Wanda (1970) Review

Title: Wanda 
Year: 1970
Director: Barbara Loden
Country: US
Language: English

In 1966, while Barbara Loden was married to household name Elia Kazan (On the Waterfront), a mutual friend named Harry Schuster, offered Loden $100,000 to make her own movie. She used this to write the screenplay for Wanda, but unfortunately it did not attract any Hollywood directors, including her own husband. Loden decided to direct it herself and collaborated with cinematographer/editor  Nicholas T. Proferes in order to give the picture a very minor budget of $110,000, 

Wanda (Barbara Loden), a lonely housewife, drifts through mining country until she meets a petty thief (Michael Higgins) who takes her in.

The only American film to be accepted in the Venice Film Festival in 1970, Wanda won the International Critics' Prize that year. The film is notable because there were so few women film-makers in New Hollywood & Loden was able to break new ground on such a small budget. Loden's character is somewhat of an anti-heroine; not strong in any-way that would appeal to feminists and very noteworthy for being imperfect. Wanda feels like Bonnie and Clyde (1967) blended with Five Easy Pieces (1970).

Through her main protagonist Loden says a lot about her fellow women's lack of autonomy in their own lives. Even a half century after women getting the right to vote, its seems like women don't fully feel in control of their own destiny. In one scene Wanda wants to work, but she is told, from her male boss,  that the only work available is for men only. I appreciate Loden's ability to speak honestly and from the heart; the lack of/absence of female filmmakers in American Cinema is something we viewers often take for granted. 

Wanda is a great overlooked picture, perhaps the greatest picture depicting the difficulties & frustrations of the average woman (in the sense of a lack of autonomy). I loved it, will watch it many more times, and will encourage everyone I know to view it through their own eyes. Loden deserves a great amount of praise. 

The Fallen Idol (1948) Review

Title: The Fallen Idol
Year: 1948
Director: Carol Reed
Country: UK
Language: English

Despite working with very similar cinematographers, such as Robert Krasker or Oswald Morris, Carol Reed's filmography has been quite diverse throughout his career. In one decade he makes an innovative film noir in The Third Man (1949), the next he makes a wartime romance The Key (1958) and the decade following that he wins Best Picture with Oliver! (1968). I find myself quite amused when I watch his pictures, as I am entertained by something quite different everytime. 

In this, a butler (Ralph Richardson) working in a foreign embassy in London falls under suspicion when his wife (Sonia Dresdel) accidentally falls to her death, the only witness being an impressionable young boy (Bobby Henry).

The Fallen Idol reminds me of a Simpsons' episode where Mayor Quimby's cousin is accused of murdering a chef over the pronounciation of "chowder" (Chow-dere? It's chow-da!) and the only witness is Bart Simpson. Reed's picture is a perfect example of entertainment that is accessible to both children and adults. Though the majority of the scenes' are viewed through the young boy's, Phillipe, eyes and framed through his energy there are many adult scenes that would capture the minds of an older audience. 

The film's ultimate moral, that a lie leads to more lies which leads to trouble, is perfectly suitable for audiences of all ages. Graham Greene's screenplay gives a fairly obvious statement ("don't lie") that doesn't come off as preachy or lecturous. Like Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca, The Fallen Idol feels, and looks, like a gothic fairlytale that has the possibility to not have a "happily ever after". 

Though it isn't as great as The Third Man (1949), I was impressed and entertained by The Fallen Idol. Considering it's a 1940's picture, its quite unusual to see an adulterer be the main protagonist of this story. Would make a rather interesting double feature with Brief Encounter (1945). 

Fighting With My Family (2019) Review

Title: Fighting With My Family 
Year: 2019
Director: Stephen Merchant
Country: UK
Language: English

I remember, because it wasn't that long ago, watching Saraya-Jade Bevis (aka Paige) debut on the WWE main roster and defeated AJ Lee for the then called "Divas Championship" on a post-Wrestlemania 30 Monday Night Raw. It was an exciting and monumental moment because up until then the "diva's division" (what they called the female wrestlers in WWE) was dominated by models and women who couldn't really perform that well. Paige had been a professional wrestler for 6 years before that point & her win helped pave the way for women to be taken seriously in WWE. 

Fighting With My Family is, to a smaller extent, about Paige's family struggling to get by as wrestlers in the UK while maintaining a strong family unit. To a larger extent it's about Paige (Florence Pugh) herself slowly rising to the top of the female wrestling world. 

Florence Pugh does a good job at creating this underdog character that has to overcome both physical and mental shortcomings (such as low self esteem, fear of rejection) in order to reach her true potential. Her acting provides the foundation of drama throughout the picture. Nick Frost, who plays Paige's dad, gives a much needed comedic undertone to the film that prevents Fighting With My Family from being weighed down by heavy emotion. I loved the Who's Coming to Dinner-like scene wherin upper middle class British folk have dinner with these barbarian-like wrestlers. 

The script is, well, a bit cliche. Many scenes are formulaic and could be in any other underdog story, but as mentioned the actors give an average script some nice flow and longevity. Though it is fairly unfortunate that much of the later scenes are manufactured, taking the "based on a true story" moniker very loosely. Paige was an under-dog, but she was still NXT women's champion by the time she fought AJ Lee, but I digress. 

Paige's story is fairly unique, her family did rise from poverty, and it is a story worth telling on the big screen. I feel like the film-makers' got as much out of the story as anybody else could have. It succeeded in holding my attention, but I don't think it rose above a popcorn flick. Certainly worth at least one viewing. 

Mother (1996) Review

Title: Mother
Year: 1996
Director: Albert Brooks
Country: US
Language: English

Though Woody Allen is most well known for his neurotic intellectual character, I'd argue Albert Brooks does it better in his two classics Lost in America (1985) & Mother (1996). Both are very smart comedies that seem to have slowly vanished from the public eye with time, even though neither feel or look dated. Having discovered his films through Criterion Channel, I'm developing quite a fondness for the director/actor's works.

Mother revolves around a novelist, played by Brooks, who moves back in with his mother (Debbie Reynolds) after the demise of his second marriage. Attempting to pick up the pieces of his life, jumpstart a his stalled career, and, perhaps, learn something about women, the writer finds his new lifestyle full of nostalgic challenges.

Having fallen in love with Debbie Reynolds in Singin in the Rain (1952) and The Unsinkable Molly Brown, I don't think I was quite ready to view her as a mother figure in, well, Mother (1996). She plays her part as a passive agressive, slightly controlling, parent pretty well. Her and Albert Brooks have great chemistry, as most of the humor derives from them playing off each others' weird psychological tendencies. 

The writing is wonderful; in addition to being full of subtle jabs in the dialogue, the script is rife with freudian material that would be welcome in any undergraduate classroom. The comedy is top notch; rather than going for the quick and easy laugh, each chuckle that Brooks gets from his audience come well earned due to a mastery of his craft. 

Mother (1996) is a fun film that deserves to have a place among the comedy greats like Airplane and Blazing Saddles. It is far more poignant and observant than both of those, albeit not as strong in visual humour. I hope the rest of his filmography is as good as this. 

Avengers: Endgame (2019) Review

Title: Avengers Endgame
Year: 2019
Director(s): Russo Brothers
Country: US
Language: English

The first film to make over a billion dollars in its opening weekend, Avengers: Endgame has had over a decade of buildup (beginning with Ironman in 2008) to become such a bonifide commercial success. I was first impressed weeks ago when I tried to buy tickets and there was such a demand on Cineplex that it took over an hour to fully get through my purchase...even then there were less than 10 reserved seats left. This picture is a phenomenon and I'm intrigued to find out how much it will eventually make once its theatrical run has ended. 

The grave course of events set in motion by Thanos (Josh Brolin) that wiped out half the universe and fractured the Avengers ranks compels the remaining Avengers to take one final stand. 

In Endgame the devestation felt by audiences at the end of Infinity War is shown onscreen through a variety of grieving characters. The atmosphere feels apocalyptic and though we don't fully see the ramifications of an Earth that lost 50% of its population in an instant, we certainly can feel it. Their loss is our loss. This time Thanos cannot possibly come across as an anti-hero, we actively are rooting for the Avengers to, well, avenge the fallen. 

I'm certain that as more time goes by, a whole host of questions will come up. Endgame's time travel rules are "shakey" at best and, if you think about it for too long, might reduce your enjoyment. The film works best with a raised suspension of disbelief and enjoy is purely as a popcorn flick. Though the film is over three hours long, you will never feel like it drags at any pace. Each scene reveals a new progression of character and/or is complimented by some of the best CGI to grace the screen. 

Despite the fact that Thanos has been reduced as a character to a more traditional villain role, Endgame is a film that rewards its fandom and will meet the majority of expectations. Its not a particularly challenging experience, but the finality of Endgame gives it an edge over the other films (Captain Marvel, Ant Man & the Wasp) that felt like they were merely the appetizer to this 

So Dark the Night (1946) Review

Title: So Dark the Night
Year: 1946
Director: Joseph H. Lewish
Country: US
Language: English

Lately I've been browsing the Criterion Channel, a streaming service for a lot of arthouse and classic pictures that has been available since the beginning of the month. I've been viewing the Columbia Noir section after being greatly impressed by the terribly underrated My Name is Julia Ross (1945). Hopefully So Dark the Night (1946) would be seen as a hidden gem, largely ignored by a 2019 audience, as well. 

 A renowned and relentless Paris detective (Steven Geray) takes his first vacation in eleven years at a small inn in the French countryside. There he meets and falls in love with the hotelier's daughter (Micheline Cheirel), who had been betrothed to a neighboring farmer, but who hopes to marry him and move to Paris. On the evening of their engagement, both the fiancée and the farmer disappear.

So Dark the Night  (1946) is not an underrated classic; the very fact that this has not been lost in time is proof that it is very much over-rated. A mystery thriller that does not thrill nor is mysterious; this picture slugs along at a grueling pace due to the piss poor screenplay. The "twist" may have been fresh back in the 40's (although M from 1931 does it better) but now its insulting and lazy. 

Granted, I can't be entirely negative. The noir-style flourishes are intriguing, especially considering the film's extremely limited budget. We are treated with atmospheric photography, tilted angles, moody shadows, and shots that peer in or out of windows. The lighting and set design are remarkable; if we could judge a film based on visuals alone I'd give this an A+. 

So Dark the Night is a decent film for students looking to understand it from a purely technical perspective, but otherwise it should have been forgotten and abandoned decades ago. It was only an hour, but it felt like four. 

Time Bandits (1981) Review

Title: Time Bandits
Year: 1981
Director: Terry Gilliam 
Country: UK
Language: English

Throughout my teens and early adulthood, I didn't have much respect for Terry Gilliam's directing abilities. I didn't like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998), was unaffected by Twelve Monkeys (1995) and loathed The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009) I hated Gilliam's use of deep focus and extreme perspective distortion. Some of his scenes looked like we're meant to view them from the perspective of a fish bowl. Alas, I should have watched his earlier works first as I am now deeply impressed. 

In Time Bandits a young boy (Criag Warnock) accidently gets caught up in the antics of time travelling dwarves, who are jumping from era to era looking for treasure to steal. 

Produced by George Harrison, Time Bandits feels like an elaborate mix of Monty Python and C.S Lewis. It as much a timeless epic, seamlessly inspired by fairy tales of the past, as it is a comedy with a more modern sense of humor. Neither parts undermine one another; rather the comedy gives us a chance to catch our breath throughout this frantically paced odyssey. 

Gilliam's unusual directing style works well in Time Bandits, as much of the film is nonsensical and feels like we've been transported into a surreal alternate reality. Much of this picture asks us to suspend our disbelief, but the screenplay is so well written that we don't question the plot for even a second. Time Bandits is a wild and fun film unlike any other. 

Throughout the 1980's Hollywood tried to bring families to the theatre with a whole host of movies aimed at appealing to parents and their children (Goonies, ET, Sixteen Candles) but none prove as entertaining an experience as this. You can have your Labyrinth, I'll take my Time Bandits. 

Detour (1945) Review

Title: Detour
Year: 1945
Director: Edgar Ulmer
Country: US
Language: English

Detour (1945) had an extremely low budget for its time, even considering it was a B-picture (a small budget movie that would play alongside the main attraction in a "double feature") Luckily Edgar G. Ulmer was a resourceful director who shot the film in six days, with seven actors, one outdoor set and six minimally furnisheed indoor sets. Big cities, such as New York, are captured by small setpieces, like a fog enshrouded set-stage. 

In flashback, New York nightclub pianist Al Roberts (Tom Neal) hitchhikes to Hollywood to join his girl Sue. On a rainy night, the sleazy gambler he's riding with mysteriously dies; afraid of the police, Roberts takes the man's identity. But thanks to a blackmailing dame (Ann Savage), Roberts' every move plunges him deeper into trouble.

A great example of film noir; I actually watched this in my History of Film class at University of Winnipeg as part of a lecture of the evolution of crime pictures. Detour has everything that defines the genre; a femme fatale, shadowy cinematography, cynical narration and undetermined morality among other traits. It punctuates its dreary script by being perhaps one of the most nihilistic films ever made. 

A cult classic in Europe and North America, Detour is a taut gritty picture that certainly captures the pessimistic mood of the masses near the end of World War Two. One wonders if Roberts' feelings of torment were similar to the post traumatic stress disorder that soldiers either returning home or currently at war were feeling at the time. Such a chaotic time period is pefectly encapsulated in this film. 

Anne Savage, who I first saw in Guy Maddin's My Winnipeg (2007), is remarkable in her role. Her insults and nasty demeanor make you long for the days of great onscreen villains. She is a tremendous show stealer and the film is worth a viewing if only to see her acting. 

My Name is Julia Ross (1945) Review

Title: My Name is Julia Ross
Year: 1945
Director: Joseph Lewis
Country: US
Language: English

Back in the Golden Age of Hollywood, when movies were churned out like cars in a factory, studios had a quota of B-movies they could play alongside the big budget productions as a "double feature". Most were forgettable, but some mesmerized audiences and could be better than the main attraction itself. My Name is Julia Ross (1945), made for very little money even for a 1940's budget, was certainly a flick that had people glued to their seats. 

Julia Ross (Nina Foch) secures employment, through a rather nosy employment agency, with a wealthy widow, Mrs. Hughes, and goes to live at her house. 2 days later, she awakens - in a different house, in different clothes, and with a new identity. 

Women being domestically terrorized was a popular strain of psychological thriller in the 1940's. The most popular of these films being George Kukor's Gaslight (1944). Perhaps this is a product of post-war tensions between gender roles. In World War Two women stepped out of their husband's shadows and went to work in factories to be the breadwinners of their families. Once the men returned from war the women were largely reduced to domestic servitude once again. These films were a cry out that women wanted more in life than to be wives & mothers. 

My Name is Julia Ross has a tightly structured screenplay, believable dialogue and a string of fine performances all help to sell every twist as plausible. Joseph Lewis' directing is commendable, as his many camera choices (such as the use of close-ups) help cover the fact that this film had an incredibly small budget. Overall, a worthwhile film. 

Glass (2019) Review

Title: Glass
Year: 2019
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Country: US
Language: English

M. Night Shyamalan's Superhero Trilogy started with Unbreakable (2000), continued seventeen years later with Split (2017), and ends with Glass (2019). Since Unbreakable the film-maker's career has been a rollercoaster ride; making hits like Signs (2002) and devestating financial failures like The Last Airbender (2010). I went into his latest picture with a great degree of caution, as we could really get anything from this director. 

Security guard David Dunn (Bruce Willis) uses his supernatural abilities to track Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy), a disturbed man who has twenty-four personalities. They both find themselves trapped in a mental hospital, contending with a psychiatrist who is out to prove they are both mentally ill. 

My biggest issue with Glass (2019) is that it re-tells the story of Unbreakable, but in a much less exciting way. The story of Unbreakable is that Dunn has to be convinced that he's a superhero through miraculous discoveries. In this film a nurse asks "well how do you know you're a superhero? maybe you just have extraordinary abilities."

1. What is the difference between being a "superhuman" and having "extraordinary abilities"?
2. How does he know he's a superhero!? because of all the events in Unbreakable!

Split was a masterful picture because of its clear Hitchcock inspiration. The suspense of "what is the beast?" builds up to a terrifying climax. Glass is a great disservice to McAvoy's character as an little mystery left to the horde is whisked away by comedic misfires. The final "twist" of Glass feels insulting as very little effort was made to build up to it. Rather than an exclamation point, the finale falls miserably flat.