The Watermelon Woman.

Review #2194: The Watermelon Woman.

Cast: 

Cheryl Dunye (Cheryl), Guinevere Turner (Diana), Valarie Walker (Tamara), Lisa Marie Bronson (Fae "The Watermelon Woman" Richards), Cheryl Clarke (June Walker), Irene Dunye (Herself), Brian Freeman (Lee Edwards), Ira Jeffries (Shirley Hamilton), with Alexandra Juhasz (Martha Page), and appearances by Camille Paglia, David Rakoff and Sarah Schulman. Written and Directed by Cheryl Dunye.

Review: 

“I did the research, I did look in Black film history, and found nothing but homophobia and omission. I did look at queer film history, I read Vito Russo, and found no mention of race. So I hope that my film spurs these younger people to think about their identities within the context of representation in the media.”

The important thing to know is that this is a film made by someone with plenty of experience behind the camera when it comes to it being their debut feature. Born in Liberia but raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Cherly Dunye actually had an early interest in political theory when studying in college. She had studied at Michigan State University before realizing that her purpose wasn't in that field, going back near home to Temple University. What she saw around her (the mid-1980s, specifically citing Wilson Goode as a "Black mayor who dropped a bomb on a group of people" [May 13, 1985]) that time was the idea of using media as a tool. Her first video in that regard came with meeting a poet named Sapphire, with whom she mixed her reading of "Wild Thing" with images filmed by Dunye that served as her senior thesis. With her idea of art and politics as one that can co-exist in the same world, she soon studied (and graduated from) Rutgers University's Mason Gross School of Art before soon starting to make her own films, ones later dubbed as "Dunyementaries" that mixed fact and fiction that related to her experiences as a black lesbian filmmaker. The basis for what became this film started in 1993 when Dunye was trying to do research for Black film history when it came to women for early films, which saw a number of times where the cast members were not mentioned by name. The resulting film was one funded by a variety of sources, such as an endowment from the National Endowment for the Arts alongside fundraising. When it came time to purchasing the use of archives to use for the film, the costs were too much to use, so Dunye used a different idea in collaboration with photographer Zoe Leonard to stage several old photos, several of which were sold off at auction to help raise funds. The fake film within a film in "Plantation Memories", was directed by Douglas McKeown while he and Dunye wrote for it. She had various inspirations when it came to being a filmmaker that engaged with who she was and what she wanted to express, and it probably makes sense that the film's title is a play on Melvin Van Peebles' Watermelon Man (1970). Watermelon Woman was a fair hit on the festival circuit, one that attracted attention for a particular scene that inflamed the general person that thinks offensive stuff is getting shown (one that had funding from the NEA, so I mean whiny politicians).

For the most part, Dunye has directed on a regular basis since then, whether for television such as HBO's Stranger Inside (2001), which she collaborated with actual female inmates for the story or finding out the lack of compatibility in studio fare with My Baby's Daddy (2004), short features, or for general television dramas. What one sees for 90 minutes is a mix of old-looking footage to go with grainy videotape and just usual film to make for an experience that plays with form and how one tries to tell a story that hasn't always been told to a wider audience. The women that existed in that era as presences to see on camera in Butterfly McQueen, Hattie McDaniel and Louise Beavers are represented within what you see here in the pursuit of trying to reclaim what had been shuttered to the sidelines or forgotten completely. That footage accomplishes the goal required in allowing the viewer to look upon it as both creation and history that isn't silly facade. It just so happens to also be a movie of self-discovery in the nature of realizing what really matters when it comes to what one thinks they are. Dunye makes a compelling presence to watch discover the nature of what means the most in the web of hang-ups of fact and fiction. The scenes spent with her and Walker are just as interesting as the ones spent with her and Turner when it comes to examining the hang-ups and hypocrisies that arise with them just as much as you see around your own circle of friends.  One is basically watching three different films play out: the film in the film (fictional to us), the film of trying to document that to people who don't know who the subject was, and the film of trying to cope with the unraveling that comes in finding who they are in the lesbian space and as a filmmaker (one scene that comes and go on is when she is trying to look at something in the street with her camera and is accosted by cops that think she was a guy mugger, consider how the scene just ends). The doors that open up are as interesting as they are complicated. There are a few moments spent interviewing actual figures of culture (gay or otherwise), whether that is Camille Paglia expounding about film theory and arguing about the "mammy role" or Sarah Schulman playing an archivist with particularly touchiness to letting people actually take photos of archival footage left in a box that make for humor when it comes to perceived allies. As a film that yearns to tell its own type of story for representation that doesn't slam itself in the muck of overindulgence while having plenty of imagination to let the audience explore for themselves what is important in the realm of history and storytelling, this is a pretty good effort to get the match rolling for others to follow in Dunye's footsteps.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Chilly Scenes of Winter.

Review #2193: Chilly Scenes of Winter.

Cast: 

John Heard (Charles Richardson), Mary Beth Hurt (Laura Connelly), Peter Riegert (Sam), Kenneth McMillan (Pete), Gloria Grahame (Clara), Nora Heflin (Betty), Jerry Hardin (Patterson), Tarah Nutter (Susan Richardson), Mark Metcalf (Jim Connelly), and Griffin Dunne (Mark) Written and Directed by Joan Micklin Silver (#1818 - Hester Street and #1988 - Between the Lines)

Review: 

 ''I was determined not to violate the book, which I loved. I wanted the general action to be the same, but my ending was too triumphant. People in the crew kept coming up to me when we were shooting and telling me, 'This is the story of my life.' But when I asked them if it turned out like it did in the movie, they would always admit that it hadn't.''

In 1976, a novel called Chilly Scenes of Winter by Ann Beattie was released into stores, with her having been a regular author in The New Yorker. Three actors in Mark Metcalf, Amy Robinson, and Griffin Dunne were interested to produce the book as a film by purchasing the film rights (after a whole bunch of studios rejected it), much to the interest of Joan Micklin Silver (who read some of Beattie's stories) and liked the book. Claire Townsend liked it when she worked at Fox and when she moved to United Artists to be a production executive, she eventually got them to finance the project and also eventually get the idea of Silver to be the one to direct (the group had liked her anyway). The group stayed with their favoring of John Heard to play the read (rather than cast someone like John Ritter as favored by UA) while going with Mary Beth Hurt to act opposite him when Meryl Streep apparently wanted...Sam Waterston to play opposite her. It was United Artists who botched the film when it came for original release in 1979 that had the title of "Head over Heels" because they thought it was a more viable title, with the Heels title coming around as a joke suggestion when UA wouldn't go with the original book title because of some sort of perception that "Chilly" and "Winter" wouldn't sell well as a title. The ending of the film and the one you see now are different in the inclusion of one more thing, namely the idea of a romance that isn't as over as it seems, which actually matched the novel but was not what Silver had in mind. Silver wrote the film herself after approaching Beattie and getting a no (Beattie instead wanted a small part in the film, which ended up with her playing a waitress with no lines). In 1982, United Artists Classics approached her about re-releasing it under the aforementioned Winter title, complete with keeping the ending she had envisioned (which instead of ending with our lead coming home after a jog to a woman is instead one where it just ends on him immediately after the jog). That version had a decidedly less chilly reception to where there is one of those arguments for calling it a "cult classic" (if one is in the Criterion market, look no further?). Amidst of a handful of television films, Silver's next film as a feature director wasn't until 1988's Crossing Delancey.

Well, it is an anatomy of a chilled romance (being set and mostly filmed in Salt Lake City, no less), so I do wonder what exactly UA thought they were going to get by playing it light? It is a crashing, uneasy sense of comedy-drama that isn't the easiest sell but works just right for 92 minutes. Really you could interpret the film as belonging to the fallacies that come in relationships of the heart and with friends, specifically the one where people really can be their own worst enemy. Consider that this is the kind of movie that has someone make someone go to a skin flick and then have a thing about someone seemingly exalting them. Heartbreak happens, but life goes on, regardless of much it stings (such as, say, a friend who betrayed them or, well, losing a love). Wrapped within a melancholic movie that basically harkens to a noir within its first batch of lines of a man wrapped in what he wants (but doesn't have), is the note that comes in clearly at the end: people are a series of contradictions and opportunities that either never came or skipped them by. It is an endearing movie for all of the failures that happen in life. Seeing it now, it seems totally right that Silver had Heard pegged for this role right then and there, because he really does make this role one to look upon not with judgement or outright sympathy but with curiosity. There is something fascinating in seeing that all-consuming energy come into focus with all of the hang-ups and eccentricities that Heard makes in this tightrope-type of act here. It could've easily just been a film about a guy who simply gets a bit weird about a woman for it to go right in the end or just a straight stalker movie but Heard makes it fit right square in the middle in that amusing anatomy of a fall. Hurt makes that idea of chemistry between people who simply have different ideas in mind of who they are to others. Being trapped between the idea of someone who doesn't seem that particularly interesting to them and the other choice of "obsession in the form of a six-pack". One sees her as a puzzle piece that isn't one to easily peg down beyond first appearances, because nobody is that easy to see through or figure out as if they were an object to chase. That scene they share in which they discuss the ideas of boundaries that goes from playful to eye-raising (whether taken literally or not) is pretty much the whole film served on a platter with how they handle it. Roles like this do make me wonder if I should see more movies that have Riegert in them, because even a role where he is just a playful pal that in one scene moves along with a ploy with Heard to just go with playing a prospective couple looking around just so they can "stumble" upon a certain woman through a salesman. Grahame gets to strut in the eyes of mental feebleness for an interesting act to see with Heard. As a whole, it is a wonderful thing to see this film in the way that Silver and company envisioned play out for people to seek out rather than wonder what could have been because of how delightfully uncomfortable it is. It walks that fine line of comedy and drama for a pretty good effort in human frailitiy. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Review #2192: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.

Cast: 

Rebecca Hall (Dr. Ilene Andrews), Brian Tyree Henry (Bernie Hayes), Dan Stevens (Trapper), Kaylee Hottle (Jia), Alex Ferns (Mikael), Fala Chen (Iwi Queen), Rachel House (Hampton), Ron Smyck (Harris), Chantelle Jamiesson (Jayne), and Greg Hatton (Lewis) Directed by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong and #1753 - Blair Witch)

Review: 

It is hard to believe that May will be the tenth anniversary of the first real American Godzilla film with Gareth Edwards' 2014 film. Eventually, through the course of time, one has seen films such as Kong: Skull Island (2017), Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), and now this one, the first of the series with a returning director in Adam Wingard (there was an attempt at doing the "MonsterVerse" for television, but if I didn't like the idea of using Apple TV for watching baseball, why the hell would I go for it here?). The screenplay was done by Terry Rossio, Simon Barrett and Jeremy Slater while Wingard wrote the story with Rossio and Barrett (this is the first of these features without Max Borenstein as a writer). Well, I don't really have anything to build up here, this movie is about on par with the other ones, what did you expect? Each of these films have their own idea of what to do when it comes to handling the time besides their big creature, whether that involves killing off Bryan Cranston early, Kong in the Vietnam War era, a goofy fun one involving eco-terrorists, or a monster clash and hollow earths. It is particularly interesting to see a few returning castmates from the last one in Hall, Henry, and Hottle. It has been a few months since the last time Godzilla was featured in a film after Toho's Godzilla Minus One, but are we really so ridiculous to compare two different Godzillas? What, does every one of these have to be moving period pieces? (what, no complaint that the film title doesn't know how "&" is better than a silent "x"?)

To be honest, I don't really re-watch modern movies all too much (last year saw a mix of 200 movies watched for the first time, old and new, and that doesn't include ones seen as tradition), so going back to these films doesn't include a clear winner (King of the Monsters or Skull Island were pretty neat though). But these two Wingard features are relatively carry the torch well for loony entertainment, even if this one generally is more of a Kong film than one for Godzilla (I believe someone counted the amount of time for the creature around eight minutes in a 115-minute film); basically, you get more scenes of, say, Kong playing nice with a smaller version of himself (evidently named Suko,) than Godzilla doing those little things beyond charging up that involve, well, resting in the Coliseum. It likes to deliver exposition and roll with effects at roughly the same quick pace that results in a clutter of a movie that goes a bit further into the Hollow Earth with a different kind of bent on a familiar titan (hey, the last one had a mechanical one dealing with severed monster heads); it seems amusing to basically have a basement within the basement of the Earth for secret tribes and telepathy, really. The adventures of Kong and Suko (nice to have Son of Godzilla on the mind), which is more than I can say for a film that likes to have a bit of light human interaction without having many stakes apply to them. It likes to cut around what seems interesting just in case one needs a bit of info to follow along with, which can be hit or miss. The Skar King basically being a bully that likes using pain to rule is kind of interesting, but the closing is probably more interesting than the fact that the attempts at building up a threat from down-down below is only moderately interesting. Among the humans, probably Stevens does best in having that sense of just rolling with the material in amusement without buffoonery. Henry is probably more tolerable than he was in the previous film, if only because he doesnt have to act against teen actors or as much of a "conspiracy" bent this time around. Not to say Hall and Hottle can't handle family drama (sign language) of course, but it comes and goes in terms of actually caring beyond a passing glance. Of course, I do enjoy the event buildup to, well, reuniting Mothra into a tussle of creatures. The climax gives the mishmash you would expect in throwing monsters, playing with ice, and eventually dealing with the whole "monkey see, monkey go for the axe" thing. It takes a significant amount of lost patience to lose me on a film like this, but this one went relatively fine in zipping along without trying to brazenly insult one in its execution. On the level, it is around the other films when it comes to general spectacle if not managing to really do anything profoundly interesting on a wholly consistent level. It is neatly average fun, which in the grand scope of general Godzilla or Kong films is totally normal for those who know what they are getting into.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Wonder Woman 1984.

Review #2191: Wonder Woman 1984.

Cast: 

Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Kristen Wiig (Barbara Minerva / Cheetah), Pedro Pascal (Maxwell "Max Lord" Lorenzano), Robin Wright (Antiope), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), Amr Waked (Emir Said Bin Abydos), Natasha Rothwell (Carol), Ravi Patel (Babajide), and Oliver Cotton (Simon Stagg) Directed by Patty Jenkins (#942 - Wonder Woman)

Review: 

Admittedly, there were quite a few films that fell by the wayside in 2020. This was released on Christmas Day in a mix of theaters and streaming because, well, certain studios really suck at releasing movies (as done by Warner Bros, The Suicide Squad had the same thing happen to it the following year). But I guess I was just not up for this particular film or maybe I am just very picky, because how many of you would even guess that there have been eight movies based on DC characters in this decade? This is the sequel to Wonder Woman (2017), which as one asserts, was a character originally created by writer William Moulton Marston and illustrator H. G. Peter. Patty Jenkins returned to direct this sequel along with writing the story with Geoff Johns to go with their screenplay that was written alongside Dave Callaham (each were different from the last film, which had Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg, and Jason Fuchs). Any chance for a third film were dead and buried in 2023 with the impending idea to explode the DC film glob (as one might call it) into a new and different form. Or something.  You know, the first film was pretty decent from the one time I saw it...nearly eight years ago. It was a period piece movie, but it generally made for a useful movie when it came to actually showing what could be done with a character like Wonder Woman for a solo movie beyond just being in team-up movies.

Confusingly, Wonder Woman 1984, makes me see a collision of mush. One only has a litany of questions to ask: 

• Why the hell is this movie 151 minutes? 
• What was the need for a character who already wished to have the power (and sex appeal) of Diana Prince to then want to become an apex predator? 
• How does one wish to "become the stone" and not have it immediately end with them being a rock? What exactly are the consequences for a guy who uses a satellite system to try and suck people's lifeforce from wishes only to see it undone? 
• Was their really a need to bring back Steve Trevor but have it be so everybody other than Diana just sees him as some random guy? 
• How exactly does Diana work at the Smithsonian Museum - does she just fake wear a wig every few years so people don't get suspicious about how she never ages? (as opposed to the show, which amusingly has her wear glasses when working in the office)
• Would the entire world be so nice as to receive a wish only to renounce it because someone told them about how it might be bad? 
• Okay, sure, one only manage to turn a coffee cup and a jet invisible (in like, the span of years), but one conversation with Steve can have her learn to fly with that lasso too?

The answers to these questions are: oh hell, some movies really don't know when to start and end (well, and that doing a Quantum Leap swap without (beloved) Dean Stockwell and Scott Bakula seems like a bad idea). My brain felt dumber watching this movie, which seems like it wants to be entertainment on the level of an 80s movie with an adversary influenced by real-life conmen like Bernie Madoff to go with movie kinds of conmen in '78 Lex Luthor. Somehow, it just doesn't gel well. Jenkins apparently wanted to make a film set in 1984 because of its mark as "the height of Western civilization and society", but I really don't think the film did anything with its setting or goal beyond unintentionally honoring 1980s comics sequels Superman III and Superman IV. Hell, for a movie about people who go around wishing for things that could be harmful (wishing a lady wanting the Irish to get deported to have a heart attack to, well, any other probable wish made around a certain geographic area in 1984), it sure seems tame on not actually showing anyone suffer the possibility of consequences. Pascal's character basically absconds away with his son having totally learned the futility of focusing his time on wishes broadcasting on TV instead of his son (totally - wait, if you renounce your wish to be the stone, where did it go?). 

The strange thing about the movie is that it feels so empty in characters: imagine a superhero movie where you can count the ones to focus all attention on (people who deliver exposition or serve only for a flashback [Wright and Nielsen] don't count) on one hand. Bringing Pine around to basically cheapen what was already kind of an odd decision to kill him off in the first film (your milage may vary) ends up just seeming hollow in the long run, because it pretty much just results in the same kind of ending as before in making that fateful choice that isn't as striking. The problem is that without him, Gadot seems to lack that edge in making a true interesting hero beyond "fish out of water", particularly when it comes to (no, really) that little lecture across satellite at the end. It isn't so much bad acting as it is just one that seems off-key. Besides, it is Wiig (first choice Emma Stone declined) who ends up with less to work with, unless you count the attempt at showing a diminishing sense of humanity in the nerd-turned-meathead as anything other than just passive. Comedians can make interesting villains, but this is certainly not one of those times, particularly with a climax that mishandles both her and Gadot. Pascal ends up as the highlight of the film because, well, one really can just play an interesting conman if they set their mind to it, but it only makes you wish there was a better way to get things going than to have the clash of a wishmaster and someone having to remember not the folly of lies but instead to remember why one has sacrifices in the first place among humans. In the long run, it is a muddled mess of a movie, one placed in the exact moment one would feel tired in not needing to see these kinds of movies every single year without the utmost need for being there in the first place. The first film was interesting if not muddled in an okay climax and a dubious idea for being set in the far-away past, this one stumbles out of the gate and never rises to the occasion, which is a real shame.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Je Tu Il Elle.

Review #2190: Je Tu Il Elle.

Cast: 

Chantal Akerman (Julie), Niels Arestrup (the driver), and Claire Wauthion (the woman) Producted and Directed by Chantal Akerman (#1994 - Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles)

Review: 

“When people ask me if I am a feminist film maker, I reply I am a woman and I also make films.”

I admit, this probably should have been covered first when encountering a film directed by Belgian Chantal Akerman. But, well, the curiosity to watch Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) clearly proved too much. But, here we are anyway with Akerman's debut feature film, made after she had done a handful of short films starting as a teenager (as one does when finding little patience to stay in Belgian film school). The title translates to "I You He She"; the film was written by Chantal Akerman, Eric de Kuyper (a writer / semiologist / art critic / experimental film director) and Paul Paquay, with Akerman later stating that she had written it as a story six years prior that was both personal along with not autobiographical (she was 24 when the film came out, although consider the statement made by her that “the subject is not important”). She called her role in the film (her most noted as an actress, having appeared in a handful of shorts and other films over the years) as "part of that mise en scène" for what you see here.

It is an interesting viewing at 86 minutes, if only because it isn't every day that you get a debut feature with the director also serving our main focus. It probably goes without saying that there is more on the surface than just saying what the film is, which namely involves one woman trying to make due with the place she inhabits, whether that involves eating sugar, re-arranging furniture, or meeting up with certain people from a distance. And yes, that can mean actions with one's hands (off screen) or a scene played at a distance involving two women locked in an embrace together. You just have to let the film breathe on its own without trying to peg it as tedious or only for a certain kind of audience without at least trying to get a grasp for why it is there in the first place. There is more to a film than just seeing someone eat a load of sugar in the same way that there is more than one way to see a woman without clothes. Our one lead is a wanderer that goes through an array of experiences in the attempt to escape solitude, even for only a little while. Consider what you see and hear from the two people that encounter Akerman in the film, where one gets to watch the other shave while the other is almost just only there as an object (or maybe it is the other way around). As a whole, it manages to be diverting in the array of space that one experiences with the show of sexuality that comes from reaching out to the world around them, which is involving in ways that make sense to those who take the time to really see the film beyond the obvious. It has a sort of liberation that only one with the experience of being with and without touch can understand, preferably for those prepared for what they could see and with the patience to let things pass.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hard, Fast and Beautiful.

Review #2189: Hard, Fast and Beautiful.

Cast: 

Claire Trevor (Millie Farley), Sally Forrest (Florence Farley), Carleton G. Young (Fletcher Locke), Robert Clarke (Gordon McKay), Kenneth Patterson (Will Farley), Marcella Cisney (Miss Martin), and Joseph Kearns (J.R. Carpenter) Directed by Ida Lupino (#799 - The Hitch-Hiker, #1651 - Never Fear, #1811 - Not Wanted, #1991 - Outrage)

Review: 

"“I’m mad, they say. I am temperamental and dizzy and disagreeable. Well, let them talk. Only one person can hurt me. Her name is Ida Lupino."

You have to understand that Ida Lupino had to work hard to get her films made with as little as trouble as possible as one could do when doing films that were done in production with Collier Young and the distribution that came with this film in RKO. The movie was based on a novel by John R. Tunis (often considered a pioneer in the modern version of the sports story). Some sources have said the source material was his novel American Girl, a 1930 novel. Tunis apparently cited Helen Wills when it came to his fictionalization for a story considering unflattering in what happened to be the only novel that he wrote to be published for adults, as most of his works were quite popular in the kid's market (this idea of it being based on Wills seems curious, as she was described as quite focused on the court at large, which resulted in eight wins at Wimbledon, among other things). However, other sources contend that the story "Mother of a Champion" was an inspiration for the film. The screenplay was written by Martha Wilkerson, who actually was better known as a disc jockey (named "GI Jill") on GI Jive, a radio program that was aired during World War II. This was her only film screenplay, although she did write for a handful of television programs. Eleanor Tennant, cited often as the first female player to turn professional (until 1968, it was more of a thing for people to stay as amateurs because that is where the titles such as Wimbledon were played with), was cited as a technical advisor for the film.

As her fourth film as a director, it certainly has its own edge in looking upon the clash of sincerity and ambition that strikes a bit different from her previous movies about an unwed mother, polio, and rape victim. There are elements here that make one think they are watching a noir that her previous films have done in their own interesting ways when it comes to talking about her intent to do movies with "poor bewildered people" because of what we people are. In this case, we have a bewildered mother that tries to live vicariously through their daughter to get a life better than the one she felt was denied to her. It's the general story one can see in other people's lives when it comes to domineering parents among impressionable youths. Trevor (an Academy Award winning actress for Key Largo [1948], remember) is the ideal presence in domineering obsession that we can wince at with such truthful edge. Her craven pursuits are a human one that isn't just a goofy villain, particularly when sharing scenes with Patterson and his calm patience for such brazen ambition. Forrest appeared in a Lupino film for the third and final time (having appeared in Not Wanted and Never Fear), which also happened to be just before she transitioned to also doing TV roles. She does pretty well here in needing to find one's path beyond obedience to their elders and finding someone (or something) to spend time for themselves. It goes okay in that pairing of Forrest and Clarke is the kind of stuff that is vanilla but totally ideal in being a threat to someone like Trevor when it comes to being the key sphere in one's life. The tennis action is cut pretty well to what one would think would need to be present that is a pretty neat capsule for how it looked in some way for the time made. The ending is, well, take one guess in what happens with a dilemma involving a growing woman having to make her own decision. I do like the closing sequence where a woman sits alone in a vacant stadium, left to ponder the hollowness of the choices made to get to where they are sitting now. As a whole, it is a decent film that belongs squarely with the kind of human interest that Lupino liked to do in her films that will work for its 78 minutes for those who know what they are getting into with her as a filmmaker and as a curiosity as a tennis film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Near Dark.

Review #2188: Near Dark.

Cast: 

Adrian Pasdar (Caleb Colton), Jenny Wright (Mae), Lance Henriksen (Jesse Hooker), Bill Paxton (Severen), Jenette Goldstein (Diamondback), Joshua John Miller (Homer), Marcie Leeds (Sarah Colton), and Tim Thomerson (Loy Colton) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker, #1548 - The Hurt Locker, #1820 - The Loveless)

Review: 

I'm sure you can see the familiar tropes here: one wants to make a certain kind of genre movie but when they can't get the funding or interest for it, they find themselves framing it a different way. Eric Red (writer of one previous film with 1986's The Hitcher) and Kathryn Bigelow wanted to do a Western, but they found a lack of interest in making that sort of genre film, which eventually led them to the idea of think outside the box to make a horror-Western graft that attracted attention. The script was done on spec, which helped in having Bigelow to be the one to direct it rather than anyone else. It was made on a budget of $5 million but had considerably less attention paid to it when compared to that other movie about vampires in a small town for 1987 in The Lost Boys (incidentally, that film also featured a son of Jason Miller in Jason Patric). It was distributed by the DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group (as headlined by Dino De Laurentiis that had a place in North Carolina), which went under two years after the release of this film. While Bigelow went six years between The Loveless and this film, her next film would come out in less time with Blue Steel (1990), which she wrote with Red.

This is the kind of film that strips the vampire to the most basic of elements, ones that you don't see fangs or them being affected by religious objects (guns seem more like pellets to them) because the sun and the consequences of love and attraction is more than enough. One won't find anything Gothic here, unless one finds music by Tangerine Dream in that array (no). The vampires are basically gunslingers that happen to love the night while harassing would-be prey. It is a lean 95-minute runtime, packed with entertainment value when it comes to the clashes of a would-be father figure and reality. Honestly, it seems like a toss-up to say whether this one is the better vampire film of its year, but one can at least enjoy either film with their sense of handling the clash of communities, with our lead not exactly being the clear hero type (really one wouldn't be too off to be reminded of The Searchers, albeit in a smaller timeframe). One is watching a wolf pack of grimy people that would be grimy regardless of the vampirism. And it all starts because of one act of being bit by a woman. Pasdar thus has the interesting double-act of being a focus that wants as little to do with vampirism as one could possibly do because, well, it isn't his way as a country boy in a den of experienced bloodsuckers. Pasdar and Wright make for a shaky pairing because of course they would be shaky when it comes to coercions and trying to live down certain choices that grow bigger throughout the film. That scene of Pasdar trying to run down to the van with a cover, flames and all, is quite breathtaking to see when it comes to making choices and sticking with them. Apparently, Henriksen, in costume, would go around picking up hitchhikers to prepare for the role, which is meant to be a vampire old enough to fight for the Confederacy. He chews up this role for all of the charismatic menace possible, a "father of the night" that would fit the most within horror or the Western genres. Of course, the other big presence is Paxton, who is having a ball as a vampire could possibly have when it comes to practically playing with his food, such as the scene where he gets into a momentary fight with a tough guy that has him "choking" before he takes the time to steal some sunglasses and muse about hating eating folks who are unshaved. He just knows the buttons to push when it comes to conniving century-old presences that don't need much backstory to convey chaos. Rounding out the cast is Goldstein and Miller, with the latter indeed being a child actor playing a vampire that is quite creepy. I appreciate the film for maintaining steady pacing in the tension in trying to affirm just where they belong and making the choice of where to stand when the sun is about to rise. Bigelow's second effort as a filmmaker is a solid one, packed with a few thrills for the horror and western parameters that deserved better for its time - no better time to see some frontier terror in the dark.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Christopher Strong.

Review #2187: Christopher Strong.

Cast: 

Katharine Hepburn (Lady Cynthia Darrington), Colin Clive (Sir Christopher Strong), Billie Burke (Lady Elaine Strong), Helen Chandler (Monica Strong), Ralph Forbes (Harry Rawlinson), Irene Browne (Carrie Valentine), Jack La Rue (Carlo), and Desmond Roberts (Bryce Mercer) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party)

Review: 

Technically, the focus should be on Arzner, because she was the one key regular female director in the sound era (there were others too such as Dorothy Davenport, but I think you know what I mean). But 1933 was also the year of Katharine Hepburn, so why not a few words here. She had early ideas of being an actress, but it was not until she graduated Bryn Mawr College in 1928 that had her on the road to professional acting, which started in the theater. She appeared in a handful of roles that ranged from understudy to being let go, but her performance in 1932's The Warrior's Husband got her notice in Hollywood from a scout. George Cukor vouched for her in casting for what became A Bill of Divorcement, released in the fall of 1932. 1933 saw her star in three films: Christopher Strong, Morning Glory, and Little Women (it was for the middle film that saw her win her first Academy Award). Hepburn came into the picture after Ann Harding had contractual problems, with this being a production under David O. Selznick at RKO. Strong was based off the 1932 novel of the same name, as written by Gilbert Frankau (it only seems apt that he wrote a novel about a Member of Parliament, Frankau apparently had a desire to serve in politics but a conservative man with his history in divorces did not test well for the times). The screenplay was written by Zoe Akins (who had written for Arzner's Sarah and Son), a future Pulitzer Prize winner as a playwright; the profession was changed from the book, which was about a woman racecar driver. Tommy Atkins apparently served as an assistant director. Hepburn reflected on the film in her autobiography and said that she enjoyed her time making the film (along with noting that each wore pants). It was Arzner who apparently modeled Hepburn's character off Amy Johnson, the first woman pilot (well, the word is "aviatrix") to fly solo from England to Australia (there was a mix of newsreel footage for parades and flights included as well). 

It wasn't a huge success at the time, but it certainly stands as a curious film that happened to be made just a year before the enforcement of the Production Code. Of course, the film isn't really about the one in the title as it is about, well, the woman experiencing her first love affair and how it affects her when it comes to the clashes of caution and danger-seekers. Courage, death, love, well, it all comes together in a crash of emotion that really could only come in that Pre-Code era. Hepburn just has that straight-to-the-point personality that exudes confidence with a knowing aura that moves leaps and bounds over anyone she interacts with, which is curious when wrapped with the idea of being in love for the first time - to a stuffy one, no less. Clive is put in the interesting position of being the stodgiest person in a film where he is playing the title character that at one point gets to look upon a woman wearing an outfit that reminds one of a moth. It is a clammy tightrope to walk in terms of "dignity" (he's playing a character that did enough to be called "Sir", remember) when it comes to trying to maintain the idea of normalcy when facing someone with similar features in single-minded goals. All the while, one sees Burke and Chandler from time to time in that engagement of trying to cope with the predicament that comes in love for one with an "occupied" status. Apparently, Arzner paid significant attention to getting something out of Burke when it came to performance along with stating that her interest really fell to Clive's character, which she described as "a man on the cross". Interpret that any way you wish, but each of them do fairly well anyway. As a whole, the film rests on how much one will go with that ending, which, well, rather than face the prospect of an illegitimate child (as one reads between the lines) and wreak havoc on the lives of people she cares about, a decision is made to fly high into the sky with a plan to never see them again. At 78 minutes, it is a decent experience for the curiosity alone.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Desperately Seeking Susan.

Review #2186: Desperately Seeking Susan.

Cast: 

Rosanna Arquette (Roberta Glass), Aidan Quinn (Dez), Madonna (Susan Thomas), Robert Joy (Jim Dandy), Mark Blum (Gary Glass), Laurie Metcalf (Leslie Glass), Will Patton (Wayne Nolan), Anna Levine (Crystal), Peter Maloney (Ian), Steven Wright (Larry Stillman D.D.S.), John Turturro (Ray), Anne Carlisle (Victoria), José Angel Santana (Boutique Owner), Richard Portnow (Party Guest), and Giancarlo Esposito (Street Vendor) Directed by Susan Seidelman (#1987 - Smithereens)

Review: 

“The city was falling apart and downtown there were aspiring artists because rent was so cheap. So I wanted to populate the film with people who were authentic to that time. I didn’t care whether someone in Kansas would recognize them, but New Yorkers would know they were New Yorkers.” 

Okay, maybe the biggest curiosity isn't the fact that this is the film that followed Susan Seidelman's Smithereens (1982). But I like the films that come after an electrifying debut feature, particularly one that is, well, packed with a few names to recognize from somewhere or another. The film was written by Leora Barish, who had been inspired by the film Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974), which in of itself had references to classic novels such as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It was a script that languished for a few years before Sarah Pillsbury and Midge Sanford found it as producers with a new company in tow. After a good deal spent in turnaround trying to get a studio to get behind it (ultimately being Orion Pictures) and a few names tossed around, the "clear visual style” shown by Seidelman with Smithereens was the one that worked to her advantaged. It was Seidelman that had decided on who would be cast as "Susan", which led her to steer away from actresses such as: Ellen Barkin, Melanie Griffith, and Jennifer Jason Leigh (it wasn't the only role with others in the running - more on that later). Instead, she went for a certain presence that lived near her at the time. Madonna had exactly two sorts of experience in film: an indie underground drama A Certain Sacrifice (which had been filmed in the late 1970s) and a cameo appearance in Vision Quest...with each not being released until 1985. As if the stars aligned perfectly, her popularity as a singer (editor note: understatement) was at a fever pitch by the time the film was finished shooting because of the commercial success of her second music album (Like a Virgin). Not surprisingly, "Into the Groove" is heard for the credits, which, well, I dig songs like this. As a whole, the film was a modest hit with audiences upon release and was even turned into a musical a couple of years later. 

Oh sure, the film is a film for Madonna to shine through from time to time, but Arquette is just as adept in proving key to a movie that is a warm tribute to the screwball comedy: mistaken identity and the ever-growing sense of amusement. It touches upon familiar aspects that come through with the experience of someone who craves adventure and finds way more than what they bargained for. Arquette (best known for the TV film The Executioner's Song [1982]) is ideal in that entertaining sense of wonder and befuddlement for antics because the frustration of being a listless housewife that (in the age of newspapers with personal ads that people looked at) we can relate with. That timing is on point through and through for a crisply amusing experience. Quinn was cast after attempts to get a few actors named Dennis Quaid and Kevin Costner to read for the role fell to deaf ears. Go figure, it is probably the best relief the film has going for it, because Quinn and his sardonic charm roll right off with Arquette. And then of course there is Madonna, who practically rolls every little movement and sentence as if it was just a flick of the wrist, one for which Seidelman said was a "variation of herself...bringing her attitude to it". She exudes a certain type of aura that has that rightful sense of fun in the pleasures of charades and half-truths in the ideal apex of one acting without the weight of too much superstar status to handle playing some sort of variation of themselves, which goes hand-in-hand in chuckles when paired with that goofy (but totally believable) Joy. Blum is that ideal sense of the doofus too good for Arquette to set up the inevitable when it comes to screwball mismatches. The film manages to be patient enough for its 104-minute runtime to grant each lead their time to shine in a breezy and fairly engaging trip through a certain lens that goes to its location along with the fashion that makes it practically impossible to forget for its time. It is ultimately a solid second effort for Seidelman, packed with enough fair charm to make for a New York-style delight in screwy entertainment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Madame Web.

Review #2185: Madame Web.

Cast: 

Dakota Johnson (Cassandra "Cassie" Webb / Madame Web), Sydney Sweeney (Julia Cornwall), Isabela Merced (Anya Corazon), Celeste O'Connor (Mattie Franklin), Tahar Rahim (Ezekiel Sims), Mike Epps (O'Neil), Emma Roberts (Mary Parker), Adam Scott (Ben Parker), Kerry Bishé (Constance Webb), Zosia Mamet (Amaria), and José María Yazpik (Santiago) Directed by S. J. Clarkson.

Review: 

"Was it what I expected? Yes and no. There were elements of it that were incredible, and you were like, 'Wow, I'm on this big movie set and get to do all these amazing visual effects.' Then, in some ways, it's just like another day on set. I think that's a really healthy balance because it can be so intimidating, like a steamroller coming at you, and you've just got to get on and try to wrestle it. You can't stop it, and you change direction at your own peril."  - S. J. Clarkson

Is it wrong to go to a movie because of curiosity for how bad it could be? I had wondered just what movie directed by a woman had the worst rating prior to seeing this, and strangely enough, it was a film directed by Cheryl Hines in Serious Moonlight (2009). The next three in "least worst" were: Twilight (2008 - probably not that bad, but dire), Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991), and Hot Pursuit (2015). Now now, you might be saying highlighting terrible movies made by women is a bit ridiculous, but isn't equality all about highlighting terrible movies of both genders? March is National Women's History Month, so why not highlight a first-time effort? Actually, S. J. Clarkson has been a director since the early 2000s, all of which being in television, whether that was Doctors or Jessica Jones. Clarkson was tapped to direct by 2020, and she would be one of the handful of numerous writers behind this adaptation of the comic book character (as created by Denny O'Neil and John Romita Jr for The Amazing Spider-Man comic in 1980, and apparently Web has never been featured in their own comic). The screenplay was done by Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Claire Parker, and Clarkson, while the story was done by Kerem Sanga, Matt Sazama, and Burk Sharpless. Apparently, the work done by Sazama and Sharpless on films such as Morbius (2022) was worthy enough for Sony to want to see them return for another film in their so-called Sony's Spider-Man Universe. Honestly, even for someone as weird about movies involving action like me, I forgot that Sony has tried to their own set of films based on Spider-Man characters (such as the two Venom films and Morbius but not the Spider-Verse films, I guess). One might wonder if it seems like beating a dead horse to talk negatively about a movie rather than highlight something else. The easy answer to that is: what plane of reality do you live in? One can see all the movies they want that they say is "good", but a significant amount of stuff is still bad. In fact, some of it is really bad, so why try to act one is above it? The funny thing is I don't even care that much about talking about the divide of comic book movies and, well, movies, since I've been playing pick and choose for the last few years anyway (unless it seemed good like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as opposed to stuff that I figured, well...). With that being said, I went into this film expecting a silly movie for 116 minutes, and the best thing to say is that I got to see it all by myself in a theater (this film has been out for almost a month, so...).

This was delightfully terrible to watch. Apparently, instead of being set in the 1990s, the timeline was changed to 2003 during reshoots (as told by posters of Beyonce, namedropping Idol, red Mountain Dew and a retro clock I had like 10 years ago). One wonders how much energy was present before the reshoots...because there sure is little of it here. Not one actor seems to be invested in a film that has a character that spends most of their time saying "look out!" when it comes to the action sequences. Okay, so I knew a very little bit of what "Madame Web" was in the comics and figured two things: one, that she was vaguely related to Spider-Man and 2. the name sounds like one would use for a brothel owner. The resulting film did not help matters, because really her powers here just seem like cheating more than anything. "Web" can see...somewhat into a future. Sure, she can't foresee when she'll get blinded and crippled (so she can avoid it), but she can conjure up plot exposition (for when she has mommy issues that come to the forefront for like, one scene) and tell people when to duck when being confronted by Generic Bad Guy or open a window so a pigeon won't bonk into it. The movie seems to think it is envisioned like a suspense thriller, but little of that comes through for a movie that makes really wonder why Web wasn't thought of as an adversarial character or one that has...to learn something about the nature of their power. What the film really involves is "film made by committee", such as the idea of three teens (played by adults) that are teased as future Spider-People with suits...just for visions. I can't tell what was funnier: the main character leaving the three teens she basically kidnapped on accident in the woods so she can go to her apartment to study (exposition) notes or her leaving them with her friend (with a pregnant sister-in-law) so she can go to Peru and find exposition with a secret tribe of spider-people. The answer is Option C: a Pepsi sign being a big part of a climax where absolutely nothing of scale is shown for interesting detail. If you told someone this was reported as being made for $80 million, they probably would say "what, did the accountants hide it?"  

Honestly, Johnson is the "best" part of the film, if only because among all the drained performances trying to get through a film of bluescreen, the ounces of amusement to be had here come because of her. Maybe there was an interesting script somewhere in the original drafts that had something to do with the perils of knowing the future. Instead, one is left adrift in a sea of awkward characterization that probably nobody would've made work with the way this film was sludged in and out. At least she tried. Less successful is Rahim, seemingly playing a villain in the art of "ADR" that isn't even defined at the bare minimum of "how did they get here?" (how does one go from stealing a spider in Peru to being rich - use your imagination, I guess). The adversary he plays is "slightly strong with poison, totally legit guys", can't shoot webs, and has visions that three spider-women will kill him. Honestly, making a movie where a nut is on the loose that believes he has to hunt some people down to save himself could made an idea for a thriller (particularly since he has hands on tech that means he can look at public cameras like it was the Patriot Act), but, well, he has no sense of menace present. Hell, I know he has some sort of poison with touch, but, like, one couldn't have gone for the overkill route and carried a weapon too? Sure, he would probably go Bond Villain route and talk rather than shoot when presented the chance, but, well, it would at least present the chance of a trait to think about. The random guy next to you when in line for something (fast food, shopping, paying bills) probably will spook you more than Rahim in this film, but again, sounding like one is being ADR'd helps no one. The trio of Sweeney-Merced-O'Connor have about as much energy as one has when trying to make excuses for why they aren't going to the local theater on their day off, with the scene of each explaining why they can't go to the cops when in their predicament is unintentionally amusing for the execution of those lines in juxtaposition with being unintentionally kidnapped (since each is ridiculously stuck in a bad spot like rich parents or, um, their dad was deported). The web of how they are tangled with Johnson (junk mail! awkward encounters! flipping a paramedic!) makes me laugh just as much, because it has the charisma of someone trying to find reasons to have a reason to keep talking to you in line when high school ended 15 years ago. Scott is the only other person in the film for more than a scene (unless you count Mamet going "I'm scanning the data" as being there longer), and it probably should mean something to be playing "Uncle Ben" other than, oh, right, this could have been any name, which kind of goes for Roberts (daughter of the cool Roberts in the family - Eric) for a movie with the level of stakes that are lower than how much kibble one should give their pet for dinner. If one really thinks about it, the most befuddling line is one at the end that seems like a joke, when Johnson's character says "that's what he thinks" about a guy seemingly about to enjoy becoming a uncle with none of the responsibility. I feel like Madame Web being around as a pal to a guy kind of means...one would be troubled by knowing they are going to be doing more than being an uncle to a child. But I'm sure the "greater good" precludes that in the same way that the Future Spider-Girls (trademark) must stay on the path to do Totally Heroic Stuff (while Web gets to say bless you five seconds in advance for cheap party tricks and maybe wear a suit because why?). Making a "gritty" attempt at a comic film probably had some idea of meat on it before it was hacked by some sort of studio notes, or God forbid, it actually was worse (someone should put a false rumor of having the original script just for the idea of a troll campaign to Release The Less Crappy Madame Web Cut). On the whole, folks probably already know the movie stinks, but it seemed ripe to make fun of a movie aptly appropriate for the era of bloated studio filmmaking that tries to make franchises and streaming the thing to try and suck all the life out of what should be the simplest thing: fun. The only fun worth having with Madame Web is to make fun of it, and it will likely rank as one of the most amusing features to namedrop for fun in the coming future.

On that note, Happy International Women's Day. Go see better movies! 

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.