Week 52; Film 261 - The Wizard of Oz [1939]

You know the story. Dorthy Gale feels unheard and alone on her aunt and uncle’s Kansas farm. She dreams of going ‘over the rainbow’. Then, a tornado twists from the sky and the storm shelter is locked, so Dorthy runs to her room to hide. The whole house is seemingly picked up by the storm and when it crashes down, Dorthy emerges in the land of Oz. Having parked her house on the Wicked Witch of the East, Dorthy is celebrated as a hero by the Munchkins of Munchkinland. But Dorthy doesn’t want to be a hero—she wants to be home. She is directed to travel to the Emerald City via a yellow brick road, where the Wizard of Oz could get her home. Along the way, she meets a scarecrow, a tin man, and a cowardly lion who accompany her with the hopes of receiving their own gifts from the Wizard. But the reluctant Wizard challenges the quartet to the struggle of their lives: return with the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West. It’s a struggle that would teach our heroes about brains, heart, courage, and that the grass is greenest back at home.

Yes, I have seen “The Wizard of Oz” before. Several times. But to be honest, it’s been sooooo long. I was a kid the last time I saw it. It’s been so long, that I didn’t even remember the casting device where all of the people that surround Dorthy in her ‘Kansas life’ play the roles of the characters in her ‘Oz journey’. So here I am, ~25 years after I’ve seen an 83 year old movie, going, “Wow, that’s really clever!”

“The Wizard of Oz” is America’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”, and the film is still great. It holds up in pretty much every way. The Kansas stuff is fine and “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” is probably THE GREAT “I want” song of all time. The tornado effects are still pretty darn good and the transition to Oz (and from sepia to color) is one of the great transitions of all time. The design of Oz is fantastical and lush. Even though you can see the painted backdrops along the soundstage walls, everything is so colorful and layered that it just sort of works. Dorthy’s three companions are charming and the Wizard is one of the great charlatans. I didn’t realize he was played by Frank Morgan, who played “Mr. Matuschek” in “The Shop Around the Corner”—a great character actor. I think the film’s message that there’s no need to go out in the big, scary, weird world because happiness is found at home is a bit saccharine-sweet for me. But that’s fine.

According to the Library of Congress, “The Wizard of Oz” is the most seen film of all time. A perfect way to end my FIFTH year of watching one new(ish)-to-me film a week.

See ya next year!

Week 51; Film 260 - The Shop Around the Corner [1940]

Klara Novak walks into a little shop around the corner, looking for a job. Top salesman Alfred Kralik informs her that there are no positions available, but she impresses store owner Mr. Matuschek enough to earn a gig. Novak and Kralik form a softly adversarial relationship, with each landing somewhere between uninterested and undermining, in regards to the other. Meanwhile, Kralik tells another clerk that he recently answered a newspaper ad by a woman looking for someone to write letters with over cultural topics. As he wrote and received letters from this anonymous woman, he soon fell in love with her mind and planned to meet with her in person. Novak has also been corresponding with an anonymous man who she plans to meet. Do you see where this is going? Well all of this is thrown into chaos when Mr. Matuschek’s mood sours and he makes everyone work a long shift. What’s eating Mr. Matuscheck? What will happen to Novak and Kralik? Tune in to find out!

Here’s another 80 year old film I knew nothing about, that I ended up absolutely adoring. I found the film’s premise to be so clever—that of two people who fall in love in writing but not in person—that I couldn’t help but think, “They need to remake this!” So you can imagine my dismay when I realized that they did exactly that, in 1998’s “You’ve Got Mail”. Still, I think this concept is destined with an even more modern reboot, with a streamer using dating apps as the vehicle for two people to fall in love online.

In addition to being tight and witty, the film feels really modern through its exploration of how people portray themselves (verses their reality). We all know that people’s “social media lives” and “real lives” are incongruous. The film makes this true for Kralik and Novak, who are all business in the shop but are their true selves in writing. In fact, everyone in the film has some sort of dual nature, be it Mr. Matuschek (a stern parental figure who is easily unwound), Mr. Vadas (a prim and proper gentlemen who is actually improper in a very specific way), and Pepi Katona (an ambitious, rough delivery boy who had a managerial gentlemen locked under his shell). In this way, the film is fun, funny, and interesting. Check it out!

Week 50; Film 259 - The Polar Express [2004]

On Christmas Eve, a young boy is beginning to have doubts about the existence of Santa. Suddenly, a massive train shows up on the street in front of his house, and a mustachioed Tom Hanks-looking/sounding conductor invites the boy aboard for a trip to the North Pole. In the passenger compartment, the boy meets other pajama wrapped kids, about his age. The journey is full of fantastical vistas and challenges, and each of the main kids we follow seems to learn something about themselves, or Christmas, on the journey north. Once at the North Pole, our main heroes get lost until they arrive at a massive ceremony seeing Santa off on his trip around the world. Our main character decides he believes in Santa after all. With his restored conviction, he is able to see and hear the fullness of Christmas. *Cue sweeping Silvelstri score*

Like the classic Rankin/Bass stop-motion Christmas specials of yore, “The Polar Express” now plays a bit like an artifact of its time: 2004. The film seems to be made primarily to show off emerging motion-capture technology. It is to mo-cap what “Toy Story” is to computer animation. But between the two Tom Hanks films, this story meandered more and seemed to have fewer consequences. It wasn’t bad. It’s a beautiful film (the ticket floating through nature scene felt like the film was just showing off its stunning imagery) and had a charming, magical design. But the motion capture performances the film is centered around proved to be its Achilles’ heel. The character performances land somewhere between “video game” and “uncanny valley”, with no emotion really shining through. In light of this, Alan Silvestri’s wondrous score is left to do all of the emotional heavy lifting—and it certainly delivers. So yeah. It’s a film with good things and bad things. A bit contradictory, and that’s ok. I suppose that makes sense for a film that poses that believing doesn’t alway require seeing by—well—letting our hero boy actually see Santa.

Week 49; Film 258 - Gremlins [1984]

A hapless inventor stumbles into a Chinatown antique store, hoping to pawn his wares, when he encounters a mysterious animal of sorts: a mogwai. Thinking he has found the perfect gift for his son, the inventor immediately offers to buy the small, furry creature for $200, but the old man running the shop refuses the sale. Unafraid of a good deal, the man’s grandson secretly sells the mogwai to the inventor and gives him a list of strange rules for the creature’s care. The inventor’s son Billy loves his new pet mogwai, naming him “Gizmo” showing him off to a local boy. But when he accidentally gets water on Gizmo (a rule the grandson warned not to break), Gizmo begins to sprout mischievous offspring. These “gremlins” start as a mere curiosity but soon begin to wreak havoc on the sleepy town of Kingston Falls, wrecking machinery and (I’m pretty sure but it doesn’t expressly show it, but) killing residents. It’s up to Billy, his girlfriend Kate, and his mother Lynn to kill the gremlins and restore peace on earth (because this movie takes place during Christmastime!).

I have often heard the phrase “gremlin” and have even used the term. I’ve seen the Furby-looking Gizmo and the Salacious Crumb-looking Stripe, but have somehow never actually watched “Gremlins”. Truth be told, I was really hoping to like it more than I did. I liked Billy, his family dynamic, and flirtations with Kate. They were all interesting enough (in an ‘80s standard fare sort of way). There’s something perfect about a family that lives with failing technology being able to stand up against creatures that destroy technology. And yet, the film doesn’t really lean into that. It’s just general, fun mayhem that felt a bit hollow. The film starts by setting up a few characters and plot points that don’t go anywhere once the action starts. And between the weird orientalism with the old Chinese man and lore or some of the depictions of mischievous gremlins, the flick used weirdly racist tropes to depict the creatures’ otherness. The film was fine. I liked it. But it was just ok.

Week 48; Film 257 - Mirror [1975]

Made by Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky, in Soviet Russia, “Mirror” is one of those films that can’t really be wrapped up in a clean synopsis. The film is a criss-crossing thread of recollections, dreams, hallucinations, newsreels, poems, and general glimpses of an unseen male narrator’s life. Many of these incidents are framed around the man’s childhood and his recent past, with his mother and his wife (played by the same woman, Margarita Terekhova). The film is nonlinear, ponderous, starkly beautiful, and confusing.

Of the 257 film’s I’ve watched in this project, most are considered to be some of the greatest films of all time (through a certain lens, at least). This one is no exception. It’s considered to be Tarkovsky’s magnum opus, has 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and is on many directors and film critics’ top 50 or top 100 greatest films lists. In fact, I finally chose to watch it because it kept coming up, over and over again, on Cinefix’s great movie lists. They’re even known to poke fun at themselves over how much they gush over this film.

But this film didn’t do anything for me. I found it visually beautiful and at times interesting but otherwise, nothing. When it finished, I immediately went to google and typed “The Mirror 1975 explained” and most responses said, ‘it’s not that kind of movie; one that has or needs a meaning to be explained’. And that my inability to just absorb the film as it is, is because my brain has been rotted by franchise films, or I don’t understand poetry. Because my screen wasn’t big enough, or the volume wasn’t loud enough. Because I went into it knowing too much, or too little, about the film. Because I’m meant to do more analytical heavy lifting than I’m used to, or I need to avoid analysis all together.

I think I’m going to just chalk it up to preference.

Week 47; Film 256 - Paddington [2014]

I have been watching one “new to me, culturally significant film” a week since 2018. As I finish my fifth year of this fun project, I think about how much my life has changed since I started. And that, primarily, is because of Westley. Though I started this because wanted to fill critical holes in my pop-culture awareness, these screenings became an essential, once-a-week chance to experience art and humanity at a time my life was just diapers and sleep deprivation. But as Westley grew and my world stabilized, I saw a new potential in the project: the chance to experience “new to me, culturally significant family films” WITH my son.

This is the first film I picked for both of us. When I made a batch of stove-popped popcorn and pulled the beanbag in front of the TV, I had no idea how special sharing this experience with my kid would be. So as I gush over this flick, know the context behind it (but I’m convinced I would have loved it anyway)…

A cross-cultural exchange takes place in the jungles of ‘Darkest Peru’ when a British geographer discovers a new species of intelligent bear. In his time with them, he teaches the bears to speak English, all about London, and to realize a fondness for marmalade. Forty years later, the now weirdly-charmingly British bear family is disturbed by an earthquake. Sadly, poor uncle Pastuzo perishes in the shaking. Unsure of what to do next, Aunt Lucy sends her young, bear-nephew across the ocean to London, where she is sure he will find a home. In London, the bear makes his way to Paddington Station, but as Brits pass him by, he is increasingly discouraged by the prospects of finding a home. Then, the Brown family stumbles upon him. Naming him Paddington (“a proper English name”, after the train station), the family takes him in for only one night, at the insistence of the risk-averse Mr. Brown. But despite the Browns’ most stubborn instincts, Paddington begins to change their world in the best ways, teaching them that curiosity, family, and kindness are good old-fashioned British values that haven’t gone out of style. *cue all the tears*

“Paddington” is the actually the “newest” film I’ve ever watched for this film project and a deserving addition, no doubt. I got to be honest, I don’t often get a chance to see family films that don’t land on Disney+. I’ll watch anything by Lord + Miller, but I don’t really know what’s going on with the Minions or Dragons Being Trained (I know, I know—I hear that one is good too). I’m a Pixar-man, through and through. But I couldn’t escape the relentless chatter about how good “Paddington” (and its sequel) are, so I knew I finally had to give it a go.

Oh sweet build-a-bear this film is wonderful. Cute and charming to the core. But beyond being a delightful, marmalade concoction, there are three things that really stood out to me. One, the film is really well made. It’s a beautifully visual film, from gags (“taxi—dermist”) to effects that really hold up because they are designed to be reality-adjacent. Paddington is an animated character in mostly-real looking bear clothes, allowing all of his heart and emotion to shine through without any uncanny valley shenanigans. And I was awestruck how Paul King and his team use the camera in really interesting ways, with clever angles, shadows, and a charming toy-house shot to break down the Brown family dynamic. Next, the story is a giant bear-hug in script form. I’m convinced that “Paddington” is the spiritual successor to “Mary Poppins”, with a little bit of “Lilo & Stitch” and a sprinkle of “Up.” And while it may sound like I’m describing some saccharin-sweet, no-stakes romp, the third thing that stood out to me was how meaningful the film’s message was. “Paddington” tells the story of two Englands—one that is fast-paced, cold, risk-averse, and rooted in notions of imperial glory. The second is the reminder that Briton’s are no stranger to desperation and need. A reminder that, during World War II, abandoned or orphaned children were looked after by families, communities, and those of means.

In a pre-Brexit world, Paddington asks the English to remember that it is in their heritage to be unafraid of those who are different and to be kind. To take care of those without a home—to take care of immigrants. Yes, this film is about immigration and in the most shockingly bare, yet charmingly squishy way. A story about how welcoming immigrants into your home, your community, and your heart has the potential to not only improve their quality of life, but enrich yours. And that doing so is a proper-British thing to do. The way this film is able to say this while wrapping it in the dressings of a traditional, conservative British family is a delightful magic trick and makes for one of the greatest family stories of the past few decades.

Week 46; Film 255 - The Jazz Singer [1927]

Thirteen year old Jackie Rabinowitz has been trained by his father to one day become a cantor at the local synagogue. But Jackie is more interested in singing jazzy tunes than Jewish prayer. When his father catches Jackie performing at a local beer garden, he whips the boy as punishment. In heartbroken rage, Jackie runs away and pledges to never return. Ten years later, Jackie (now ‘Jack Robin’) is performing at a cabaret and catches the ear of musical theater dancer Mary Dale. She gets him a job in a traveling musical review, which eventually leads him back to New York, on Broadway. Jack tries to visit his family but his father still rejects him for bringing modern music into the house. With father and son more entrenched than ever, Cantor Rabinowitz falls ill. Jackie is faced with the choice of a lifetime: fulfill a dream to open on Broadway or return to his home and his synagogue and fulfill his dying father’s dream.

I came to “The Jazz Singer” out of some weird obligation to finally watch, what I understood to be, the “first talkie”. It’s true that this is the first film with synchronized dialogue, but calling this film the “first talkie” is sort of like saying that the Apollo 8 astronauts were actually the first to go to the moon. It’s true—they were the first to orbit around the moon as a part of the incremental steps towards the moon landing—but both claims feel somewhat exaggerated to me. To me, “The Jazz Singer” was a fascinating hybrid film: half silent film, half talkie. The synchronized audio primarily stuck to recorded songs. Some songs had a spoken verse in the middle, while other songs had genuine dialogue before or after the performance. But in most scenes, dialogue is conveyed in silence or through title-cards. The transition to spoken word was generally seamless, like how a film might change aspect ratio. By saying this, I don’t mean to take the innovation away from the film. It was a big step for film and the audio definitely ‘plusses’ the story.

In fact, I can’t imagine telling this story without music. Stories about father-and-son generational conflict are as old as time and told through all forms of film medium—from Star Wars to Ratatouille. But for this conflict to be anchored in music was a beautiful and heartbreaking wrinkle. Some of the film’s best performances, by both Al Jolsen and Yossele Rosenblatt, were in song. They each had a “tear in their voice” and it carried through. I thought it was really unique and beautiful how steadfastly Jewish this film was, with Jewish tradition contrasting with Broadway and show biz. The story was about old and new, tradition and assimilation, true identity and projected-identity.

Which brings us to blackface. If you didn’t already know, the film’s lead Al Jolsen was a vaudevillian entertainer famous for appropriating black music and often doing so in blackface performance. And while this film is a fictionalized biography of Jolsen’s own life, it goes so long without indulging in the racist practice that I forgot it was an element of the story. But sure enough, with ~20 minutes of runtime left, Jolsen gets out his tin and starts applying blackface. It’s racist, and cringy, and a stain on the film and its legacy. But I do not believe it was incidental to the story or included merely because it was Jolsen’s schtick. On the contrary, the film’s blackface was a literal manifestation how modern performance has turned Jackie into someone he’s not. The fact that the film states its metaphor so earnestly and yet without any self-awareness of its racism (they way, say, “Tropic Thunder” does) is uncomfortable. It’s not ok. But that’s historic art for you.

Week 45; Film 254 - The Man Who Would Be King [1975]

1885, India—ex-sergeants of the British Army Peachy Carnehan and Danny Dravot are in search of adventure (and trouble). The two devise a plan: They’re going to venture into Kafiristan (a region of Afghanistan/Pakistan) and earn the permission of a local leader to train his tribe on how to fight. Through discipline and arms, the plan entails going from tribe to tribe, conquering the region until they can depose the leader they’ve suckered along and become the rulers of the land. They sign their plan in front of Rudyard Kipling and set off for the Khyber Pass. And it works! Too well, in fact. When Dravot takes a bow to the chest and walks away unharmed, the locals begin to suspect that he’s a god. This makes conquering all the easier. Until it isn’t. In an Icarus-like story, Dravot takes to his new deification. He is less and less impressed with riches and quickly attracted to the power of rule. And he’s pretty good at it! That is, until, his humanness shows itself and unravels everything that Danny and Peachy had worked for.

I really enjoyed this flick. It hits this really specific adventure-comedy-character study genre that I particularly enjoy. And Sean Connery and Michael Caine are perfect together, with Caine playing drama and Connery playing comedy when each needs to. It handles the local population with as much tact as you would expect from a Kipling adaptation (paternalistic, racist, etc.), but I suppose that’s relevant for this time and these characters. In fact, the story is kind of an allegory for how the British conquered the world—not for remarkable wit but for sheer difference, technology, and the ability to pit locals against one another.

I can’t remember why I didn’t go a full five stars on this one. It does sort of just end, which is perhaps owed to its source material. I’m going to stick with my gut, but for a film we don’t talk much about, this one’s a terrific classic.

Week 44; Film 253 - Tootsie [1982]

Michael Dorsey helps his friend Sandy audition for a role on the daytime soap “Southwest General”, but she is quickly dismissed. Michael is an acting coach and out of work actor who can’t manage to book his own gigs because of a reputation for being hard to work with. He argues with his agent about his prospects and, in a desperate attempt to prove him wrong, auditions for the role Sandy wanted. To do this, he disguises himself as a woman and auditions as “Dorthy Michaels”. Michael plans to use the charade to earn enough money to stage his own production, but Dorthy becomes something of a sensation. Michael plays her as a feisty, southern feminist, ad libbing and reinventing her scenes to escape the harassment typical for the show’s women characters. This resonates immensely with women watching at home, as well as the other actresses on set, like the actress Michael is crushing on, Julie Nichols. Inhabiting Dorthy, Michael is able to get closer to Julie and learn more about the sexist treatment women are forced to put up with on set. But as Dorthy attracts unwanted attention, both professionally and personally, the jig is harder to keep going. How will Michael escape Dorthy without hurting those around him? He probably wont.

“Tootsie” is one of many in a line of films where men cross dress for comedy; this makes it hard to avoid comparison and, quite frankly, it’s not really the best of the genre. What helps the film stand out is how relatively down to earth and dramatic it is. While the film indulges many of the comedic elements of Michael’s Dorthy-transformation, it also plays as a person in a real bind. You feel Michael’s yearning and you feel genuine tension that Dorthy will be found out. I mean, it’s Dustin Hoffman. He’s almost known for taking these out-there characters and humanizing them. And yet, its in the film’s grounded nature that it sort of backfires for me. You have this story of a man learning about all of the demeaning and predatory behavior that women deal with—all while actively pursuing Julie through sheer deceit to get close to her (and leading Sandy on carelessly). And the film never really deals with this, for Julie at least. She’s a character who has a weakness for going back to disrespectful men and, well, she’s mad at Michael for like, 5 minutes. Lol. Maybe that’s the point, but it’s a dysfunctional one. Anyway, the film was fun enough and I really liked the Bill Murray pretentious-writer character. But it almost takes itself too seriously for its zany resolution and runs a bit too long for my taste.

Week 43; Film 252 - 28 Days Later [2002]

Happy Halloween everyone! I’m pleased to share this final review of horror-season, which means that I’m finally caught up on my screenings/posts!

28 days after a savage, aggression-inducing virus, simply called “Rage”, is unleashed in Great Britain, bike courier Jim awakens from a coma at a London hospital. He is perplexed to find the hospital deserted and begins to roam the eerily empty streets of London, scavenging for sodas and screaming for help. Jim is attacked by infected humans and saved by survivors Selena and Mark. Jim and Selena see signs of life in a residential tower and investigate, finding cab driver Frank and his daughter Hannah. The pairs quickly warm up to each other but are hampered by dwindling supplies. As such, they decide to brave a car ride north, following a broadcast offering protection. In the protective care of the military at a fortified mansion, the now-trio must confront the harsh reality that their uninflected saviors have devolved into the real monsters.

As someone who finally got into horror thanks to “The Walking Dead”, this film both delighted me and drove me nuts. Delighted because it’s a really great ‘zombie-move’. And drove me nuts because of the similarities—and this came out first! Waking up from a coma in a post-apocalyptic land? Check. Taking refuge at an old man’s house with him and his daughter? Check. Daring to travel a dead wasteland? Check. Finding out that living humans are the real monsters? Check. Seriously, this movie cracks 4-5 seasons of plot progression in a clean 113 minutes. I can’t be mad at the film falling into zombie tropes if it helped create them.

And while I ended up falling off “The Walking Dead” train, this film had me hooked to the end. I think the secret sauce was in its moments levity, not darkness. It dared to let us see our protagonists in moments of joy, which if anything, only further added to the tension. We quickly cared about these people and we were afraid to see them suffer. I thought the romance was handled well, with the film never really going beyond “young, terror-induced need for comfort and affection”. And the empty London shots were AMAZING. They’re honestly what drew me to the film and what really sells the magic trick of it all. The film itself isn’t pretty—it seems to be early 2000s British digital, like the production quality of the 2005 Doctor Who. But that kind of added to why I was so drawn to this flick. What a great way to end horror-season.

Week 42; Film 251 - The Blair Witch Project [1998]2

Film students Heather, Mike, and Josh travel to Burkittsville, Maryland to shoot a documentary about the legend of the Blair Witch. This film (the film we are watching) is supposedly their footage—all that was found after they went missing.

In the first act, the trio travel around Burkittsville asking the local residents what they make of the Blair Witch. Opinions run the gamut from skepticism to fanatical belief. We hear stories, such as the kidnapping and murder of 7 children in the ‘40s. Another tells of a young girl who went missing for 3 days in 1888 who returned to tell the tale of “an old woman whose feet never touched the ground.” Heather, Mike, and Josh embark into the supposedly haunted woods surrounding Burkittsville to see what they can dig up. At first, their trip isn’t more than two inexperienced hikers getting directed around by Heather, a marginally more experienced hiker and the force behind the documentary. But as days, turn to nights, and back to days, it’s clear the three have become lost. Worse, they become spooked by strange occurrences, such as hearing children’s voices, twigs snapping, finding small cairns, and finding their stuff rifled through. Their tension turns to paranoia as it slowly becomes clear that they’re not making it out of the woods alive.

“The Blair Witch Project” was probably one of the first horror film phenomenons I remember encountering. In a young-internet world, I remember kids actually discussing the possibility that the film was real. And while the film has faded into a punchline of sorts, I managed to always feel a bit spooked by it until I became a boring skeptic and finally developed an appetite for horror, some 20 years later.

I feel really conflicted about this film. Though the early ‘supernatural/creepy’ stuff didn’t do much for me, I did feel the tension ramp us as the film went on. The film had this sense of like, “There’s no way that there is wilderness left in the U.S. to actually get lost in, right? Right???” which worked on me as a solo amateur hiker. It was sort of like “127 Hours” this way, just without the boulder. Seeing the group come to grips with being lost and further, their fate was the source of the film’s drama and it worked for me. But the rest of it was just creepy, supernatural, jump-scare set dressing. And unfortunately, I found it boring. The actual tonal monotony of the forrest scenes and lack of information available in dark, grainy night-time footage contributed to the sense of terror—yes—but didn’t make for a particularly entertaining film.

Week 41; Film 250 - Child’s Pay [1988]

After a long pursuit and gunfight, serial killer Charles Lee Ray lays dying on a toy store floor. As the cops close in he performs a voodoo chant, transferring his soul into a Good Guy-brand talking doll toy and blowing up the store in the process.

Cut forward, it’s Andy Barclay’s 6th birthday and all he wants is a Good Guy doll, like the character he sees on TV. His mom Karen can’t afford one but gets a suspiciously good deal on one from a peddler. When Andy’s babysitter gets tossed out their high rise apartment window and only tiny footprints can be found, the police begin to suspect Andy himself. Andy tells his mom and the authorities that his doll is to blame, but no one believes him. But the Good Guy doll—named Chucky—eventually reveals himself to his victims. Karen and Detective Mike Norris come to believe Andy and the three fight for their lives against the demonic, red-headed slasher doll.

I really liked “Child’s Play” way more than I expected to. The film straddles the horror/dark-comedy genres in a way that generally works, but sometimes makes for a inconsistent tone. In fact, when the film first started dabbling in its cartoonish, over the top violence, it felt like a bit of a miss and not entirely a choice. By as the film started to open up and breathe, I got that’s what they were going for. The actual effects were also generally good, with the clever use of many tools to make Chucky effective. Sometimes it looked silly but by the final incarnation of the doll, he looked downright terrifying. Effects and hokey tropes aside, “Child’s Play” is ultimately a story about believing victims, the impressionability (yet wisdom) of youth, and about feeling helpless. In this way, the film is still resonant and is worth a watch.

Week 40; Film 249 - The Omen [1976]

Hospital chaplain Father Spiletto is consoling American diplomat Robert Thorn, who just learned his newborn son didn’t make it. In this moment of grief, the chaplain convinces Thorn to adopt different baby whose mother died in childbirth. Thorn does so and tells no one—not even his wife. They name the boy Damien.

Five years later, Thorn is the ambassador to the UK and seemingly on a fast track to the U.S. presidency. The Thorns live a privileged, perfect life until strange things start happening: a vicious Rottweiler keeps appearing, Damien’s nanny hangs herself, and Damien has a violent panic attack when the Thorns try to take him to church. As a tragic swirl of deaths begin to happen around the Thorns, photographer Keith Jennings and Robert cooperate on an investigation that leads them to a troubling conclusion: Damien is the antichrist—the son of the devil. And thus, Robert is faced with an unimaginable struggle: Destroy his own child or be destroyed.

For all the religious iconography and lore surrounding this film, I’m convinced it’s just a story about how messy parenthood can be. LOL. “The Omen” is another in a class of ‘60s-‘70s religious horror films that couch their jumps and terror in the supposed authenticity of scripture. And even for someone like me, there’s something weirdly convincing about it. Throw in the supernatural photography element, the superb use of a “creepy kid”, and a perfectly good performance by Gregory Peck and you have a solid film.

Week 39; Film 248 - Diabolique [1955]

At a boarding school outside of Paris, an unlikely alliance forms. Christina Delassalle, a frail teacher and the owner of the school, meets with Nicole Horner, another teacher and the known mistress of her husband. Though Michel Delassalle was once romantic with them both, the wretched man has treated each cruelly. And so, despite some hesitation on Christina’s part, the two set off to get rid of Michel—forever. The unlikely co-conspirators lure Michel away from the school and, over a tense evening, drug and drown him. The plan is to dump his body in the school pool and hope it looks like an accident. But when strange occurrences start to happen, Christina and Nicole become twisted with guilt, torment, and fear. Did they botch the murder? Are they being blackmailed? Or worse—are they being haunted? At the request of the film itself, I’d rather not say.

“Les Diaboliques” was recommended to me by a Cast Member I worked with 3 years ago. So yes—if you recommend a film to me, it can often take THAT LONG to get around to.

But this film is fantastic. Its twists and turns are so suspenseful that I struggle to find another way to describe it but ‘Hitchcock-ian’. And yet, that’s not entirely fair because it was released during and before Hitchcock’s prime. The film is a stylish, tense ride in which you find yourself rooting for murderers and hoping for their safe passage. Signoret and Clout are fantastic as Nicole and Christina. There’s sort of a “Jackie O and Marlyn form a friendly, albeit reluctant partnership” feel to their interactions. Meurisse’s Michel is a terrific villain. The film’s ending is whiplash inducing, slightly mysterious, and satisfying. Seriously, I don’t know how to say more without giving more away, but if you have HBO Max and the tolerance for a tense, 1950’s black-and-white French film, give this one a whirl.

Week 38; Film 247 - The Bride of Frankenstein [1935]

Finally made it to horror season!!!!

It was a dark and story night—and Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley are reminiscing in a castle. Mary Shelley admits that the story of Frankenstein didn’t end with the monster’s death at the windmill collapse, and she begins to tell of an unpublished sequel:

Frankenstein’s monster escapes the windmill wreckage and once again torments folk in the countryside. Henry Frankenstein also survives and is returned to his fiancé in a fragile state. Frankenstein is visited by his former mentor, Dr. Pretorius, who proposes a partnership to continue to work of playing god. Frankenstein refuses. Meanwhile, after a charming, temporary friendship with a blind man, a now slightly articulate, more cognitive monster is saddened by his loneliness. He encounters Dr. Pretorius, who promises the monster a mate. With this angle, Pretorius is able to more convincingly push on Frankenstein for a partnership and the two set off to engineer a wife for the monster. Will the plan work? How successful are blind dates, after all?

There’s a certain brilliance in how the film couches its narrative in the supposed authenticity of Mary Shelley. To this end, the casting of the Monster’s Bride was even more genius. It’s like a fake answer to the question, “Did Frankenstein really need a sequel?” Because certainly, this film felt like a whole lot more of the same, from the original. Rawr. Scream. Repeat.

What makes it different is how the monster himself evolves. The whole second act sequence with the monster and the blind man was terrific. I could have watched a whole sitcom with those two. And the way Pretorius sucks the sickly Frankenstein back into it was, in part, the real horror of the flick. I only ding the film for ending suddenly and poorly. It really felt like there is a missing act 3 dealing with the monster’s response to the events of the film.

Week 37; Film 246 - The Last of the Mohicans [1992]

It’s 1757 and the French and Indian War is underway. The British are recruiting Colonial Americans for the war, but white frontiersman Nathaniel “Hawkeye” Poe and the Mohican family who ‘adopted’ him refuse to join the fight. Hawkeye and the Mohicans head out on a trapping expedition but stumble upon a Huron war party. The Hurons ambush a British escort, killing most of the soldiers. Huron warrior Magua is purposeful in trying to kill two British women in the escort, Cora and Alice Munro, the daughters of a Colonel fighting on the continent. Hawkeye and the Mohicans stop the murders from happening and agree to take the survivors to Colonel Munro at Fort William Henry, in the Adirondack Mountains. In their time together, Hawkeye and Cora begin to fall in love. Once at the Fort, Colonel Munro is happy to see his daughters but is conflicted, aware the British face a losing battle. The Colonel eventually gives in to the French commander’s generous terms of surrender and the British, Americans, and ally natives abandon the Fort. With Hawkeye in chains, the Mohicans unwilling to leave him, Cora in love with him, and another Huron ambush waiting in the wings, the film crescendos in a finale with chases, hand-to-hand combat, and the oft-quoted promise that “I will find you.”

I feel like if this movie was a novella in the ‘80s, Fabio would have been depicted as Hawkeye on the cover. You can tell this film is cut from the same cloth as Titanic for the way romance is handled. Not necessarily a bad thing, I just found it a bit all too easy in an era where social and economic customs would have governed the process. Still, this was a great story and it unfolded in an entertaining way. The French and Indian war is a fascinating time to set a film, and one that hardly gets enough attention. Both in context of early discontent among Colonial Americans and of how colonial powers interacted with Native Americans. Native Americans were central to this story, driving both the protagonist and antagonist stories. In fact, our “white people story” sort of resolves right before the climax and the true finale is an epic battle between warriors. One final thing to call out is how absolutely stunning this film is. It truly gives you respect for nature and a sense of scale for the frontier of colonial America. For as meme-able as this film is, I definitely enjoyed it.

Week 36; Film 245 - Mutiny on the Bounty [1935]

The HMS Bounty departs on a two-year voyage across the Pacific to keep the gears of the English Empire churning. Captain William Bligh is famously tyrannical over his crew, exacting harsh punishments whenever he suspects a lack of discipline. When the ship arrives in Tahiti, the crew finally breathes a sigh of relief as they are allowed shore leave to rest. All, that is, but the ship’s lieutenant Fletcher Christian, who is denied leave after disagreeing with the captain for his treatment of the crew. Still, Fletcher manages to sneak away long enough to fall in love with Tahiti (and a Tahitian woman, named Maimiti). When shore leave ends and the harsh treatment resumes, the ship’s beloved surgeon dies, applying the straw that breaks the camels back. The crew agrees on mutiny, casting Bligh and his loyalist out on a dingy (I figure it’s not a spoiler if it’s in the title). The Bounty’s crew sets back to Tahiti in search of a peaceful life. But with a revenge-fueled Bligh on their tail, with the Bounty’s crew ever be free men?

At 2 hour and 12 minutes of seafaring adventure, I honestly expected to grow tired of this one, but I liked it. The story was well paced and well told, and I felt the story beats took us to believable and interesting places. Clark Gable is young and likable as Fletcher Christian and Charles Laughton is the perfect antagonist as Bligh. The film kinda lives in the same place as a classic Western does, in the sense that the ocean is the frontier and our man wants his own homestead, free from tyranny. Part political narrative, part wish fulfillment, the film was perfect escapism for Great Depression audiences. Today, while it lacks some of the bite of modern films, it’s still perfectly watchable and entertaining.

Week 35; Film 244 - Point Break [1991]

Rookie FBI Agent Johnny Utah (yes) is paired up with veteran Agent Angelo Pappas (double yes) on the case of the Ex-Presidents, a gang of bank robbers who commit their crimes in masks of, well, former Presidents. Despite the silliness of their schtick, the Ex-Presidents are the best bank robbers on the scene and have evaded police for some time. Pappas has a hunch that the robbers are surfers (CCTV footage of tan lines and lab results of board wax…lol), so Agent Utah is tasked with learning to surf and infiltrating the surfer scene. He’s guided by love interest Tyler and crazy surf guru Bodhi, who together teach him about surfing and about himself. When the FBI agents follow their gut and move against a different, drug-dealing surf gang, Utah begins to suspect that his new surf friends are more presidential than they originally seemed.

I didn’t expect to like this film as much as I did. Over the years, it seems to have become a parody of itself, representing a certain kind of incredulous ‘90s action film (“he’s a cop—but he’s a surfer”). I think a great deal of the typical Keanu-“impression” comes out of this film (and Bill and Ted), but it makes more sense now that I know he is literally portraying a surfer. Sort of. I think the story kind of comes off the rails by act three. One, for suspending disbelief. Like, I was willing to go along with “surfing cop”, but “surfing cop who gets dragged into jumping out of a plane as the first step in a blackmail criminal insurance policy” starts to stretch me out a bit. And then, the film is weird in how it starts as an odd-couple, buddy-cop film, before it drops the Keanu-Busey relationship in favor of the Keanu-Swayze frienimy-bromance. So much so that when Busey drops in the film, the film just drops him all together. It’s wild.

And yet, I thoroughly enjoyed this. I shouldn’t, but I did. It was super entertaining, super well shot, super dramatic, and super silly. It’s in this camp of, “I wouldn’t say it’s a great film, but if it were on TV I would totally stop flipping through channels and watch it until the commercial break.” I’m here for it!

Week 34; Film 243 - A Few Good Men [1992]

At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a U.S. Marine is murdered and two Marines are arrested. Their case is given to Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, a fast thinking lawyer who has a record of settling out of court. Kaffee immediately gets to work on a plea bargain for the Marines, but they refuse to agree to one. The Marines admit that they were simply following orders to commit a hazing ritual and it went too far; they maintain their innocence and demand their honor be defended. Reluctantly agreeing to see their case through, this sends Kaffee, Lieutenant Commander Joan Galloway, and Lieutenant Sam Weinberg, each of the JAG Corps, on an investigation of the highest levels of the Marines’ command.

An Aaron Sorkin screenplay, directed by Rob Reiner, with an amazing Cast—yeah, I knew I was going to like this one. It’s like loving pizza and then hearing about a new, highly-recommended pizza place. I was satisfied by all the ways I expected to enjoy this pizza (cheese, sauce, etc.) and pleasantly surprised by the ways I didn’t expect (spicy honey drizzle, perhaps?). The script adequately twists and turns. I loved the “living in the shadow of his father, earning a reputation for ‘winning’ but not really because he settles out of court, but who now has to face the trail of his lifetime” backstory for Kaffee and Tom Cruise pulled it off perfectly. And Jack Nicholson plays the perfect tough, arrogant Colonel, and you gotta love films with iconic one-liners. Taking the courtroom drama and skewing it slightly, with the military overlay, was the perfect way to take something familiar and make it new. Like, I don’t think I need to see a whole show about it, but this was perfect.

Week 33; Film 242 - A Matter of Life and Death [1946]

After a bombing raid over Germany, RAF squadron leader Peter Cater’s plane is going down over the English Channel. Without a parachute and facing certain doom, Peter radios a final message to the nearest base. On the other end is June, an American servicewoman. Even in his final moments, Peter is charming and flirtatious with June. After saying farewell, he jumps out the aircraft door to certain death. Except—Peter wakes up on a beach. To his amazement, he’s alive. Even more amazing, Peter encounters June, who is riding her bike home after her shift at the base. The two are astounded by the situation and quickly fall in love.

Except there is a problem. Peter was supposed to die. Conductor 71, the entity assigned to escort Peter to the Other World, couldn’t find Peter in the thick, English fog. Peter gets 22 hours with June before Conductor 71 catches up to him and says his time is up. Peter protests: It isn’t fair to June to experience the pain of losing Peter when she only loves him because of the mistake that the dear Conductor made. So Peter asks to appeal his death and spends the next three days preparing the defense of a lifetime—literally.

What a fun premise and a fun, charming movie. While it has a bunch of ‘old timey’, ‘40s gusto, this film is as witty as anything that is coming out today. The performances are wonderful, from Niven’s charm, to Hunters earnestness, to Livesey’s inquisitiveness, to Gorings otherworldly silliness. And its special effects, while stylized, are seamless and impressive. I do think I kept waiting for the film to say something more grand about life and love. The crux of Peter’s trial is more about American-UK relations than on higher matters of existence. But this says more about the time (when British women were waking up to half-American babies with absentee/deceased fathers), and makes the film even more interesting as a time capsule for all of those feelings. I recommend this one, entirely.