Reviews

POOR THINGS is exactly the kind of movie that attracts Oscars. Big and showy performances and production design. Pays lip service to deeper themes like feminism and socioeconomic inequalities while not offering up anything genuinely challenging or thought-provoking. Basically cinematic fireworks: all flash, nothing lasting.

Parts of the movie are superficially entertaining. The costumes and production are gorgeous all around. However, the film's "feminist" themes are incredibly shallow, more or less limited to "women also deserve sexual pleasure" and "the patriarchy devalues women." Interestingly, for such an empowering film, the movie largely limits Bella Baxter's journey to the realm of the sexual, with any focus on her ideas about society relegated to the margins. We get told she's entertaining socialistic ideas and bigger philosophical ideas about human nature, but nothing is ever delved into, lest we spend time away from the film's bizarre, unerotic sex scenes.

I don't know. I struggled to finish this thing. It's overlong and completely fails to justify even half its own runtime. Considering how much I adored the director's 2018 film THE FAVOURITE, I expected much more from POOR THINGS.

Wow, was this bad. The plot itself is a no-frills melodrama about a young woman torn between a kindly but rich older man she owes her education to and the young virile man she really wants. DeMille tackles the story with a biblical flair, smiting characters and having them reap overwhelming punishments for their sins. The ending has everyone proclaiming their faith in the Christian God and reuniting in the sunshine.

Anyone who's ever seen a DeMille film knows how preachy he can get. Most of the time, I can indulge it, so long as the film's entertainment value is sufficient. But WOW, this film is so flimsy and so sanctimonious in its endless proselytizing that it sets the teeth on edge. Gloria Swanson and Elliott Dexter are game, but they really have nothing to work with. What a pity.

In some ways, TWO RODE TOGETHER is among John Ford's most cynical work. People are either motivated by greed or mad despair. Both the whites and the Comanche are shown to be conniving, valuing materials over people. Ford touches on misogyny and racism, with the captives returning home only to find themselves branded as harlots (if you're a woman who dared not kill herself rather than be a Comanche's concubine) or "mad dogs" (if you're a young man who, after years of being raised as a Comanche, would rather be with the tribe than back with people who are total strangers to you). Human beings overall come off quite badly and the film's ending suggests that keeping away from society might be preferable to trying to adapt to its pressures and hypocrisies.

Unfortunately, TWO RODE TOGETHER lacks both focus and a cohesive tone. Broad comedy deflates the drama each time and not in a good, cathartic way. We literally follow a lynching with a goofy comic scene, and the only effect is mood whiplash, not any interesting juxtaposition. The plot meanders often. It's a shame, because there's interesting stuff in the film, but it never gels into a satisfying whole.

Early cinema is full of gems beyond Melies fantasies and Griffith potboilers. THE MISSING BRIDE is an elegant little gothic drama about a young woman who falls into an ancient death trap. You've got skeletons in medieval gowns and dusty vaults and fainting maidens, all the traditional gothic trappings... though admittedly, few gothic classics end with a cat coming to the rescue!

The most notable technical aspect of this film is the lovely hand-tinted coloring. It gives the movie the feel of an old storybook. I really enjoy the way it looks.

You can easily find this film in fantastic quality on YouTube. It really is ideal to see these older films in as clear a quality as possible-- it's hard to appreciate these nickelodeon era gems in blurry transfers.

I love the original short story by Joyce Carol Oates, however, I knew going into SMOOTH TALK that it would have to make a lot of changes to stretch this story out to feature length. I didn't expect how much of it would just be hot air.

Parts of the film are compelling and vivid. I was on board for the first half hour, which had a docudrama feel as the teenage girls went goofing about the mall, laughing to themselves and flirting with teenage boys. I was a teen in the late 2000s but this all felt very on point-- I guess teen behavior never really changes. I also think the film depicts the inescapabale adolescent tension between childish innocence and adult yearnings very well.

Unfortunately, much of the film just meanders and the family drama feels like a Lifetime movie of the week in its over the top execution. I was especially let down by the final third, which actually adapts the short story's central showdown between Connie and the sinister Arnold Friend. In the short story, this is a disturbing scene and the ending is bleak. Here, the dramatization of the same scene falls flat: it goes on for-ever, and never really reaches a boiling point. It doesn't feel like a natural development either-- SMOOTH TALK is like two movies lashed together, an aimless teen drama and a bloodless thriller.

The film also tacks on a happy conclusion, in which Connie-- despite almost certainly having been raped by Arnold-- returns home and better learns to get along with her family. Everything just felt trite and corny in the end, as cheesy as the film's synth soundtrack. The short story haunts, the film just flops.

I was skeptical going into this film version of OUR TOWN, Thornton Wilder's famously minimalist play about the transience of human life. Hollywood has never been one for abstractions, so the bare stage of Wilder's play becomes a fully realized turn of the century town on film. I wondered if this change would corrupt the show's effect and messaging, and surprisingly, it didn't.

The play's bittersweet tone and nostalgic longings are kept intact. Not all of the theatrical conventions are eliminated. Some work (the narrator), some don't (a scene where the "audience" asks a character questions), but generally, everything works well. The actors are all in fine form, even if Martha Scott is not a convincing teenager in her early scenes (she'd fit right in at the Bedford Falls high school dance from IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE, populated by downright geriatric "teens").

The controversial ending isn't as contrived as is commonly said. You still get Emily realizing life is precious and we don't appreciate normalcy and the people we love until they're gone, only without the tragic edge of the play. However, the theme is still there and the bittersweet feeling is still there too, so the change doesn't bother me much.

I love surrealism and stories about mid-life turning points, so I expected to enjoy JULIET OF THE SPIRITS. I ended up feeling very conflicted about the whole thing. Giulietta Masina is the best part of the film, overshadowing even the dazzling color cinematography and psychedelic set design. Her expressive eyes say more than any dialogue-- you can easily tell why she was Charlie Chaplin's favorite actress. The scene where she tries to hold it together as the detectives screen footage of her beloved husband and his mistress cavorting together is truly heartbreaking.

However, the movie itself is a strangely hollow experience and at almost two and a half hours, it's a long one at that. Unlike other unimpressed reviewers, I'm not going to claim the movie isn't saying anything. The religious imagery and satire suggests Juliet has made her husband into a god and she's been continuously martyring herself and denying her own pain to keep this awful man in her life. Good point, Fellini. Did it need to take 137 minutes to say that? You get to the point where you just don't care anymore and the movie never goes beyond the surface of Juliet's psychosexual troubles, so there's nothing especially compelling present.

THE BOY AND THE HERON has been described as Miyazaki's closest foray into horror, as a confusing exercise in self-indulgence, as a Miyazaki's greatest hits album, and more. Leaving the theater, I definitely think this is a movie that demands repeat viewings and becomes richer the more familiar you are with the full scope of Miyazaki's career, going back to his earliest work in the 1960s on Toei works such as HORUS PRINCE OF THE SUN and PUSS IN BOOTS.

On the shallowest level, such familiarity means you'll notice the visual references to Miyazaki's oeuvre throughout. SPIRITED AWAY and THE WIND RISES are the most obvious, but there were moments that reminded me of NAUSICAA, PRINCESS MONONOKE, HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE, and CASTLE IN THE SKY as well. PUSS IN BOOTS (a film on which Miyazaki did storyboards and key animation) gets a notable quotation towards the end, when the parakeet king strides up the daunting spiral staircase of a medieval tower-- a direct reference to the memorable climax in PUSS IN BOOTS, from the setting itself to the king's physical resemblance to Lucifer in the 1969 film.

However, the most fascinating autobiographical element of the film is the relationship between Mahito and the Great Uncle character. The Great Uncle wants a successor to keep his magical otherworld alive and to protect it from the callow interests of the Parakeet King. And yet, Mahito-- despite all the trauma and foolishness he's experienced in our world-- opts to return home and live as best he can amidst chaotic brokenness. The otherworld is ultimately destroyed-- could this be Miyazaki sharing his view of what will become of Ghibli once he is gone, since no proper "successor" to himself and the late Isao Takahata has ever been found?

This all makes the film sound like an impenetrable puzzle for hardcore nerds, but rest assured, it isn't. It's only one way you can understand the film because there is just so much packed in there. There's a lot about wartime horror and grief, but also beauty and forgiveness. There's surrreal imagery and moments of horrific menace, but also a lot of humor. I haven't even scratched the surface of all this movie made me feel. It just might overtake HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE as Miyazaki's most polarizing film. Count me in as a fan.

I would not call myself a huge Godzilla fan by any means and I mainly went to see this one at the urging of a friend. Holy heaven, I was so surprised by GODZILLA MINUS ONE. In a year where both of my most anticipated movies turned out to be crummy disappointments (BARBIE and NAPOLEON), this movie-- a film I had no initial plans of seeing and had little enthusiasm for going into it-- blew me away.

Godzilla is actually terrifying in this. The post-WWII setting was well-realized, with the characters exhausted after years of violence, destruction, and struggle. The characters were all relatable and interesting-- unlike other Godzilla movies I've seen, I cared intensely about their fates and was emotionally invested in the little found family they formed. And thank God for the lack of ironic jokes undercutting emotional scenes-- after so many trash Hollywood movies, I didn't even know it was possible for a blockbuster to be sincere like this anymore.

Most of all, I love how life-affirming this film is. The cautious but persistent optimism is such a breath of fresh air. About my only criticism is that the ending twist is a little hokey... but to be honest, I can forgive that. The movie is too good for me to complain about a happy ending.

Despite the popular narrative, MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE was hardly a major disaster for star Rudolph Valentino. Critics were mixed to positive (some even thought it among the best films of the year) and the film drew audiences in the bigger cities. However, it is true that the Valentino fanbase was likely hoping for more of the torrid passion to be found in earlier Valentino vehicles like THE SHEIK and BLOOD AND SAND. MONSIEUR BEAUCAIRE is largely a comedy, the heat turned down to a minimum.

It's not a bad film, though it could have used a stronger director. Sidney Olcott's direction plods and feels stuffy when something more flamboyant would have served better. The first half of the story drags, with only Natacha Rambova's beautiful costumes and Valentino's energetic performance drawing interest. The supporting characters are almost indistinguishable from one another and the main romantic plot is undercooked.

Luckily, BEAUCAIRE picks up as it goes. In many ways, this movie is the first in which Valentino kids his own Latin Lover image, with the hero relieved he no longer has to deal with the pressure of being a great lover when he flees abroad. Valentino gets to tap into his sadly underused skill for comedy throughout this film, and he gets to swashbuckle a bit during the climax.

Not a great movie, but a visually sumptuous one and diverting enough. I would love to see it properly restored someday.

While less putrid than the Ken Russell debacle released a few years later, this TV biopic of Rudolph Valentino is about as truthful. At the very least, the subtitle of THE LEGEND OF VALENTINO is "A romantic fiction." It admits upfront that this script is BS.

Being a 70s TV movie, it's shot in the pedestrian fashion you'd expect and the cheese is laid on thick. There is a certain pleasure to corny TV movies very much present here, though it's soured by the film's gross sexual politics, particularly regarding the controversial Natacha Ramobva, Valentino's second wife. Rambova has been pilloried for decades as a controlling pest and heartless harpy, micromanaging Valentino's career to further her own and refusing to give him the children he so wanted. This ignores two things: 1) Rambova had a successful career as an art director and designer before Valentino entered her life; her desire to collaborate on films with him came from wanting them to be creative as well as romantic partners, and 2) Rambova was upfront about not wanting children before the two were married. I'm not arguing Rambova was an angel, but from what I've read, I have no doubt the Valentino/Ramobva marriage was initially founded on mutual affection before it all fell apart.

This movie doesn't bother with such nuance. Rambova is a monster who emasculates her husband constantly, withholding sex on their wedding night before a frustrated Valentino drags her to bed and rapes her in a scene of catastrophic bad taste. Shot in slow motion and accompanied by "The Sheik of Araby" in minor key, I'm not even sure what the filmmakers want the audience to feel watching it: Horror? Sorrow? Titillation? Satisfaction that this "evil woman" is getting subdued and humiliated? The blocking of the sequence is meant to suggest the famous ravishment scene in THE SON OF THE SHEIK, but that film is meant to be sadomasochistic fantasy divorced from reality, not a depiction of the marriage of two actual, complicated, flesh and blood human beings.

The great ironic thing about Valentino was that in real life he was not the dashing bad boy or romantic icon he played in so many movies. He was a mild-mannered guy who liked tinkering with cars and making spaghetti, and he had horrible luck in his romantic relationships. Onscreen, he took charge of swooning women, but in reality, he could barely take charge of his own life.

Both this movie and the Russell film give shallow nods to that irony but they're too obsessed with lurid sex or the question of Valentino being gay or bisexual to bother fleshing him out as a person or properly engaging with the tragedy of his celebrity. Sadly, as in Valentino's own life, the fantasy of his screen image obscures the far more fascinating reality.

I can easily see why THE COMIC failed to find mainstream success in 1969. I don't think it would find it if it was released NOW. Billy Bright is a 100% unlikable protagonist who never realizes he is the author of his own misery and loneliness. He takes his friends and loved ones for granted, and yet decries them as selfish, even beyond the grave.

And yet Bright's tragedy is made mesmerizing by Dick Van Dyke's performance. Van Dyke mixes charisma, sleaze, and delusion, making Bright feel so authentic. I bet Hollywood has plenty of Billy Brights living there today. Perhaps he is always with us.

Visually, THE COMIC is unexceptional: overlit and shot like a TV movie. The story structure is uneven and lumpy, losing some steam in the second half. However, there's much to recommend and the final scene is one for the ages, up there with CITY LIGHTS and The 400 BLOWS.