1998, is about a farmer from West Virginia who approaches a lawyer about cows on his farm dying by the droves, and the farmer thinks the chemical group DuPont is to blame. The lawyer, Robert Bilott, is from that area of WV, went to a tiny law school, and as such is playfully joked about at his big law firm, where he was just made a partner after years of hard work. Rob starts digging into DuPont, first as a favor to the community he was from, but then harder over time as he realizes DuPont knew about the chemical and its dangers, and covered it up for years. The chemical in question, PFOA or also known as C-8, is a main ingredient in teflon, which is used in everything from pots and pans to carpet to clothing, anything that manufacturers want to repel water. DuPont drags the case out for years, trying to get by on small settlements to individual parties of a few million here and there (pocket change to them, as Rob points out), but Rob won’t let up, despite the toll it takes on his firm and family. The film is eye-opening. I remember the whole teflon news when it came out but honestly didn’t pay much attention at the time, but I for one will be going out and buying new pots and pans soon (those made after 2013 no longer have PFOA, as a result of this case, and I’m pretty sure my old ass ones are from before then). As a picture, it is just ok, despite the lead being another one of my favorites, the highly underrated Mark Ruffalo. The dialogue is often atrociously bad, even though delivered by some good actors like Tim Robbins and Anne Hathaway. So bad that it made me chuckle and roll my eyes more than a couple times. Chalk that up to poor writing I guess, and it’s a shame, because this story had potential. Due yourself a favor, and read about PFOA and its lasting effects on health. ★★

Going to look at some of the most popular films of Ernst Lubitsch. He was extremely popular (and bankable) in his day, but you don’t hear much about these movies anymore. The Shop Around the Corner stars Jimmy Stewart (a few years before It’s a Wonderful Life) and Margaret Sullavan as coworkers in a small goods shop. They can’t stand each other, but unbeknownst to them, they’ve been writing anonymous letters to each other through a post office box and falling in love with that ideal person. The banter between them and the other workers in the store is fantastic, and there’s a whole plot involving the owner of the store (Frank Morgan, more popular known as the Wizard himself in The Wizard of Oz), and the owner’s wife having an affair with one of the other employees. But the developing love story between our two leads is the real draw. A very popular film, it was remade a couple times, into In the Good Old Summertime (starring Judy Garland) and, most recently, You’ve Got Mail with Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. Though Mail credits the original play as its inspiration, it obviously draws heavily from this film (and if you remember, the bookstore that Meg Ryan’s character owns is named “Shop Around the Corner”). ★★★

The above film is from 1940, but a lot changed between it and 1933’s Design for Living, specifically, 1933 is pre-Hollywood Code. As such, more than just innuendo about sex, we get straight up talk about sex and straight up (off camera) sex. And it’s funny too! This film is about a girl, Gilda (Miriam Hopkins), who ends up on a train to Paris with a couple of men, roommates named Thomas (Fredric March) and George (Gary Cooper). Gilda is a successful corporate artist in advertising but the two men are struggling in their artistic endeavors, Thomas as a playwright and George as an artist. Each of the men instantly fall head over heels for the beautiful and vivacious Gilda, and in wonderful pre-code fashion, she’s not timid or shy about her own needs: she wants them both! The two men try to put bros before hoes and shake on not pursuing the girl, but neither can keep up his end of the bargain. When Thomas goes away to London to open a play, Gilda starts sleeping with George, but romps with Thomas when he comes back to visit. The film is delightfully funny, and though I haven’t seen a lot of pre-code films, I think they are so far ahead of their time in depicting strong women who stand up for themselves and what they want, physically and otherwise. It’s a fantastically fun film, based on a play by Noël Coward (loved the stuff David Lean did based on his plays). Unsurprisingly, when the Hollywood Code hammer came down the next year, Design for Living was banned by the Catholic League of Decency. ★★★★

Imagine the deftness of writing and direction it takes to combine nail biting suspense with laugh-out-loud comedy. That’s what is found in To Be or Not to Be. The film follows the actors of a small theater in Warsaw, Poland, in the days leading up to and just after the Nazi invasion. Josef Tura (Jack Benny) is the leading man, supported by his wife Maria (Carole Lombard). Maria meets with a young Polish airman in her dressing room each night during the performances, and once the invasion begins, the young man goes to England where he can fight the Germans. There, he meets a Polish resistance leader, Professor Siletsky, and gives him a message to give Maria. However, Siletsky is actually a spy for Germany, and has been gathering intel on those Polish citizens who have gone over to fight against the invaders. Back in Poland, Josef and Maria have been doing what they can to support the resistance, and now take it upon themselves to kill Siletsky before he can pass on his intel to the gestapo. Sounds dire, and it is, but this black comedy is also incredibly funny. The comedic lines are delivered perfectly, at unforeseen moments, so that even when you are leaning forward during a tense exchange, when the actors are in very real fear of death, something will be said that will ease the tension and produce a laugh. Done poorly, and either the drama or the comedy suffers, but nothing is done incorrectly in this film. It all goes together so wonderfully. If the writing isn’t perfect, or if the direction isn’t spot on, or if the lines aren’t delivered just so, a movie like this could be a mess. Instead, it all comes together to brilliance. The film was not well received when it was released in 1942, it was after all satirizing the Nazi party when they were doing some very terrible things. But seen today, it is a whole other story. On a side note, Lubitsch (a German-born Jew who was a successful director in Germany before the war, and in Hollywood during it) was particularly despised by Hitler, who used Lubitsch’s face in propaganda pictures. ★★★★★

Heaven Can Wait is the first clunker from this director that I’ve seen. It still has some of the witty dialogue, but wasn’t all that intriguing for me. An old man has just died and rather than arrive at the pearly gates, he gets to the one place where everyone in his life has told him to go. At hell’s vestibule, Henry is greeted by a suave and welcoming Satan, who admits he isn’t familiar with Henry’s credentials to get him into hell. Henry begins to recount what he believes is a bad life, starting with being a naughty child, and then into adulthood, where he ran away with his cousin’s betrothed, only to continue his dalliances (off-camera of course). Henry always had a way with words, which kept him out of serious trouble throughout his life, and he uses them to save his marriage. Henry is portrayed by a young Don Ameche, who I recognized immediately from films of my childhood (Cocoon and Trading Places – one of my favorites as a kid). But nothing is memorable about this film unfortunately. ★★

Cluny Brown is a young woman, niece to a plumber, who isn’t afraid to do things for herself (and in fact, loves crawling under a sink and fixing a leak herself). When she responds to a service call in place of her uncle and does just this, she meets a foreigner named Mr Belinski, who is in London in hiding from Hitler’s Nazis. Mr Belinski is smitten with the modern Cluny, and fate brings them together again when they meet in the country, after Cluny is there to become a maid and Belinski is again in hiding. Cluny tries to do what she thinks is proper and has a date with the local pharmacist, but Belinski tries to convince her that the man is not for her, with his staid and unadventurous lifestyle. It’s a very nice romantic comedy, with Lubitsch’s trademark risqué interchanges. And holy cow, how did some of this dialogue get past 1940’s censors?! There’s a delightful scene where Cluny is thanking Mr Belinski for meeting him in the city and rolling down her stockings and banging it out (meaning the plumbing) within earshot of the housekeepers, who are obviously flabbergasted. The dialogue is the best part of the film, as the story is a little too expected. Nuts to the squirrels! ★★★½

Brute Force may be one of the best prison films I’ve ever seen. Released in 1947 and directed by the great Jules Dassin before he was blacklisted during McCarthy’s communist witch hunt, it features a couple young stars in Burt Lancaster and Hume Cronyn. The “action” of the film takes place entirely in a prison, where the inmates all dream of getting out and returning to their girls waiting on the outside. No one wants out more than rabble-rouser Joe Collins. The other prisoners follow his example, and the guards are understandably weary around him because of this. Joe is particularly opposed by the sadistic captain of the guard, Munsey. Munsey plays the prisoners off of each other, fermenting paranoia and angst among them. Joe is onto the game though, and is able to gather a few close friends to plan a real escape. The attempt is fantastic; even though the viewer knows it can’t possibly succeed, we hold out hope that a miracle can happen. Interspersed throughout the film are flashbacks, some heartbreaking, for each of our main troupe, showing the reason they want to get out and the life they want to return to. This is the third Dassin film I’ve seen, and loved The Naked City and Thieves’ Highway. Been holding out on Rififi, his supposed masterpiece, but that one is coming. ★★★½

Ride the Pink Horse is a seldom-seen film noir from director Robert Montgomery, who also starred in the lead role as Lucky Gagin. Gagin comes to a tiny town in New Mexico, San Pablo, in order to blackmail a crime boss, Frank Hugo, over the murder of Gagin’s friend. In classic film noir fashion, there are some side tracks, double crosses, a ne’er-do-well girl, and some innocents who try to give a helping hand to Gagin along the way. I resisted liking Gagin through much of the film, because frankly, he’s not a very likable guy. He is rough with people, condescending, and downright cruel in his talk to the local Mexican immigrants in town, calling them derogatory names even when they are helping. I know a lot of that can be written off as part of the times in 1947, but it doesn’t make it any easier to watch. Still, Gagin gets his comeuppance in the end, and his language and character issues aside, the film itself is absolutely enthralling. Not sure how this one hasn’t gotten more attention over the years, but anyone who likes film noir should check it out. ★★★★

Hold Back the Dawn is a lovely romance from director Mitchell Leisen, based on a screenplay by Billy Wilder. Georges is from Romania and is trying to immigrate to America for a new start. He can afford to get to Mexico first, but it is there that he learns about quota limits on who can cross into the USA, and is told it will be 5-8 years before he can enter. A few months in, and broke from living at the local hotel, Georges is reunited with a former dance partner from Romania, Anita, who tells him how she was able to get US citizenship by “marrying in” and then quickly divorcing. Georges plans to do the same thing, and targets a visiting schoolteacher, Emmy, who is in Mexico with a bunch of field-tripping kids. Georges woos her and marries her all in a day, but is at least gallant enough to put off their wedding night. Over time, as Georges tries to avoid the USA immigrant agent who frequents the Mexican town with eyes out for people just like him trying to get into the country any way they can, Georges starts to have feelings for Emmy after all. But will he realize it himself before she catches on to his plot? It’s a very nice film; perhaps not all that memorable in the long run, but entertaining. Emmy is played by none other Olivia de Havilland, Melanie Hamilton of Gone With the Wind fame. She received an Oscar nomination for this role, and the picture received 6 nominations overall. ★★★½

My Name is Julia Rose is sort of a tense, quasi-psychological drama, from director Joseph H Lewis. It’s a simple picture, just a hair over an hour long, and not all that deep either. American immigrant Julia is desperate for work in the UK, and visits an employment agency where she hears about a job as a secretary for a wealthy woman. All seems ok until we see the family she is to work for, and they start whispering about nefarious doings. As soon as Julia gets there that night, she is drugged, and wakes up 2 days later in a seaside mansion, and is being called a different name. She doesn’t know what their intent is, and no one knows she’s there. The rest of the film is about her boyfriend trying to hunt her down, and her repeated attempts to escape the crazy family. Strange picture, and a few too many cheesy moments, even for a 40s flick. The constant (and I mean CONSTANT) violin runs and tremolos, to build suspense I guess, grew tiresome even during the short length of this film. ★½

So Dark the Night is from the same director, and it is a bit better. It’s a classic who-done-it in the film noir tradition. Henri is a famous detective from Paris on vacation in a small village in the French countryside. A local girl, Nanette, sets her eyes on him as a way to get out of the tiny town. Nanette’s mother encourages her to pursue Henri, but Nanette’s father and her longtime beau Leon have obvious objections. When Nanette ends up dead of strangulation, Henri suspects Leon immediately, until Leon is found dead too. Those are just the first two, and the killer starts leaving notes of warning to Henri as well. The ending gets a little weird, with some wild leaps in typical 40s fashion, but it was still ok. And I do like a short film I can watch in about an hour! ★★½

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. ★★★★★