Once Upon A Time in the West (1968)

sb_post_date = "";
sb_categories = ",";
sb_url_to_rate = "";
sb_rated_title = "";
sb_when_to_load = "immediate";
try { var sb_dp = Date.parse(sb_post_date + ' ' + ""); sb_rated_creation = isNaN(sb_dp)? new Date() : new Date(sb_dp); } catch (e) { sb_rated_creation = new Date(); }

6/10

I am not a huge fan of Westerns. I find them to be slow and monotonous, and the closest I can come to actually finding enjoyment in one is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (which, you can argue is more about the decline of the classic Western than being a Western itself). And, of course, Blazing Saddles. Still, I found this movie to capture the exact feeling of lethargy and ruthlessness that I imagine living in 1890s cattle country evoked. Within minutes, I found myself entranced by the take-no-prisoners attitude that I normally find to be dull. In my book, therefore, this movie was a success, although I apologize if I don’t use names because honestly, I couldn’t keep track of who anyone actually was.

The use of eyes in this movie is wonderful, although I suppose that’s the stereotypical “Western” technique. The scene following the jailbreak is brilliant, building tension by only revealing what is happening through the use of eyes and exterior sounds. I love the nonchalant look on all the customers’ faces, as though they can both sense what’s happening and not be surprised.

I found myself really liking the female protagonist in the film, although it might be because most women in Westerns are portrayed as weak and inferior (think Legends of the Fall), whereas Claudia Cardinale is strong and intelligent, someone you can actually see surviving against a sea of unruly gun-slinging men. I love the scene where she is approached by the man who killed her husband.

I’m not going to go into much more detail, but I found myself pleasantly surprised by this Western gem (much, much better than when I saw The Searchers- maybe I’ll write about that experience another time).

Watch out for the man with the harmonica!

The Movie Mistress

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

9/10

“Just what this country needs: a cock in a frock on a rock.”

With a soundtrack that ranges from The Village People to Judy Garland to ABBA, this movie is, in my opinion, amazingly awesome, and every time I watch it I find it to be funnier and funnier. Though at times incredibly non-PC, I think half the reason it’s so successful is because it gives overdramatized accounts of real situations (example: Bob the hippie marrying an illegal Filipino woman while drunk). It’s this glam-ing up of characters both in the literal sense and situational sense that makes this movie brilliant.

One of the reasons I love this movie is because it’s legitimately funny without seeming too dated even though it was made over fifteen years ago. I like that when Bernadette goes for help, the people she brings back aren’t all that accommodating, and you actually laugh even though it’s sort of a shitty situation the girls find themselves in and has really offensive undertones. The idea of the characters being rejected by the over-conservative mainstream is both mocked and satired, creating a light-hearted flick with deep, complex problems and issues. It’s one of those films where you don’t think about what happened until after it already happened, so you’re left with something to discuss hours after the film has passed.

I also like that the tension Mitzi builds up before meeting his wife isn’t added to by an incredibly awkward situation. The flashbacks of his son being born heighten the drama, but rather than confront her with strange, I-haven’t-seen-you-in-a-million-years-and-don’t-know-what-to-do confusion, there’s a realistic reunion where the two of them realize that underneath everything, they’re still friends.

There’s not much to this movie that you can’t like, although the first time I watched it, I think I was a bit too young to look at ping-pong balls ever again. Now I can appreciate the ridiculousness of the burlesque mockery, where that type of sexual degradation is accepted more than drag queens. I realize the dark comedy and social statement the creators of this movie tried to get across, and I have the ultimate fucking respect.

If you haven’t seen this movie (which, if you’re in the 1001 Movie Club, I hope you did), go rent it now, or buy it even. It’s both outwardly and inwardly funny, as well as warm, sentimental, and intensely dramatic all in one. Hell, I might just go watch it again.

Peace!

The Movie Mistress

The Last Picture Show (1971)

sb_post_date = "";
sb_categories = ",";
sb_url_to_rate = "";
sb_rated_title = "";
sb_when_to_load = "immediate";
try { var sb_dp = Date.parse(sb_post_date + ' ' + ""); sb_rated_creation = isNaN(sb_dp)? new Date() : new Date(sb_dp); } catch (e) { sb_rated_creation = new Date(); }

9/10


((mini-SPOILER Alert))


This is one of the most realistic movies I've seen in a long time. It's artfully done without beating you over the head with cinematic techniques, and I can imagine everything that happens in the film actually happening in real life. A sort of American Graffiti meets The Graduate set in Texas, The Last Picture Show provided insight into a lifestyle of which I am completely unfamiliar without the puke-inducing shots of nostalgia that movies often bombard you with (October Sky, anyone?). I thoroughly enjoyed this and was kept wanting more until the very last minute. I can totally see why it won Oscars, especially for Cloris Leachman's performance (who, up until I watched this, I had only seen in comedic roles like Young Frankenstein). 


The fact that it was in black and white was a bit annoying at first, and as it opened I thought, "Oh fuck, here's another movie set in BW to symbolize the fifties. Big whoop." As it kept going, however, I realized that the tone and content of the film wouldn't fit in color. The fact that the story is about a dying town with deteriorating and old-style values that no one is fighting to keep clicked in my head as I watched the film in a format that is now only used for artistic choices. The minute I realized that the film format was used to make us want to cling on to the last bit of youth and naivety present at the beginning of the movie (as evidenced by Sonny wanting to see a picture show and drive around with Duane before he leaves for the army), I was in awe. It made me think that if there was ever a sequel to this movie, it would be in color, since the last picture show finished along with the spirit and nostalgia of the town. That thought alone blew my sometimes idiotically slow mind. 


Another thing I loved about this film was the characters. I was so psyched to see a super young Jeff Bridges and Cybill Shepherd, both of which had fantastic performances as the stereotyped deadbeat and town belle. I think that the reason the characters worked so well is because they represented archetypes of characters you would see in any small town- Ben Johnson as the man who runs everything, Ellen Burstyn as the woman living vicariously through her daughter, etc.- but the characters run so much deeper and are played as complex enough that you have to actually look closely to see the prototypes, rather than have to examine the characters to see beneath the surface. The combination of great writing and great actors created this typical Texas small town without actually being typical. 


My one criticism of the film is the obscenely large plot hole involving the coach. The storyline involving Sonny and Ruth was fascinating and kept me on my toes, and yet at one point Sonny turns to Lois and says, "Does everyone know about it?" to which she replies yes. So my question is, where the fuck is the coach in all this if Ruth is convinced he'll come home with his rifle? Did I miss something here? If someone could please tell me if a line was uttered that made reference to this fact, please let me know, although I'm pretty sure that if shit were to go down, it would have been a much bigger impact in the plot. Instead, the coach disappears after introducing them. It was as if his purpose was served so we no longer needed him. Peace out, Coach Popper! Enjoy your life outside the movie. 


Other than that, I found this film to be both thought provoking and realistically entertaining. The drama was interplaced throughout the film in such a way that wasn't overbearing, so that rather than reaching the end of the film and proclaiming, "Well, that's an Oscar-winning film for you," you reach the end and say, "Well, that's life." 


Peace!


The Movie Mistress

Mulholland Dr. (2001)

sb_post_date = "";
sb_categories = ",";
sb_url_to_rate = "";
sb_rated_title = "";
sb_when_to_load = "immediate";
try { var sb_dp = Date.parse(sb_post_date + ' ' + ""); sb_rated_creation = isNaN(sb_dp)? new Date() : new Date(sb_dp); } catch (e) { sb_rated_creation = new Date(); }

4/10

I stopped taking this movie seriously the minute I saw Billy Ray Cyrus enter the frame. Actually, I stopped long before that, but I kept hoping that maybe if I kept on watching, some ounce of credibility would be bestowed on it eventually. It didn’t happen.

Within the first ten minutes, I felt like I had turned on the Lifetime Channel because of how terrible the acting was. Then, I did some research. Apparently, this movie started out as a pilot for ABC. You know, the channel owned by fucking Disney. So that made sense. As I kept watching, though, I realized that it wasn’t really the acting, since I had seen a lot of these people before, save for Billy Ray. It was the script. It was so entirely ridiculous that there was no way for it to be salvaged. Not even the actors knew how to turn it into something not laughable. I get that it’s supposed to be stylized film noir, but there’s a difference between over-the-top and non-realistic.

I decided to make a list of questions, then, for David Lynch, the writer/director of this film. Starting from the top:

Why would you ever name a 30-something woman in 2001 Betty? Any aspiring actress with a lick of sense would have dropped the nickname synonymous with eighty year old women and opted for something modern, like Liz, or Beth.

Why has it been twenty minutes and nothing has actually happened?

What is up with all the close-ups on the eyes?

Why does there have to be a psychic woman living next door? I feel like that cliché has been overused so many times that it has lost its value of moving the plot forward.

Why is the subplot/comical relief of Adam getting dumped even in there?

Why is the landlady’s business who stays with Betty? Is she not allowed to have friends?

What kind of audition is this? Why are they all so accomadating, and why is it acceptable to have a make-out session?

Why has it been an hour and ten minutes and I still feel like nothing has happened?

…More eye close ups?

Why is everyone in this movie so hostile toward one another?

Why make a big deal about changing what Rita looks like if all it means is putting on a wig? With the whole, "Let me do it" spiel I thought at least she'd get a radical haircut and makeup change. What was really implied was "Here, let me put this wig on you because you apparently can't do it yourself."

Why do both women just happen to sleep naked? I mean, I get that it’s a lesbian romance, but I don’t know many people who sleep naked on a regular basis. I also don’t know anyone who actually dreams with their eyes open.

…I think you get the idea. I think had everything been faster, it might have been able to hold my attention. As it was, I struggled to not just shut off the television. It was one of those movies where I could get up, walk away for a few minutes to get something to drink without pausing and be confident that I would know exactly what was going on when I came back.  It was just… so…. slow.

Because I don’t want to bore you anymore, I’m going to stop now. To keep asking stupid questions, I’d have to go through the entire movie, and who wants to do that? I mean, I gave it a 4/10 because I wanted to stop watching an hour in.

Peace!

The Movie Mistress

Manhattan (1979)

sb_post_date = "";
sb_categories = ",";
sb_url_to_rate = "";
sb_rated_title = "";
sb_when_to_load = "immediate";
try { var sb_dp = Date.parse(sb_post_date + ' ' + ""); sb_rated_creation = isNaN(sb_dp)? new Date() : new Date(sb_dp); } catch (e) { sb_rated_creation = new Date(); }

Rating: 7/10


I guess I'm not a purist, but I really prefer Woody Allen's darker side. I have a weird obsession with Match Point, and while I appreciate movies like Annie Hall and Manhattan, they just don't do it for me. Nevertheless, I found this movie to be enjoyable and realistic while still maintaining a sense of grandeur that can only come from a movie about life in New York City. 


One of the best things I enjoyed about this movie was the continuing shots. You'd see Tracy and Isaac in the living room together and after they left that room to go to the kitchen the shot would stay the same. You were forced to pay attention to what was being said rather than having to rely on facial expressions and gestures, which we often take for granted when watching movies. I also loved that it was in black and white. It added a sophistication to the film that contrasted with the very ordinary lifestyles of the characters. Here we are, watching the dynamics of human relationships and adult fuck-ups through the style of an old movie with a glamorous soundtrack, and yet the cinematography felt like a documentary. It was kind of fascinating to watch. 


My one criticism of this movie is the pace. It took a while to get into, and the only thing that saved it was the fact that you already knew the gist of Woody Allen's character, so you could jump in without having to build much of a background on him because his character is pretty much the same in every one of his movies. The movie itself just kind of exists without purpose for a while, and you don't understand what you're suppose to find out until the last two minutes. I suppose that's the point, however, and if you look at the overall making of the film and style, it more than compensates for the painfully slow pacing. 


"You just have to learn to have a little faith in people." If that doesn't sum up the entire plot of Woody Allen's crazy antics, I don't know what does. I can't get over how great that line is to end a movie. There are a lot of wonderful movies that have pretty shitty ending lines, but this is now going at the top of my list of the greats (among Kramer v. Kramer and Marie Antoinette). 


I think that had the movie focused less on the details of everyday life in New York and more about the overall plot and where it was going, it would have been far more effective. As it was, however, it focused on every single thing that happened to the characters every day of their lives and how it affected every other character two minutes later. It takes a while to get used to, but by the end of the movie you appreciate the way the story went, although I was a bit surprised when suddenly Isaac professes that it's been months since the film started. I have to admit I was like, "What... how....? When was that time shown? I thought everything happened three days ago." Still, if you ignore the discrepancies and appreciate the artistry of the film instead, it can be immensely amusing. 


Peace!


The Movie Mistress

Marnie (1964)

((SPOILER ALERT))

3/10

I have a question for Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock, if you've come back from the dead and are reading my blog, were we supposed to just ignore the fact that in the middle of Marnie, Sean Connery fucking RAPES HER? I might be just a tad too forward thinking to enjoy this movie, but I'm pretty sure that even in 1964, rape wasn't really acceptable. It might have been overlooked, or underprosecuted, but I don't think it was accepted. Can anyone who was alive during this time tell me if I'm wrong? I'd really like to know, because it really bothered me that Marnie was raped and attempted to kill herself, and then later Rutland still was seen as her hero. WHAT THE FUCK, Alfred Hitchcock? What the fuck? This is how I summed up the after-effects of that ridiculously terrifying scene:

"Dear, what on earth are you doing?" [insert Scottish accent here]

"Oh, just going for a bout of suicide. It's your fault, you know. You know I hate to be touched."

"Well, don't die for too long. I have to psychoanalyze you later."

Seriously. I think her exact words were, "I was trying to kill myself, not feed the damn fish." And then the events on the Honeymoon were never brought up again!! It was like it was all a dream. That is, if you dream about rape and suicide. No big deal. Just two of the most intense traumatic things that could ever happen in a person's life. Why put them in if they're never going to be talked about again? What's the point? Besides making Sean Connery look like a dick, which, apparently was not the point of this movie.

Now this is what gets to me: I thought that normally in movies, the creep (you cannot deny that a man who says he wants to collect a woman as a trophy because he's caught a wild animal is a creep) is normally exposed or put in jail at the end. Even in Hitchcock movies, the villain normally gets vanquished. But not this time! Oh no, Rutland is seen as her savior, and she actually wants to stay with him at the end! The girl has some serious psychological issues that can't be solved by one night of remembering what happened. You know why? Because HE IS NOT A DOCTOR. He's just a creeper who's obsessed with her and wants to "fix her" so that she'll actually agree to have sex with him. That raping thing is just too damn strenuous. It strains the eyes. 

You can tell that I really did not like this movie. In rating it, I tried to be objective, but even then, I found myself thinking that even the cinematography is not as good as Hitchcock's other films. I think anyone who watches can agree that it's not his best, but the story really set me over the edge. The feminist in me finds it repulsive, and the filmmaker in me isn't impressed enough to override my original disgust. The greenscreens shots were cringingly apparent, and when Marnie flew off of her horse, I actually laughed at the blatant not-keeping-with-momentum special effect. Alfred Hitchcock was fucking loaded at this point- it wouldn't have taken much to hire a physicist to say, "People don't fly that far or straight when they're thrown off of a horse." Done. The only reason it gets a 3 is because of the one brilliant scene with Marnie taking the cash and the janitor making her way towards her on the other side of the partition. That shot alone salvages this movie, and I'm sure Hitchcock has used it before, but to be nice I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. 

Peace!

The Movie Mistress

It's A Wonderful Life

10/10


It's hard to believe that this movie tanked on its release. With the success of such classics as Miracle on 34th St, you'd think that this would have been an instant classic. Instead, we end up with a steady and growing following until eventually it becomes cliched and a Christmas staple. Let's review it as though it were new, however. 


We start with the sentimental story of a man who has given up everything for other people throughout his life. He has sacrificed all he has so that others can find happiness, and in the process has gotten fucked over by a shit-ton of people. However, that does not sway him, and even in his darkest hour, he decides to sacrifice all he has so that everyone else doesn't have to go down with him. Thank God that the other people won't stand for that, and end up giving back to him in the end the way he's given to them over the years. It's the happiest ending you could ever hope for because it shows people actually CARING for one another. Wait, what? That actually exists?


I fucking adore this movie, not just because of the sentimentality of Christmas, but also because it has a genuinely good storyline. I think that these days a lot of the time plot is lost among the desire to make money during the Holidays (Christmas Day is the one of the biggest box office income days)- see my Shittiest Christmas Movies list if you don't believe me. You have a character that you actually, genuinely care about and don't want to see go down without a fight. You have an angel that knows more than he's letting on, and you know it, and he knows it, and you want the main character to know it but he has yet to realize what his life has been about. You're engaged in the plot and in the characters, which is why you can revisit this movie over and over and over again even though it is strangely similar to A Christmas Carol (in reverse). I'm keeping my review short because there really isn't much to say in a review of a near perfect movie. It's a classic. 


Peace!


The Movie Mistress

Magnolia (1999)

sb_post_date = "";
sb_categories = ",";
sb_url_to_rate = "";
sb_rated_title = "";
sb_when_to_load = "immediate";
try { var sb_dp = Date.parse(sb_post_date + ' ' + ""); sb_rated_creation = isNaN(sb_dp)? new Date() : new Date(sb_dp); } catch (e) { sb_rated_creation = new Date(); }

Rating: 6/10


((SPOILER ALERT))


My one criticism of this movie is that it felt like nothing was explained in detail, and because there were so many stories, you weren't as invested as you would be had the creators narrowed it down. It isn't that the story was confusing or hard to follow, but you had to pay such close attention to grasp basic ideas like the relationships between every character. If I hadn't noticed the credits on the television set, for example, I would have missed altogether that Earl Partridge was the producer for What Do Kids Know? and not known at all what he was doing in the movie. I understand that if they had gone into detail the movie would have been fucking 5 hours long, but there's an easy remedy for that: have less characters. Because there were so many fucking stories, it's like you got glimpses of each one instead of a complete picture, and as a result didn't gather enough info about any of the characters to feel anything for them. William H. Macy as the Quiz Kid Donnie, for example, could have been cut. While it was an interesting sub-plot, it wasn't really doing anything except taking time away from the other characters. 


Besides that, I thought this was an fascinating and thought provoking movie. It took a while to get into, but once a steady cycle of going through the perspectives of each character was established, the story got really interesting. I loved watching how each person's facade fueled their relationships with others; the cop, for example, had this front of being an upstanding cop and the best he could be, but when it came to actually dealing with people, he was kind of a dick because of the way he looked at himself. 


My favorite sub-plot was the one with Stanley, the child genius who supposedly got tons of attention from everyone, but when it boiled down to actually listening to him, there was no one there. His father was only concerned with making money from his son's talents, and even though he got press all the time, the school just sort of left him alone and treated him like a freak. He was the only character in the movie who I actually felt for because he didn't deserve any of the shit that people threw on him. Kids have to use the bathroom, for fuck's sake. It happens. Even the other kids, who you'd think would sympathize, stepped all over him. I was so fucking glad when he finally summed up the feelings of all the characters in the film and said, "Dad, you have to start being nice to me." Ain't that the truth. That was one of the defining moments of the film, and made me appreciate the other sub-plot (though I still think it could have been cut) of William H. Macy more because I was seeing through Stanley what Donnie had gone through. 


I think that if the creators had made this film more concise, it would have been a lot better. You wouldn't have had to pay attention to one line said by Stanley in haste in order to understand the purpose of the frogs, and more attention would be focused on less characters, thus making each one more important in the overall story. However, it is what it is, and I can't change that. I can, however, appreciate the fact that every single person, whether we want to believe it or not, is hiding something, and sooner or later it will be exposed (although the fact that his father left did not make me like Tom Cruise's character more- I still thought he was a dick). This movie did a wonderful job of connecting several characters whom you wouldn't think would be connected in any way, and doing it smoothly and interestingly, and I'll give it credit for that. 


Peace!


The Movie Mistress

Requiem for A Dream

sb_post_date = "";
sb_categories = ",";
sb_url_to_rate = "";
sb_rated_title = "";
sb_when_to_load = "immediate";
try { var sb_dp = Date.parse(sb_post_date + ' ' + ""); sb_rated_creation = isNaN(sb_dp)? new Date() : new Date(sb_dp); } catch (e) { sb_rated_creation = new Date(); }

So, I firmly believe that every middle schooler should watch this movie and as a result the drug problem in America would be solved. No questions asked. I am never doing heroin because of seeing this movie. I am not going to use the word "disturbing" because

1) that's all you hear when you hear mention of this film, and
2) "disturbing" normally implies subject matter that you don't want to think about or that is completely taboo, whereas this is something that needs to be seen and thought about

This movie was provocative and dark, and although I liked Pi much better, I still found this one to be immensely captivating. The main gimmick and selling point of this film is the editing. It's cut in such a sharp, unique way that blocks together sounds with images that are completely unrelated and as a result creates a simple effect that's fucking phenomenal. An example of this is the food disappearing from a the mother's plate through stop motion anim with the sound effect of a plane in the background. Who the fuck thought to piece those together? It's totally not expected and unequivocally awesome.

In an interview with Darren Aronofsky, he referred to this film as being not a drug movie, but a movie about broken dreams. While I don't necessarily agree with that because every single character develops some kind of addiction, one of the things I love about this film is that it gets back to the root and inherent causes of the addictions. You can't mask an addiction to heroin by saying that once you leave, it will go away. Aronofsky paints a beautiful and dark picture of what happens when you hold onto your dreams so much that you lose all sense of what's really happening. At its heart, this movie is about denial of one's addictions. I love the scene in which the mother is dancing around the living room in front of the TV wearing her "stardom" dress. In my opinion, it's one of the most brilliantly cut scenes of all time because of how much we get sucked in to her own fucked up world through the visual effects, but Ellen Burstyn's acting takes us out of that world because we can observe her in a third party way.

My one criticism of this movie is the lack of resolution. I would say that that's typical Aronofsky, but Pi was totally resolved at the end, and so was the Wrestler. I just felt that a subject matter such as the one above should have a fucking conclusive ending, whether it be happy or sad.

I reviewed this because it was on the list for the November 1001 Movie Club Reviews, even though I just joined and therefore won't start until December. But I say fuck rules, so I'm posting it for you all to read. I'll be official some other time and it will be just peachy.

Peace!

The Movie Mistress