Blonde, and an Appreciation for an Infamous Rating

2022 ‧ Drama ‧ 166m

Andrew Dominick’s Blonde is now out in select cinemas and on Netflix. The film has already generated some buzz, but the film’s MPA rating has stolen much of the attention. The film was given an NC-17. More about that particular rating later, but first a review.

Starring Ana de Armas, Blonde is not a traditional biopic but more a meditation on the myth of Marilyn Monroe. This is in keeping with the Joyce Carol Oates novel it is based on. Both in theme and structure, Blonde shares some cinematic DNA with Todd Hayne’s Bob Dylan “biopic” I’m Not There and David Lynch’s Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. Instead of focusing on facts and history, it focuses on the deeper emotions and trauma Norma Jeane Mortenson had to go through to be Marilyn Monroe. The relationship with her mother is a constant through line, as is her absent father. Much of the film focuses on her relationships with men and how she tries to fill the void her parents gave her. We see her marriages to Joe DiMaggio (Bobby Cannavale) and Arthur Miller (Adrien Brody), as well as a scene with President Kennedy (Caspar Phillipson). As one may expect the rating, the film does have a fair amount of nudity though it is not explicit. Dominick uses it to show how destructive the male gaze can be on a woman. The film examines and ruminates on what it must feel like to be exploited by men, Hollywood, and the world. That is perhaps best distilled about half-way through the film when Marilyn, says “I’m not a star. I'm just some blonde.”

Told in lyrical sequences, like a Hollywood daydream, Dominick succeeds in having the viewer empathize with Marilyn/Norma Jeane. This is all enhanced by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’s excellent score and Dominick’s frenetic uses of color, black & white, and aspect ratios. Ana de Armas gives the best performance of her career and probably one of the year’s best as well. The film probably does not need to be as long as it is and there are some perplexing filmmaking choices, but it is worth watching at least for de Armas’s performance if nothing else. It is a rare Hollywood art film. It isn’t an easy watch, but most NC-17 films aren’t.

Grade B

When I first learned that Blonde had been rated NC-17 and Netflix was not going to fight it, I decided to do a deep dive into the MPAs most restrictive rating. Typically seen as a harbinger of box-office doom, it is seen as a rarity. Many films actually receive it every year, but it is rare for the film to keep the rating. Studios and directors will usually edit a film down to an R. In some cases, the rating gets appealed to an R without any changes or the rating is surrendered and the film is released unrated. Sex, nudity, and aberrant behavior containing the two are the more infamous reasons a film gets an NC-17. Though it seems a number of violent horror films get the rating and then edit down every year. There’s a lot about this process that in many ways seems to favor large studio films over independent ones. Personally, I think the way the MPA goes about ratings is not ideal, but that’s not what I want to focus on. Kirby Dick’s This Film is Not Yet Rated goes into all that in depth and highlights the hypocrisy quite well.

The stigma around the rating isn’t entirely the MPA’s fault. Much of it is held over from the X rating. Originally an X meant that the film featured adult context that may be too mature for younger audiences. When the rating symbol was created in the late 1960s the MPA didn’t trademark it. Due to that lack of trademark, the fledgling pornographic film industry the early 70s would often self-rate their films with an X. It became a marketable letter for a certain kind of film and thus became synonymous with that.

So, the X rating was stigmatized, and studios wanted a different rating, so in 1990 NC-17 was introduced to fix that issue. It failed. Again, not entirely because of the MPA. Most newspapers and television stations would not run ads for such films and most multiplex cinemas would not show them. Blockbuster video and other rental chains would not carry copies when they arrived on home video. Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant was edited down to an R for those rental chains. Ironically, about a decade later, these chains would however carry “Unrated” cuts of films that were edited down for the cinemas. It was like the rating itself, less the content, was the issue.

With Blonde it is easy to wonder if this decision by Netflix to keep the rating may actually be a bit of a marketing ploy. The streamer is both a film and television studio, so it could have easily released Blonde as a television film with a TV-MA rating. The fact that a more-or-less equivalent television rating is less stigmatized than a film rating could have its own article. Perhaps for Netflix a near 3-hour arty pseudo-biopic is hard to market. Keeping the rating adds to the buzz.

It is somewhat surprising that with the rise of streaming there was not an effort to rebrand the rating. Showgirls, an infamous NC-17 bomb, had a whole new life once it hit home video. Audiences may not be willing to buy the ticket in a public space, but they are often willing to watch in a private space. Which is exactly what streamers have to offer. It could also bring in a demographic that is actually quite large: adults wanting to watch adult oriented films. Not necessarily explicit sex and violence, but films that cater to adult themes. No offense to the teenage audience, but not everything has to be for them. Perhaps adults would get more interested in cinema again. It would open up an avenue that streamers have avoided. They could get more creative and feature more original films without the concern of the MPA. John Waters in This Filthy World challenges indie filmmakers to try and find a way to get an NC-17 without any sex or violence. Imagine the water-cooler factor of that. Free idea: a horror film called Sunday Scaries about the very adult problem of working in late-stage capitalism. No sex, drugs, or violence. Just dread and anxiety for 90 minutes.

With Blonde easily streaming at home, now is a great time to explore the “genre” of NC-17 films. Bad Lieutenant is quite good. Showgirls is essential, being the only wide-released NC-17 film, but its cult following is not due to quality. For a campy NC-17 experience, I would instead go with John Waters’ A Dirty Shame. Not his best, but at least it is funny on purpose. Many of the 1990s titles are, as expected, of their time. Another essential title, Henry & June, the first to get the rating, has a stuffiness that can also be found in Wide Sargasso Sea and Bent. Blonde has a different kind of stuffiness, more of an arthouse variety. Man Bites Dog has less of that, and is quite disturbing. David Cronenberg’s Crash might be even more disturbing with is auto, as in car, eroticism. It makes sense in the film. Say what you will about Canada’s Great Dave. His images might be gratuitous at times, but sex always moves the plot forward in his films and Crash is a great example.

The 21st century would give us Blue is the Warmest Color and The Dreamers. The former is one of the better NC-17 films, but the behind-the-scenes context taints its legacy. In a rare move, the Cannes committee that year award the Palme d’Or to the director and the two leads. The two leads deserve it more. Bertolucci’s The Dreamers has a similar stuffiness as Last Tango in Paris, but is kind of a film lover’s movie. Blonde shares that film lover’s sentiment too. Steve McQueen’s Shame, is a fascinating look at addiction that might pair well with Dominick’s Monroe meditation. Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution and Pedro Almodovar’s Bad Education are probably the best films to receive the rating. Both are excellent dramas worth your time. Lee’s film is the highest-grossing NC-17 film. Time will see how Blonde will settle among these titles. I am unsure if it really goes into NC-17 territory, there are teen sex comedies that got away with more, but Blonde does share a kind of intensity that Bad Lieutenant, Crash, and Man Bites Dog have. It is not as explicit as those films, but it gets under your skin just as deep. Perhaps the rating has more baggage than it deserves. I can say that every film I’ve seen with an NC-17, is far from ordinary.

~Andrew

Nope

2022 ‧ Sci-fi/Horror ‧ 131m

The third film from Jordan Peele, Nope, is a worthy summer blockbuster.

Haywood’s Hollywood Horses, a ranch that wrangles horses for movies, is on hard times after the death of Otis Haywood Sr. Siblings Emerald (Keke Palmer) and Otis Jr (Daniel Kaluuya) are trying to get out of the debt their father put them in, but opportunities fall through. Their neighbor, Jupe (Steven Yeun), a former child actor who owns a western themed tourist trap has been buying horses from the Haywood’s for his business. One day OJ sees a flying saucer and Em decides they should try to record it and cash in. Angel (Brandon Perea), a Fry’s Electronics tech, comes along for the ride after setting up their cameras and seeing a suspicious cloud in the playback. Whatever is behind that cloud does not seem to be coming in peace and Jupe has a plan of his own.

There are some great scares for the audience. The film opens with a gruesome scene that may seem perplexing at first but sets up the tone well. There’s a memorable mass abduction, though that may not exactly be the right word. Most of the scares are in the daylight, but there is an extended night sequence that is quite bloody. How Us made “I Got 5 On It” sinister, Peele gives Corey Hart’s “Sunglasses at Night” a similar treatment to great effect. The climax is nail-biting. At risk of a small spoil, you might wish to skip to the next paragraph, it’s hard to determine if it would pair better with Close Encounters or Tremors. Nope may not be an alien terror but it is a monster movie. A monster movie with themes that may take some time to digest.

How we interact with media is a large theme, but also how we interact with animals. Certainly, there is also commentary on how we monetize those interactions. The film opens with a verse from the Bible, Nahum 3:6, that should not be forgotten when the climax unfolds. Peele does a superb job of presenting these ideas without spoon-feeding the audience. You’ll have a lot to chew on as you leave the theater.

The film has a significant amount of dread, and we sit in it for quite some time. That said, it might be a stronger film it if were edited down to 2 hours or even 100 minutes. Not much of that impactful dread would be lost with such a runtime. It probably won’t spark a phenomenon like Get Out, but it might be a better film than Us, which was still very good. Peele goes 3 for 3 here, if you ask me.

I can only imagine how many reviews of this are going to be titled, “Say Yes to ‘Nope.’” I’m saying that for sure.

Grade B+

~Andrew

Everything Everywhere All at Once

2022 ‧ Sci-fi/Adventure/Black Comedy/WTF ‧ 139m

Before we get into it, a quick disclaimer. I went into this pretty blind. I only knew that Michelle Yeoh was in it and it had something to do with parallel universes. That might be the best way to go into this film. I have my nits to pick with it of course, but ultimately I am glad I live in the universe where this film exists. I recommend you buy the ticket and take the ride.

Stop here if you don’t want too much more. Otherwise, I’m going to dig in.

The latest film from Daniels (Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert) is about Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yoeh), a woman with a tax problem. She runs a laundromat with her husband Waymond (Ke Huy Quan). They are immigrants with a grown American born daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). Evelyn’s father (James Hong) is visiting and they have planned a party after their meeting with an IRS auditor (Jamie Lee Curtis). While in the elevator on the way to the appointment, Evelyn’s husband suddenly changes personality and informs Evelyn that there are parallel universes. These universes are the ones where different choices were made, thus altering her life. She’s a singer in one, an actress in another, for example. We eventually learn that Waymond is part of a team of people fighting Jobu Tupaki, who wants to destroy the multiverse. Evelyn may be the only hope to save it.

Yes, this does sound familiar. At this time, I  have not seen Spider-man: No Way Home, Wanda Vision, or for that matter more than one episode of Ricky and Morty. Even though I haven’t seen those, I already felt that the multiverse idea was played out. The “chosen one” even more so. This would hurt the film more if the directors did not embrace the absurdity of the concept and thus creating a new and atypical experience. Though usually imaginative, entertaining, and funny- there are some directorial decisions about the universes that come off like something a 12 year old boy on a playground would come up with: hotdog fingers, a black hole everything bagel, and a version of Ratatouille with a racoon instead of a rat. I have not seen Daniels’ Swiss Army Man, a cult hit on its own, but having read the synopsis I can confidently say Everything Everywhere All at Once is a more mature film. As juvenile as it is at times.

The main three actors, Yoeh, Quan, and Hsu, are probably the best ingredients of this film. They play various versions of their characters so effectively and seamlessly it’s a marvel they pull it off. Michelle Yoeh should be remembered come awards season. Curtis and Hong are great additions, enjoying the absurdity and giving just the right amount of seriousness. Somehow this beats Hong’s other notably bonkers film Big Trouble in Little China in craziness. The film’s editing and direction sets a manic, if attention deficit, pace. There are all sorts of things for film buffs to love, from Matrix and Marvel-esque fight sequences to a universe seemingly directed by Wong Kar-wai. At times it might be a little too much, but it really fits what Evelyn is going through. It is possible that the Daniels are making a comment on the expectations placed upon women in society, but I am not sure it gets quite to a real statement.

Without getting too revealing, the heart of the film is about the relationship between Evelyn and Joy. Something perhaps unfair that I brought to Everything Everywhere All at Once was recent viewings of two other films about mothers and daughters: Turning Red and Grey Gardens. These are very different mother/daughter relationships, but it still colored my viewing of Joy and Evelyn’s. We always bring the other films we’ve seen to the next film, no matter how hard we try to be objective. I found Daniels’ film to be missing something, this could have easily been a father/son relationship instead. Still a parental relationship, yes, but still very different. I suppose this is written by two sons, after all. Though, were this a father/son film, it would probably be a lower/mid-tier Nic Cage movie. These criticisms aside, there are so very few films like this that it is worth checking out. I can’t decide if I would pair this with Hausu, Head, or Gremlins 2: The New Batch.

Everything Everywhere All at Once takes two tired concepts, multiverses and chosen ones, and makes something inventive with its imaginative absurdity and truly next-level performances. It is not the most mature film you will see this year, but you will be hard pressed to experience something as unique.

Grade: B+

~Andrew

Movies vs. Film

We are knee deep in awards season, so many cinema fans have been catching up on the various nominees. Every year there is a backlash about how the nominees are rarely popular titles. Academy elitism is often to blame, and I’m not going to disagree there. In the cinephile spectrum, I’ll admit I do skew more towards the arthouse than the blockbuster, but I understand the argument. If there are ten nominees for Best Picture, maybe one is a popular film. I speculate that many times those who nominate and vote will place titles into this unnecessary binary of a “movie” vs. a “film.” These terms ought to be synonymous, and I think for many they are, but there does seem to be a distinction.

Some years ago, I checked out the Film Snob's Dictionary, and I remember it giving some cheeky definitions on the difference between the two terms. “If Tom Hanks is in it, it’s a movie. If Tom Waits is in it, it’s a film.” I feel like that discounts a film like Philadelphia (with Hanks), as well as a movie like Mystery Men (with Waits), but I see the point and I’ve been guilty of this myself. When I talked about the Conjuring movies on our podcast, my guests and I even made the same kind of observation. “A flick like the Exorcist is a film, the Conjuring is a movie.” The former is trying to elevate something while the latter is a popcorn flick. An artistic merit sort of argument. Art over entertainment. Many will acknowledge that overlap exists, but I don’t think it’s acknowledged enough. With the right eye though, I think it isn’t difficult to find the craft in just about any film.

Last year, I did a compare and contrast of the two versions of Rocky IV. Despite the first film in the series winning Best Picture (perhaps somewhat controversially), few would be making the argument about the artistic merits of the fourth entry. It’s cold war patriotism verges on nationalism, about a third of it is montage, and for some reason there is a robot. Stallone rightfully deleted the robot in his new cut at least. The runtimes are very similar and there is minimal change to the story and structure. Mostly Stallone replaces shots with different takes.

Watching the two cuts together, one learns something about the process of editing. Why select this take now? Why move this scene slightly forward? Etc. I had been comparing alternate cuts of various titles for years, but I probably learned more about the editing process from one of the worst Rocky movies than I did from the cuts of Amadeus or Blade Runner. It made me appreciate the art of it, especially in the montage sequences. It was easy to see the “film” in the “movie.”

I am not the first person to say all this and I am sure the binary will still persist, but ultimately there really isn’t a difference. One person’s film is another’s movie. I think Quentin Tarantino has been making a career of blurring that line for decades. Steven Spielberg makes films for movie heads, Wes Anderson makes movies for film buffs. There are not one but TWO Michael Bay titles in the Criterion Collection. There is an art to the popcorn flick, too. Movies, films, flicks, whatever, it’s all cinema.

~Andrew

City of Dreams: 20 Years of Mulholland Drive

Some teenage boys have pictures of attractive women on the back of their closet doors, I had a full-page newspaper ad for Mulholland Drive.

muldredit.jpg

In many ways, it was my Driver’s Ed teacher’s fault. During a driving practical, he and I started talking movies and we got around to my love of cult films. He asked me if I had ever seen David Lynch’s Eraserhead. I had not and he ended up loaning me his copy. Which was a bootleg VHS off of a Japanese laserdisc. I know this because it had Japanese subtitles and halfway through it, the screen randomly flashed “SIDE 2.” The quality was fuzzy, but I was into it. I decided to check out Lynch’s other work. I had some previous knowledge of Lynch it turned out. I had seen his Dune on television, and caught the “Owls are not what they seem” scene from Twin Peaks on Bravo. My next step ended up being Blue Velvet, and from there I was hooked. I've podcasted some about this before. This was all around mid-2000 to early 2001. Early IMDB showed me that Lynch had a new project coming out soon, a reworked pilot for a TV series. His “film version” of the Twin Peaks pilot was a particular favorite of mine, so I knew Lynch was going to make something remarkable.

When Mulholland Drive came out, I had to wait until video. My small town did not have a movie theater at the time, and my parents weren’t going to let me drive into the big city to see a movie by myself. I lived in walking distance to a video store, where I got Blue Velvet, so it would happen in time. It ended up that the first time I saw Mulholland Drive was on VHS with the words “PROPERTY OF UNIVERSAL STUDIOS. UNAUTHORIZED DUPLICATION PROHIBITED” scrolling across the bottom every fifteen minutes or so. I had friends who worked at that video store and they loaned me the screener VHS, something that technically wasn’t supposed to happen. Only the owner or manager was supposed to watch the screeners. This meant I saw it a number of weeks before it officially hit video shelves. That might beat the Japanese laserdisc bootleg experience.

I had to chase this film and I had finally caught it. This is something that I both miss and am quite glad I don’t have to do anymore. Before the internet and peer-to-peer sharing, if something was a little off the beaten path, one would have to hope a video rental place, often NOT a Blockbuster, would carry it. Or you’d look in the tv listings and hope to catch it. It was a stupid time. However, I do think it may have made some movies better. You finally got to see something you’d spent months turning over various rocks to find, and that would add something. Not quite hype, but maybe it enhanced the positives. This could lead to disappointment too, of course, but that rarely happened in my experience. Mulholland Drive may have had something extra added, but it still exceeded my expectations.

A woman gets into a car accident on the titular road, loses her memory, and wanders into an apartment, where she meets a young Hollywood hopeful. Together they try to solve the mystery of who she really is. That is until they open a blue box with a blue key after going to the Club Silencio. Also a film director is trying to make a movie, but these mobster types are telling him who to cast, his wife is having an affair with Billy Ray Cyrus, and some cryptic cowboy is giving him instructions. Then there is something going on behind Winkies. The film had so much. It was weird, hard to figure out, but it made me feel things most films could not. Pixar can get you in the feels, a real good horror movie can get you filled with dread. But David Lynch can make you see something beautiful, terrifying, mysterious, and wonderous all at the same time.

Needless to say in 2002 and 2003 Mulholland Drive became the THIS MOVIE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME film that many teenage film buffs have. I imagine my friends kind of hated it. I would attempt to explain the film when folks said, “that movie doesn’t make sense,” but I never really conveyed it well. I probably spent 10 years trying to discern the enigma. In the DVD insert, David Lynch gave 10 “clues for unlocking this thriller.” I spent many of my subsequent viewings trying to answer those questions. I was quite excited whenever I figured out one of them. “That explains EVERYTHING!” I would (incorrectly) say to myself, and try to use this new knowledge to help others “understand” the film better. I was young and dumb.

cluesedit.jpg

Over the years I would rewatch it periodically, and each time I had a different appreciation. Thanks to the internet, I have been able to see the pilot version, in slightly better bootleg quality. It too is pretty good, but 2000 era television was never gonna go for it. Ten years after I saw it for the first time, I would get to see the film in the cinema, as a Midnight Movie. I was living in Colorado at the time and drove myself to one of the arthouses in Denver. It wasn’t a large crowd. The film has a fierce following, but Rocky Horror it is not. Seeing the Club Silencio scene was something else in the cinema, as opposed to my home. With about 30 minutes left in the film, some guy yelled something profane and stormed out of the theater. The Aurora shootings had happened a week before, not too far from this screening, so suddenly there was this tension added to an already tense film. I let myself just experience the film that time, and that was one of the best cinema experiences of my life, angry guy notwithstanding.

I don’t think making sense of it all is the right thing to do with this film. I will say that I think most of the film is a dream, but “figuring that out” isn’t the point. Lynch himself often states he is more interested in whatever the viewer gets out of his films than “explaining” them. I don’t blame teenage me for trying though.

Mulholland Drive often makes the top 3, if not the number 1 spot of many Best of the 21st Century lists. I’m hard pressed to think of something better. Sight & Sound’s Greatest Films of All Time list from 2012, a list re-evaluated every ten years, it ranks at number 28. It is the youngest film on that list. I wouldn’t be surprised if it moved up the ranks next year. Somehow, something that started as a TV pilot, became one of the greatest films of all time.  For this cinema lover, it was seminal to how I understood and analyzed film as both art and entertainment.

~Andrew

Sundance Review: Censor

midnight_censor_still1 (1).jpg

Prano Bailey-Bond makes her feature debut with this meta-horror tribute to Video Nasties, a notorious list of films banned in Britain. The story follows Enid (Niamh Algar), a British censor, who reviews a film that is eerily similar to a traumatic event from her childhood. She sets about trying to solve a life-long mystery, while dealing with backlash for passing a film that the press blames for inspiring a crime. Baily-Bond explored Video Nasties before in her short, Nasty, some of which is used in this feature. Questions about the purpose of censorship and its impact are explored in a not too obvious manner.

Set in 1980s London, the film captures that aesthetic well, alternating a grindhouse neon palette with one that suggests a muted color scheme of Wes Anderson and Todd Haynes. Colorful, yet dreadful. Algar’s performance keeps things grounded, as the film becomes more and more horrific.  

As someone who has probably seen more than his fair share of Video Nasties, I found the portrayal of Enid and her fellow censors quite engaging. Being a horror fan, and against censorship in general, I always vilified these faceless people who decided what we could or could not see. The censors are shown as smart, reasonable people, not easily disgusted caricatures. Enid at one point makes the Carol Clover-esque observation that many of these nasties are a form of “Male-inadequacy-revenge catharsis,” and although that may be a little reductive, she is not wrong. I particularly liked a scene where the committee discusses letting a film keep a decapitation scene because it looked “ridiculous,” knowing that they don’t think audiences are stupid. And any film with dialogue such as “Consensus on Cannibal Carnage” will always win points from me.

The final act of the film has fantastic use of varying aspect ratio and video artifacts, evoking the Video Nasty feel, dread, and atmosphere. I’m not in love with the ending, and while I was watching it, I felt that Censor wasn’t quite sticking the landing. But once the credits were finished, that feeling changed. It isn’t a disappointing ending at all, it’s just felt a touch silly at first. Which is in-keeping with Video Nasties. I think it will grow on me in time. During the final act I couldn’t help but think of a famous line from Wes Craven’s Scream. I won’t directly quote it here, because I think that would spoil too much.

The films Censor mainly reminded me of were Berberian Sound Studio, Videodrome, Let’s Scare Jessica to Death, and Evil Dead. The latter two being perhaps more aesthetic than thematic reminders.  

If it hasn’t happened already, it will be interesting to see who picks it for distribution and if they alter the film at all. At 84 minutes, the duration of many 80s nasties, there isn’t much to remove. I don’t think it will need to cut anything for a rating, be it R or 15, but there are certain choices that could perhaps be cut for a stronger edit. Nevertheless, this is a strong feature debut, and it will be exciting to see what Bailey-Bond makes next.

Grade: B+

-Andrew

Skeletons in my Movie Closet - JAWS

I’m gonna need a bigger blog. In honor of Shark Week 2020, I’m airing out one of the more embarrassing skeletons in my proverbial closet, and this one has teeth the size of shot glasses. Often cited as one of the earliest examples of a “summer blockbuster,” from 1975, this is Steven Spielberg’s Jaws.

I know, I know, fully half of all six of you that are reading this are probably already shouting at your screens and/or typing a scathing email or social media post. Seriously, how had I not seen this? I don’t have a good answer for that at all, and there was never going to be a great time to dive in to the water, so to speak. I have seen it now, however, and it’s not hard to understand why it became the cultural touchstone that it is.

The iconic opening scene quickly establishes the atmosphere of the entire film, from its picturesque resort beach façade to its minimalist but omnipresent sense of tension. It’s a great sort of a dipole that is largely maintained through the picture’s runtime, with scenes of seemingly ordinary beach and sea life balancing the ones in which it’s obvious that something is going to happen. I found this push-and-pull dynamic taking me along with it, going in and out like the tide. The lighting, camera work, and score all play into the “less is more” approach. It’s a good thing, too, because the shark itself doesn’t really look very convincing, but the whole movie around it really sells the needed emotional, visceral reaction to its few appearances on the screen.

The three principal cast members are absolutely essential to drawing the audience in, and they do a great job. I was particularly engaged by Robert Shaw’s Quint and Richard Dreyfuss’s Hooper. These two seem slightly exaggerated as a means of establishing their archetypal credentials, but they manage it without really descending into caricature. Dreyfuss may have peaked in this movie. That’s not to say that he isn’t good in other things that came after, but it’s especially easy to believe in his character’s humanity here. Robert Shaw definitely plays this as a bit of a ham, but seems to be well aware of where the line is and manages to flirt with it constantly without ever crossing it. In a bit of contrast, Roy Scheider is set up to serve as more of an audience proxy and to that end feels like more of an everyman. It’s a fine performance and he manages some solid emotional moments, but I don’t think the script intends for him to be a standout character.

Andrew asked me afterward if there were any surprises in the movie or if I already knew everything. To be honest, I wasn’t really surprised by anything in particular in this movie, but I’m pretty confident in saying that it’s because I’ve seen numerous others that play the same beats. As is so often the case, the execution of those moments is the key difference. Even knowing most of what was going to happen well before it did, those moments still manage to land where they mean to. Lots of movies try to do the same things and can’t quite make them work. I am pleased to say that I think Jaws holds up even after all these years. I just somehow never got around to it before. Can’t imagine why.

The Last Ten Years

Ten years ago, well before this Dead Letter venture, a friend of mine asked me what I thought were the best movies of the aughts, which were ending then. I broke mine down into genres, as there were hundreds if not thousands of ranked lists out at the time. With this decade coming to an end I thought it would be fun to do that again while also looking over the previous decade’s list. I did all these in alphabetical order, no overlap. An asterisk denotes a particular favorite of mine.

MCU.jpg

ACTION

2000s

City of God*

The Departed

No Country for Old Men

Honorable Mention: Kill Bill 

Time Will Have to See: Inglourious Basterds

I think this seems about right. I also think time has been good to the Basterds.

2010s

The Marvel Cinematic Universe 

Hell or High Water

Mad Max: Fury Road

Okay, the MCU, might be a cop-out. Technically it started in the 2000s, but it really became a “thing” in the 2010s, with the Avengers. If I had to pick one though, I’d go with Black Panther or Winter Soldier. Sometimes less folks in capes is better. I should admit that the action genre isn’t really my bag.

kubo.jpg

ANIMATION

2000s

The Incredibles

Persepolis

The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Honorable Mentions: Shrek, Waking Life, Ratatouille*, The Simpsons Movie

These are pretty solid choices. Shrek maybe hasn’t aged well after too many sequels. Shrug. 

2010s

Coco

Kubo and the Two Strings

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse 

I’m think we may need to move away from considering “animation” as a separate genre. Spider-verse was one of the best action movies of the decade, and Kubo might be the best “adventure” film. Persepolis would be sorted as drama. Were-Rabbit as comedy, etc.

grandbud.jpeg

COMEDY

2000s

40 Year Old Virgin

Little Miss Sunshine

Lost in Translation

Honorable Mentions: Best in Show, Super Troopers, Dodgeball*  

Time Will Have to See: Tropic Thunder

I think those top three stood the test of time. I don’t know about Tropic Thunder, there was probably a recency bias on that one. I’m still a big fan of Dodgeball.

2010s

Bridesmaids

The Grand Budapest Hotel 

What We Do in the Shadows

Honorable Mention: The Lobster, Sorry to Bother You, Tucker and Dale Vs. Evil

With the folks in capes becoming more bankable this last decade, comedy kind of went to the wayside. There are a fair amount of movies that are “funny” but I wouldn’t call them exclusively comedies. Wolf of Wall Street, Thor: Ragnorok, and The Nice Guys are examples of that.  

attack.jpg

CULT

2000s

Donnie Darko

Bubba Ho-Tep

Hedwig and the Angry Inch*

Yeah, this seems about right. The Room hadn’t quite become The Room yet. Wet Hot American Summer seems to be an omission, though.

2010s

Attack the Block

Drive

Green Room

Honorable Mentions: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Twin Peaks: The Return* 

Admittedly, I still need to see Mandy. And as for Twin Peaks, I know, I know- everybody and Wendy’s (yes, really) has an opinion on whether or not this is a “film,” hence honorable mention.

carol.jpg

 DRAMA

2000s

Little Children*

Talk to Her

Mulholland Dr.

Honorable Mentions: Mystic River, Traffic

I think I could’ve lumped Mulholland Dr. into cult, but I was probably avoiding the whole overlap thing. I still feel Mystic River doesn’t quite get it’s due, though Clint Eastwood got really curmudgeonly over the last decade, so that doesn’t help. Little Children is still a great film that I don’t think many watch these days. 

2010s

BlackkKlansman

Carol

Moonlight

Honorable Mention: 45 Years

There are a lot of dramas still these days, but they mostly gear toward the “Academy Award” genre. These have that to a degree, but they are still amazing. 

get out.jpg

HORROR

2000s

28 Days Later

Let the Right One In

Shaun of the Dead*

Honorable Mention: The Devil’s Backbone

Okay, sure. The Descent seems missing though.

2010s

Get Out

Hereditary

It Follows

Honorable Mentions: Cabin in the Woods, The Conjuring Cinematic Universe, The Witch

If any genre “won” this decade, it was probably comic book movies, but a close second would be horror. We, as a society, were/are dealing with some stuff and horror is often one of the best avenues to exorcise those demons. Time will have tell about the various Stephen King adaptations of this decade.

shape.jpg

ROMANCE

2000s

Brokeback Mountain*

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Lars and the Real Girl

Honorable Mention: High Fidelity

Reading this over, I kind of roll my eyes at my previous self for being “hilarious.” Solid flicks though.

2010s

Call Me By Your Name

Shape of Water*

Crazy Rich Asians

Honorable Mention: Amour

The hilarity continues. I almost lumped Carol in here, but for some reason decided it felt more suited to drama.

lady bird.jpg

TEEN

2000s

Juno

Mean Girls*

Superbad

I don’t know if Juno was as lasting as I thought. Maybe, maybe not. Mean Girls and Superbad seem to have stuck around. I was working at a high school at the time, so I was around the intended audience a lot. I wrote the original list while showing Backdraft to a forensic science class during finals week.

2010s

Easy A

Edge of Seventeen

Lady Bird

Honorable Mentions: It’s Kind of a Funny Story,  Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl

I’ve only recently started working with teenagers again, and movies haven’t come up as much so far. Maybe TV won this genre this decade. John Hughes, even with all his faults, left a hole that still remains. I still need to see Book Smart and Eighth Grade, I suspect one of those would have ended up in the top three.

beasts.png

AND THE REST

2000s:

Fantasy: Pan’s Labyrinth

Music: Almost Famous*

Sci Fi: Children of Men*

War: The Hurt Locker, Letters from Iwo Jima

In 2009, I didn’t have 3 pics for these genres, so I just listed the top ones. I stand by these still.

2010s

Fantasy: Beasts of the Southern Wild*

Music: Inside Llewyn Davis, La La Land

Sci Fi: Arrival*

War: Dunkirk

I need to see Under the Skin. That may have been a strong contender for sci fi.

social networ.jpg

OVERRATED

2000s

Crash

The Lord of the Rings

Slumdog Millionaire

There Will Be Blood

Despite being full of mid-20s snark, even mid-30s me agrees here. 

2010s

Just about any Paul Thomas Anderson film

The Social Network

Whiplash

I think PTA is a gifted and talented filmmaker, but something about his movies always comes off as either disingenuous or inauthentic. That’s just my opinion, it’s fine if you think I am wrong. I was never very impressed with The Social Network. I get why people think it’s a big deal, though. I’m not a big fan of the “jerk makes a lot of money and still stays a jerk” genre, even if it’s based on a true story. Maybe I’d appreciate it more if it made a difference in society, but it didn’t.

This decade, like the one before and most likely the one after, had its hits and misses. However, I think cinema is going to an exciting place and comparing these last two decades just gets me more excited. Genres wax and wane, it’ll be interesting to see what the next decade shakes out. 

-Andrew

Skeletons in my Movie Closet - Stagecoach

There are countless genres of movies as there are of any other storytelling medium. The more common ones tend to have archetypal examples that serve as touchstones for other films of a similar stripe. One notable genre that has many such films to draw on is Westerns, although fewer are made these days. The names “John Ford” and “John Wayne” are practically synonymous with Western movies. The director and actor worked together several times, but this was the first. A breakout part for “The Duke,” and also the first movie that Ford filmed in Monument Valley, this is 1939’s “Stagecoach.”

Of all the elements that go into a film production, the cast of actors is one of the most obvious to most viewers, and John Ford had a fine one here. Including not only John Wayne, but also Claire Trevor, John Carradine, and Andy Devine, everyone here turns in a credible performance. The characters are a little broadly drawn, but there’s just enough depth to each of them that none of them comes across as a cardboard cutout. I felt at least a little bit invested in every story, no mean feat with an ensemble of nine principal players. Wayne’s and Trevor’s get a little more attention than the rest, but not so much that they grossly overshadow the others. The balance is impressive, both in the script and in the performers.

In a time when a lot of movies were still assembled like someone had pointed a camera at a stage production, John Ford was really starting to do things differently. The camera is dynamic throughout the film, with angles and pans coming together to give a tremendous sense of scope. This is partly due to the sweeping exterior vistas, but I’d say half of the shots were done on a soundstage. The editing is so tight that it’s easy to just get lost in the movie and not notice how frequently shots alternate between location and stage, often in very short spans. The long chase sequence near the end is rife with these edits, but you would hardly know it without looking for them. This sequence also features quite a few gasp-worthy practical stunts. I suspect a lot of film students have had to pick over it through the years, and with good reason. It really is magnificent.

For a movie that is pushing 80 years old, I think “Stagecoach” has aged remarkably well. Very little about it seems dated after all that time, at least from a technical perspective. I feel I would be remiss if I did not mention the unfortunate portrayal of Native Americans in the narrative, which is certainly an artifact of the movie’s own time and that of its setting. The best I can say for that is that the movie does not belabor the point as a defining characteristic. Take an appropriate dosage of salt for it. That aside, this is still a masterfully crafted piece and it’s easy to see why its popularity has endured for so long. While it doesn’t feature the larger-than-life cowboy heroes found in so many of the other great Western movies, its characters and story are nonetheless memorable with a more grounded slant. This movie gets an “A” for being not only an outstanding example of the genre but also of cinema in general.

Skeletons in my Movie Closet - Cool Hand Luke

Not every movie that I watch for this series will be as fun or entertaining as the ones featured in the previous entries. There are a great many significant and even important films of a much more dramatic and serious nature. While not devoid of smile-worthy moments or even humor, this is one such film. A signature piece of non-conformity and anti-establishment sentiment, Paul Newman stars in 1967’s “Cool Hand Luke.”

The movie opens with a parking meter repeatedly flipping up its red indicator of “VIOLATION” as the titular protagonist cuts the machine from its post. I’m sure a lot of hay has already been made over the use of symbolic and metaphorical imagery in this film, and I don’t intend to rehash too much of that here. The opening scene bears special mention, however, as it is perhaps the most on-the-nose illustration of Luke’s character. He doesn’t especially care for rules and regulations, but his reasons for railing against them range from personal injustice all the way down to it just being something to do. My cohort Andrew sometimes refers to this kind of character and story as “drift punk.” Luke has no particular agenda. He has likes and dislikes, but his actions are mostly impulsive and reactionary. He hates being told what he can and cannot do, but has a strong internal sense of what he believes is right and what is wrong.

For all its symbolism and metaphor, the movie doesn’t ever get too clever. Luke and the rest of the prisoners are generally portrayed as sympathetic and the audience is made to care about them, especially George Kennedy in an Oscar-winning performance as “Dragline.” Strother Martin’s “Captain” and the rest of the prison staff are rarely anything other than antagonistic, representing a somewhat twisted and idealized archetype of “the man.” Despite strong performances from a talented group of actors, a lot of the movie still hangs on the charisma of Newman in the lead role and he carries it well with seemingly little effort.

While Luke is often hailed as a movie hero, he’s more of an antihero by traditional definition. Even so, it’s virtually impossible not to root for him much as his fellow inmates do. This movie has held up and been spoken of highly in the last five decades for good reason. Some of the cinematography and framing look a little dated now, but overall I think it works almost as well as it did when it was new. It seems to have almost nothing to say in the way of a point to be made, but still engages the audience and gets them thinking. Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand. A-

It Lives Up to its Name

2017 has already been a great year for horror with Get Out and Split. Even the new Annabelle movie was better than it had any right to be really. It is further strengthening this already strong year for the genre. I don’t think It is a better film than Get Out, but It is certainly a bigger film. In just about every way.

Based on the beloved Stephen King novel, It takes place in the small town of Derry, Maine. In the late 80s, children start to disappear and never return. A group of 7 kids calling themselves the Losers, determine that a monstrous clown is behind the disappearances. It, as the Losers call him, shape-shifts to whatever form will frighten a child the most. Fear makes them “tastier.” While grappling with the terrors of puberty, school bullies, and a town full of uncaring and disinterested adults, the Losers must fight It.

Like Get Out and really the best horror films, It is about more than just scaring the audience. The film wants you to think. It is about the horrors of childhood, growing up, mortality, and fear itself. Working with those themes, the film establishes a sense of existential dread that is often missing in horror films. “What was the irrational thing that scared me when I was a kid? How would It appear to me?” I kept asking myself. Not often does a film, of any genre, get to me like that.

Fans of the book will be glad to know that most of the films changes work for the better. At least for 2017. Moving the story to the 1980s from the 50s was a smart choice. Although there is that critique of the “innocent” 50s in the book, having it set in the 80s retains that “simpler time” quality while still updating. Changing some of It’s incarnations was also a good decision. As much as I enjoy the Rodan and Frankenstein stuff in the book, that wouldn’t work now. Though the film isn’t exactly faithful in the purest sense, the emotional tone and dread are 100%. Andy Muschietti and the screenwriters found 2017 equivalents that create that same sense of fear that King did in 1986. This film creeped me out as much as the book did, which is not an easy thing to adapt. In the book, the action alternates between the Losers as kids and as adults. We just get the kid part here and that serves the film quite well dramatically, if not at least practically. The sequel will feature the Losers as adults. Another change is It’s convoluted macroverse mythology is missing here. The only turtle we get in this is a Lego one, but that is probably for the best.

The production behind the film is well crafted, but it's the performances that really sell the story. An R-rated film about kids is hard to tell if the actors aren't exceptional. All the child actors hold their own here, particularly Sophia Lillis and Jeremy Ray Taylor as Beverly and Ben respectively. Finn Wolfhard as Richie almost steals the show, having worked before on the similarly themed Stranger Things. The Netflix show being something between Stephen King’s E.T and Steven Spielberg's It (no that isn’t a typo). Even if you find the whole “scary clown” trope trite by this point, Bill Skarsgård will still give you a bad case of the heebie-jeebies at least.

Despite all my gushing, the film is not perfect. The CG could be a little better and the script could be a more refined. Certain Easter eggs from the book will no doubt come off as strange to uninitiated viewers (the “Beep! Beep! Ritchie!" gag doesn’t quite work here). Also, I couldn’t help but feel that perhaps a little too much screen time was devoted to 13 year olds in their underwear. My major issues are hard to address without spoilers, so...

Here Beginth the Spoilers:

This might be some book bias, but I was disappointed by the damseling of Beverly and the handling of Mike Hanlon’s character.  In the film, It captures Beverly and takes her to his lair. In King's novel, the Losers head into the sewers to fight It because they have figured out how to kill It, or at least put It back to sleep. Having Beverly become something the boys have to “save” instead cheapens that act of heroism. What's more, Bev being awakened from a floating trance by Ben’s kiss comes off as silly. However that is better than her having sex with all the boys like in the book.

In the novel, much of It and Derry’s history is presented to us by Mike Hanlon. Most of that history is expressed by Ben Hanscom in the film, which seems a strange choice. These changes with Bev and Mike might not be as big a deal to other viewers. I will admit that Mike and Beverly are probably my favorite characters in the Losers because there is an extra layer of “outsider” in them. Beverly being a girl and Mike being black in a group of predominantly white boys. Though those specific changes are off-putting and disheartening, but I don’t think they ruin the film.

Here Endth the Spoilers.

The film is quite intense and will pobably resonate something in most viewers. I am not easy to scare, but even I found myself having to shout the f-word in my car to relieve the tension afterward. When I left the cinema, someone had tied a red balloon to a sign in the parking lot. That certainly added something to the experience.

Itballoon.jpg

Even with the film’s issues, I strongly encourage you to see this and to see it in the cinema. If you are on the fence about horror films, you may still enjoy the coming-of-age aspects. It is an ambitious adaptation that accomplishes nearly all its goals. The roller-coaster cliche that critics like to use certainly fits here and like all great roller-coasters you may find yourself wanting another ride. Grade: B+

                                      -Andrew

I assure you it makes sense why I added this song.