Bewertungen

Spoiler alert, it turns out there was no witchcraft or sorcery involved at all - just incredibly hard work and training.

The story of the Japanese women's volleyball team that rattled off 258 consecutive wins, including winning gold at the 1964 summer Olympics in Tokyo, is inspiring, and it was a treat to see many of the surviving members still going strong when they met up in their 70's (and perhaps early 80's) for the making of this film. The rigorous regimen coach Daimatsu put them through, starting practice after getting off work from their factory jobs at 5pm and then going to midnight or often later, 1am or 2am, as well as footage of him rapidly firing balls at sprawling team members trying to dig them off the ground at a rate no human could possibly react to, certainly gave a pretty good understanding for how they had been toughened mentally and physically.

It was inspiring to see them endure that, win gold in their home country, comment on how it had made them much stronger in real life afterwords, and then still appear quite youthful in older age. While some had passed away, like captain Kasai Masae (who at 31 in 1964 was older than the rest), we see elderly Katsumi Matsumura biking to the gym in the rain and then pumping iron.

Unfortunately, however, director Julien Faraut just couldn't get out of his own wall in making this documentary. There are several segments inserted into the story that had no real business being here, including the opening animation, footage of devastated Tokyo shortly after the end of the war, and a long sequence of random manufacturing work showing Japan's rebuilding. His decision to mix in anime of volleyball action with the 1962 world championship match in Moscow, where the team earned its nickname by upsetting the powerful Soviet team, was unconscionable. I mean ffs you've literally got footage of the match and even during a point, like when a player is about to spike the ball, you cut away to an anime of a stylized power spike. It was very irritating.

The footage two years later at the Olympics is handled slightly better, but even here we get cut aways to an anime of fans cheering, and after many points, bizarre cut aways to a clock showing the time. The video was also tiled horizontally to fill out the wider aspect ratio, meaning portions of it were repeated on the edges, which was distracting. Meanwhile, not even effort to describe other matches on their path to getting to that game, before or during the Olympics. It really kind of felt like this was not really a sports fan trying to tell a sports story, and doing a mediocre job. It's a compelling bit of history I'd never heard of though, so I'm glad he made this film.

Light fare but still fun, and Marisa Tomei is fantastic in the breakout performance that won her an Oscar. Joe Pesci is great too but at 21 years older seemed like an odd fit for her, at least romantically - everything else with the Brooklyn banter and cursing worked. The only thing I disliked was the public defender's stuttering being played for comedy, a really tired and cruel trope.

On a small note, and I know this is wildly off topic, far too weighty considering what the film is about, but curiosity led me here... The statue seen when Pesci and Tomei are outside the courthouse (after he's learned the real Jerry Gallo is dead) is the Civil War Memorial in Monticello, Georgia, erected by those champions of the Lost Cause mythology, the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1910. The inscription is from a poem by Father Abram J. Ryan, the "Poet-Priest of the South" whose views on white supremacy were incredibly toxic during and after the Civil War. "The triumphs of might are transient," it says on the side we see, which translated might just say "The South shall rise again." The opposite side is an ode to Confederation soldiers which has the gall to praise them for their duty "in the service of their country." It still stands today.

"It's like we all know, way down in our souls, that our generation is gonna witness the end of everything. You can see it in our eyes. It's in mine. Look. I'm doomed. I'm only 18 years old and I'm totally doomed."

Lots of horny teenagers slapping their bodies together, lots of partying and recreational drug use, and some bizarre moments of aliens briefly appearing to characters. There are also deeper things, one of which is a brutal rape that comes out of nowhere, so beware of that. Amidst all the sex there is a guy (James Duval) looking for love and commitment, but not getting it out of his friend with benefits (Rachel True), a wonderfully empowered bisexual black woman who simply tells him "I firmly believe that human beings are built for sex and for love, and that we should dole out as much of both as possible before we're old and ugly and nobody wants to touch us anymore." They're one of several interracial couples here, and the openness to that and different orientations was refreshing. (And side, note, it's too bad Rachel True hasn't been given more parts in her career).

It's a unique film backed with a fantastic soundtrack that's mostly comedy and doesn't really seem to be about much of anything other than disaffected youth, but somehow through the trippy madness and teenage dialogue, Araki captures something of the feelings of a generation. Not that it's incredibly deep, but there's the freedom of facing a possibly grim future and living in the moment, but there's also violence and the angst of tragedy and loneliness. The ending to the film is fantastic because it's unexpected and works on multiple levels.

A lot of the fun is just how many recognizable actors appear here, including Christina Applegate (right at the end of the Married... with Children run), Ryan Phillippe (six months before I Know What You Did Last Summer), Heather Graham (five months before Boogie Nights), and Mena Suvari (in her film debut at 18). There are also cameos from Beverly D'Angelo, Charlotte Rae, Denise Richards, Traci Lords, Shannen Doherty, and Rose McGowan, and to roll back the years even further, John Ritter plays a televangelist looking for donations while '1-800-GO-JE$U$' and 'Say Hi! To Jesus' appear under his face, Christopher Knight and Eve Plumb (Peter and Jan Brady) appear as a married couple, and Lauren Tewes (The Love Boat) is a newscaster.

This is one that may polarize viewers, but I found (a little bit to my surprise) that I liked it.

A silent film which has a few nice moments, but mostly plods along under the listless direction of Frank Borzage. The premise comes courtesy a play from W. Somerset Maugham, and is about as contrived as it gets. A man endures his wife and friend running away together, leaving him to raise their son - and then thirty years later, his son finds himself possibly in the same position. As the son's girlfriend (Eleanor Boardman) is deciding whether to run off and leave him with another man (Malcolm McGregor), she arranges to have his mother and the man she left with show up at the family mansion so she can see how it worked out for them.

Eleanor Boardman is lovely, but she doesn't have a lot of chemistry with McGregor and the film lacks the spark of passion. It seemed to me that the most (innocently) sensual moment with her character came with her elderly father-in-law. I know it was a different time, but when her character sits on his lap, plays with his ear flirtatiously, and asks if she's "boney,", followed by him giving her a pat on the hip and reassuring her she's not, it seemed a little odd.

The cast also features an almost unrecognizable Joan Crawford in her very first year of filmmaking as the younger version of the old man's wife - the one who ran off with his friend. Look for her early on.

The test in the film really lies with the lovers who ran away thirty years ago, and there are many indications that their relationship hasn't age well - he's crotchety and cold, and she (Eugenie Besserer) doesn't seem to dress in an age appropriate way, at least for the morals of the period. Her son gets a glimpse of his mother's calf, bare except for a strand of jewelry, and is disturbed, for example, and she confesses to dying her hair to the young woman. The old couple bicker at each other and hardly seem like they could have been passionately in love once, but this is how relationships sometimes go. "Youth! It's just a day of spring...and gone!" she laments. Later when they take a trip down memory lane via an old photo album, however, they show a little affection for one another.

Curiously, the man who was jilted (Alec B. Francis) is completely at peace with these two, not showing a sign of hurt or betrayal, and in fact, laughing it up with them. This lack of feeling may have been an indication of stoicism and his own arrival at peace, but it also seemed consistent with the lack of emotional energy in the film. Instead we get attempts to liven things up in the intertitles with plenty of swear words with key letters dashed out, which, while amusing, was a poor substitute.

The younger woman takes violent jealousy as a sign of love in one of the moments leading up to the climax, which was unfortunate. The man she's thinking of running away with threatens that he would give her a black eye if someday some other man tried to take her away from him - note, not the other man, her. "You brute," she says, taking this as a sign of love (ugh!) before kissing him. In a clever way this rebounds on him, but by this time, the film had already seemed elongated, even though its runtime is just an hour. There's not enough here to recommend the film, unless you're a fan of one of the three women in the cast.

An ode to a time and place, Bergman's beloved Fårö island, and also a meditation on its rugged, natural beauty, the struggles of its residents, and the inevitability of change.

Here you'll find scenes of farmers, almost all of whom are middle-aged to elderly, out chopping wood, collecting hay, scything reeds to thatch a barn, shearing a sheep with scissors by hand, felling trees and sawing them into boards, and cooking a simple meal of fried fish, potatoes, and gravy to eat alone on a winter's night. They describe past disappointments stoically, e.g. Having had a fire burn down their property, slowing down because of health issues, or having dreams of becoming a veterinarian or a teacher in their youth dashed. One also speaks to the little family farmers being edged out by big operations and having difficulty selling their products, a trend which has certainly increased over the last 45 years, and is still painfully relevant.

There is a quite contrast in the tourists who are shown coming to the island in droves during the summer months to hit the beach. The locals only wish would leave things as they found them, and that they wouldn't get priority treatment in permitting matters with local government, the age old struggle.

Early on in a delightful segment we also see clips from Bergman's documentary from nine years earlier, showing teenagers commenting on their future plans, most saying they want to leave, followed by them roughly a decade later, with some having stayed and appreciated a life now "peaceful" instead of "boring," others having successfully moved to Stockholm (and in one case, someone who wanted to stay but is now a train conductor in a big city).

There are many other odds and ends here - the automation (described as a "thingamajig" and a "contraption") used in a lighthouse, fishermen out at sea for extended periods trying to catch salmon, and carolers bringing baked goods to an elderly man, followed by what appears to be his funeral. It's meant to be a slice of life of the 673 residents and was distilled down from 28 hours of footage, so it's got a little bit of everything.

Unfortunately, there is also a matter of fact but brutal killing a pig, the animal suffering in its death throes for some time after the fatal hammer blow to the head, followed by its butchery, and yet Bergman mercilessly leaves the camera on the scene. You can say this is clear-eyed documentary work and I understand it's the way of life for these farmers, but just beware, it's very tough to watch, and goes on for literally 8 (argh!) minutes, which dropped my review score.

I also thought Berman was a little inartistic in his final voiceover prognosis of the island, an update from the grim predictions of his 1970 document, as well as in his plea to the government to allow locals to build rental cottages. Letting everything speak for itself would have been a better choice. He also alludes to doing it again in 1989, which unfortunately wouldn't come to pass.

In his earliest surviving work, this 29 minute short, Naruse juggles comedy, financial hardship, and some tough emotions centered on children - not being able to provide as good a life for them because you're struggling with money, even if that just means not being able to give them an occasional toy, and what it would mean if something were to ever happen to them, which is every parent's worst nightmare. There's clearly humanism here but I don't think this really excelled in any of the tones it takes, and you can see the twist coming. Also, the two insurance agents about to come to blows over who gets to sell a life insurance policy for children is hard to empathize with; guys, you're both shady to me.

"My wife is having a baby." "Is that on the call sheet?"

A movie about making a movie in a small town that manages to be both subversive as well as sweet at the same time. I absolutely adored the relationship that a writer (Philip Seymour Hoffman) strikes up with a local bookseller (Rebecca Pidgeon) and have to say I fell for her here. Ah, she's so adorable. The fish hook in the finger moment, the absurdity of the electoral college line, the "you shall not bear false witness" idealism, and above all the purity of what she represents, clinging to everything that's good and true in this world which is also the point of the fictional movie he's working on, and yet not becoming a caricature in the process, is a marvel.

In contrast are the filmmakers - the director juggling all sorts of balls (William H. Macy), the actor with a predilection for 14-year-old girls (Alec Baldwin), the actress who suddenly doesn't want to do a nude scene despite having done so many that "the country could draw her tits from memory" (Sarah Jessica Parker), and the producer who likes throwing his weight around (David Paymer). They all speak the language of cash and influence and are disingenuous in varying degrees, the one-liners flying from Mamet's intelligent script.

Baldwin's character is the worst of them, with his "hobby" for underage girls, which is off-putting, particularly as he meets a teenager (Julia Stiles) when she throws herself at him. I didn't like how it avoided any of the damage of statutory rape, and in fact showed Stiles's character going from fine to vengeful after discovering he's been with someone else. It is central to whether the writer can tell the truth about it despite having incentives not to, or as we see, whether a local man with ambitions can be paid off. There's dark commentary about how the world works when we see the film proceeding with shooting at the end, though it also seems just a little too happy with itself.

Overall though, its great script, funny and endearing characters, and strong cast make this an entertaining film.

P.s. Here's the blurb about the obnoxious actor from the fan magazine, which I chuckled over: Bob Likes: Bourbon and milk, Tuna B. L. T., Speed walking, Strawberry ice cream, Summer afternoons Bob Dislikes: French movies, Cruelty, Bad weather, Carbonated Beverages.

About as authentic as you can possibly get in its time and place, culture, and coming of age details. It's a reminder of how hard growing up can be, with social media a depressing presence, the feeling of saying or doing all the wrong things, and then on top of it dealing with little lines like "you're pretty cute for an Asian" which hit like a dagger. The relationships between the family members are brilliantly written (including the dad working overseas notably playing zero role), and the film defies any kind of simple feel-good turn in its plotting, yet somehow leaves us with the feeling that the boy will survive all this, maybe the visual arts club being the first step to finding his path. Great performances all around, with my favorite moment being the grandmother going on and on, exaggerating the harm coming to the boy's future life. Also loved the on-location filming in Fremont, CA, with the houses (outside and inside), parks, hills, streets, etc all resonating.

"Because for the first time we've each talked to the one person who really understood...Because into our empty lives has swept a force that is overwhelming us both..."

Well, obviously don't come here looking for a faithful re-telling of Tolstoy's novel, or even for an attempt at its period details, or you'll be disappointed. It's funny that the original title, Heat was nixed because move marquees would otherwise read "Greta Garbo in Heat," but it also feels appropriate, because while the film deals with adultery, it's presented with more purity than passion.

The virtuous temptress, a combination of the sacred and the profane, is the usual type for Garbo, and we see that here - a woman having an affair who is clearly depicted as "good" - trapped in a passionless marriage, incredibly warm and loving to her son, and never having wanted to commit adultery, in fact resisting it with all her might, and yet eventually giving in to it. John Gilbert as Vronsky, hair shaved up on the sides and oozing passion with his smoldering gaze, is certainly a highlight, and his real-life chemistry with Garbo comes through, just as it had in Flesh and the Devil the previous year.

The scenes between Garbo (age 22) and her character's son (Philippe De Lacy, age 10) are an interesting to contrast to those with her lover - with her son, there is true love and playful affection, with her lover, there is often a strained tension because she's leaning back, resisting. If anything, her character errs on the side of being "too good," and the heat with Gilbert isn't as intense as it could have been. You could say I felt more of the titular love in her as a mother than as a lover, or that it's a love triangle all right, but really between Anna, Vronsky, and her son, not her husband, despite an early protestation that she loves the latter "infinitely."

Pacing is a problem over the 81 minute runtime, despite attempts to inject drama via some horse racing that looked very dangerous for both horses and riders. I can't say there was ever a scene that took my breath away, or made me feel passion. In the ridiculously happy American ending, we see Garbo, that sex symbol most associated with religion, get the trinity of love - passion, marriage, and motherhood all rolled into one. The European ending, which I was happy to see TCM also present, was a little more honest, but lacked the necessary emotional buildup. Neither ending works to explain the depth of Anna's motivations, and neither can save the film which feels too mundane, despite its considerable star power.

The premise is simple in this short, 75 minute film: a woman's sanity is under question on an ocean liner when her newlywed husband has vanished along with all of her things in the cabin they had checked into. Somone seems to be manipulating her so the film is reminiscent of both The Lady Vanishes (1938) and Gaslight (1944), only it's considerably weaker than either of those efforts, and feels a little more like an extended Twilight Zone episode, not one of the better ones.

Unfortunately, there's just something missing here - there's not enough content even for its short runtime, the storytelling doesn't maximize the emotional effect of the reveal, and the whole thing feels rather bland, despite a sinister framework that is accentuated by those long blasts of the foghorn.

I suppose in this you could see a symbol of women who are too often not believed by the patriarchy in a number of other situations, or, when the woman is confined to her quarters, an echo of the history of women being hauled off to asylums over assertions they're "crazy," but the film isn't really that self-aware. The doctor, a protagonist, condescendingly calls the woman "young lady," lets her know he finds her attractive, and slaps her across the face when she's getting "hysterical." It's ridiculous that at the end there's an implication the two will be together, and unpleasant besides.

"If I were a man it wouldn't frighten you. You'd think it was right for me to go out and get anything I could out of life, and use anything I had to get it. Why should men be so different?"

Reflective of the period relative to the roles women could play in society, but highly sympathetic, and revealing at least a little bit of the hypocrisy. Joan Crawford is in fine form as a factory worker who goes to New York to seek out a wealthy man, and becomes a lawyer's (Clark Gable) lover. He sets her up in an apartment and cultivates higher culture in her, something that apparently included "how to eat ice cream with a fork," something I'd never heard of. He's not interested in marriage because his first wife cheated on him, resulting in pain and a scandal, but they seem quite happy together - including a great sex life, one that makes them late to a party for an hour because they've been at each other. The fact they can be this way certainly makes it clear this is a pre-Code film.

At the party a married guest shows up with a prostitute, and to the host's protests, signals between his escort and Crawford's character and says crassly, "what's the difference between 'em?" It seems the options for a woman here are prostitute, difficult factory work, kept woman, and married - all of which are controlled by men, which is depressing, but as Crawford's character is virtuous and truly in love, we also see how unfair it is. When she martyrs herself because she secretly has found out that if they marry it will drag his political aspirations down, it's both maddening and contrived, and yet it sets up a strong ending.

The film has other little bits I liked - Wallace Ford as the unrequited love interest, a trip out to Coney Island, and Crawford singing How Long Will It Last? At the piano in French, German, and English. While Ford's character is disgusting when he sneers "I'm not taking any secondhand goods" the instant he finds out the woman he's longed for has had sex outside of marriage, Crawford's character stands up for herself, asserting "I am a decent woman." The political rally at the end included a nice little blurb about prison reform, starting with improving the lot of the common man outside the prison, so that less crimes are committed, as well as the speech about how wrong it is to pry into a politician's private life. And then of course, Crawford and Gable are really clicking on all cylinders here, with great chemistry together, and both shine.

A heist film that follows a lot of the usual formulae, but it features Jean Gabin at 59, Alain Delon at 28, beautiful Cannes, and a jazzy early 60's soundtrack, which all worked. If you ask me, retiring from a life of crime to work at a simple café in the French Riviera with Viviane Romance sounds pretty damn good, but of course Gabin's character wants "one last score." He hooks up with a younger ex-con (Alain Delon), a rather unpleasant, good-looking guy (great casting, eh?) as well as his scrupulous brother-in-law (Maurice Biraud) to form an Ocean's Trois of sorts. Henri Verneuil's direction is methodical in getting us through the caper which I didn't mind too much, though it may feel a little slow to some over its two hours. I wasn't a big fan of the ending, however, as ironic as it was, because the character motivation for the seasoned criminal didn't seem right to me. If you like heist films though, this is a solid one.

Such a strong start to this one, with an elegant singer (Leila Mourad) married to a gambling addict (Yehia Chahine, the director's cousin) who puts them in a difficult position with his losses. Mourad's musical performances are highlighted throughout the film and are generally heartfelt; though the ode to the emerging Egyptian textile industry was a little odd, it may have had something to do with political events that year (see below). Anyway, when tragedy strikes in the form of a train accident, her husband seeks to profit from it, oblivious to her feelings for her daughter.

The film could have really gone to some dark places with its noirish setup, but faltered badly in its second half, starting with the voiceover narration that tells us twenty years have passed. From there it devolves into melodrama, and there are just too many contrived aspects to how the plot treats the now older singer, e.g. That she doesn't simply reveal her identity, that her own family don't recognize her, and that she martyrs herself. There is a little bit of everything peppered in here - comedy, romance, musical, and melodrama, and the film needed focus.

I still liked it for its window into Egypt in 1952, the year of the revolution against King Farouk which marked the first time Egypt ruled itself since Cleopatra lost the Battle of Actium in 30 BC. I don't know if the film came out before or after the revolution, but there are signs of censorship, like something on the wall in an office that was manually scratched out on all frames. Anyway, despite its flaws, it was interesting enough to round my review score up a bit.

There's not much to recommend this arthouse film written and directed by Sara Driver. The story plays with supernatural bits surrounding an ancient Chinese text, things which felt like shallow orientalism and which never went anywhere, then oddly shifts to a kidnapping. The acting from the leads, Suzanne Fletcher in particular, is terrible, and the surreal elements sprinkled in, like a boy walking a parrot, felt forced. There are some interesting visuals with background lights off a bridge towards the end thanks to Jim Jarmusch, and look for Steve Buscemi in a small role in just his third film, otherwise, forget it. Mercifully just 75 minutes.

"Must be a big help sometimes being like you, Olga. Not having any feeling." "I wouldn't know, Everett."

There's a fair bit of implied sex in this pre-Code film which of course earned the wrath of the Catholic Legion of Decency, but what I think what bothered them just as much was how strong these two women were, living out in the desert and running their own business very capably. Aline MacMahon plays a gal who can expertly fix a car, acts as a mother figure to her little sister, remain stoical about troubles in her past, offer kindness to those who need a place to sleep, get glammed up, have a night of passion with an old lover, and take care of herself with a gun. She's just a fantastic, feminist character, performed brilliantly by MacMahon, the best I've ever seen her.

It's a film that had me from the start, with its setting in the sweltering heat of the desert amidst Joshua trees. As Mervyn LeRoy explained in Take One, the filming was done over three weeks in Needles, California, "where the weather was so hot we could barely breathe," and yet many of the men are wearing suits. In addition to its atmosphere, the film has lots of great characters and a tight, lean story, one that takes place in a single day, and doesn't waste a single of its 63 minutes.

The main story line revolves around two sisters running a filling station and café. The younger one (Ann Dvorak) longs for a more action and plans to sneak out with her boyfriend at night, the older one (MacMahon) has seen enough of men and is content to remain alone. They encounter a string of visitors, two of which (Preston Foster and Lyle Talbot) are criminals on the run from a holdup they pulled in which they killed a couple people. One of the criminals just so happens to have been the lover of MacMahon's character in the past, and he's got his eyes both on her as well as the jewels of other visitors to the desert oasis. "We got our own New Deal comin' up," he says to his buddy, "prosperity is just across the border," paraphrasing FDR.

The supporting characters are people stopping to get gas or their car serviced, including the husband and his domineering wife at the beginning of the film, with a car curiously bearing the Ohio license plate 999 666. There's a guy driving two flirtatious young women (Muriel Evans and Jill Dennett) who are hitchhiking their way to Hollywood, "an old baboon and a couple of tomatoes," as one of the criminals describes them. As the old guy calls the "girlies" back into the car, we find he's a creepy "thigh pincher" who's been harassing them. There is a Mexican family looking for a place to sleep, one of whom sings a lovely song in the evening, accompanied by heat lightning in the distance. Never mind that the father had said in strangely broken Spanish "Comprendo?", the unfounded suspicion that they are thieving "gypsies" are quickly shut down by MacMahon's character, a refreshing moment. Lastly, there are a couple of wealthy divorcees (Glenda Farrell and Ruth Donnelly) trading barbs with one another and vying for the affections of their chauffer (Frank McHugh). As one humorously says against the other drinking, "I know you and your nips. I didn't want you to get tight on me." All of these characters add brightness and energy to the main story.

Sexual tension spilling over into actual sex plays a role with all three women at the top of the billing, though nothing is ever shown. We see MacMahon's old lover leaving her room after the act, buttoning himself up, after she's initiated. Glenda Farrell ends up with McHugh "protecting her" in bed, which her friend remarks is a "funny way with words." We get the sense that both women will be just fine, despite the hanky panky outside of marriage. A little more troubling is Dvorak's character, who returns late after her date with her boyfriend, who dropped her off a bit coldly, despite her calling him honey and asking him to call her. She soon grows distraught, and in an emotional outburst to her sister says, "Why didn't you stop me? I'll tell you - because you were with a man yourself! But you were right anyway!" implying she's had sex too, but now regrets it. With great restraint the film gives us a range in these experiences, centered around women, from being taken advantage of to simply enjoying sex.

Great film, it's an underrated pre-Code gem, and it would make a great double feature with The Petrified Forest (1936).

Such a fun cast, and it's never a dull moment with a Tarantino script. Even in his early films he showed the ability to include lots of interesting characters in a story with great pace and all sorts of twists, and director Tony Scott told the story well, with the only off note in production being the score, which was more suited for a tropical island than this film. However, I wasn't a big fan of the racist pseudo-intellectual pop anthropology in the "Sicilian scene," and some characters, like Gary Oldman's, haven't aged very well either. The film is laden with testosterone and male fantasy which is probably to be expected and maybe part of the fun, but the big shoot out at the end was less than inspired. Most of all, I liked the performances from the supporting cast, like Christopher Walken Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, and Saul Rubinek.

"Did somebody ask you to sniff a little white powder?"

This vehicle for Jean Harlow is a gold-digger type story that threatens to get dark fast when one old guy she has her sights on commits suicide, but it doesn't stay that way long, soon settling in as a romantic comedy. Oh, Harlow bounces from one rich guy to another so fast it'll give you whiplash, quite open about her intentions, but any immoral overtones about that is offset by her wanting marriage and holding out on physical affection until then, so that she still comes across as virtuous.

That combination of gold-digging virgin in Harlow's character doesn't make a lot of sense, and it's because it was one of the script changes imposed on the film by the Production Code, which went into effect while it was in the pipeline. Another was the film's title, which according to Thomas Doherty in Pre-Code Hollywood veered from "Born to Be Kissed to the Code-approved It Pays to Be Good, before becoming the bland The Girl From Missouri." According to Mick LaSalle in Complicated Women<, the title was originally "Eadie Was a Lady, after a sleazy ballad." Regardless, the character was certainly softened, which is unfortunate.

I still count the film as pre-Code because there are plenty of moments which would not have been allowed afterwards, including the degree to which we see Harlow's body in a bathing suit as well as when she's soaking wet in a negligee.

Harlow's character eventually ends up opposite the son of a wealthy man (Franchot Tone), a playboy who wants her and starts to get sexually frustrated. "For two weeks you've given me the come-on, and every night you put on the frost," he says. He's a bachelor who likes his freedom and is less inclined to marriage so he tries to force the issue by getting her alone and kissing her. She melts, but valiantly resists. "You can make me cheap and common like a million others," she says referring to the possibility of him ravaging her, "but gee, I wish you wouldn't."

The film goes through lots of melodrama on its way to what we suspect is coming, and when it does come it's rather ridiculous, so this isn't a script I really liked, but Harlow comes across with force in several emotional scenes, making it one of her more challenging roles. She's also accompanied by Patsy Kelly, such a cutie and a plus in any film. Her character is a little more down to earth in her aspirations, quipping "I'm just an old-fashioned homegirl, like Mae West," while advocating for flirting with anyone attractive, even if they're humble doormen or lifeguards. She's wonderful anytime she's on the screen. Watch this one for Harlow and Kelly, and forget the silly script.

I loved how through all its quirkiness this film showed how just a little bit of kindness to someone who really needs it has such a big impact, and karma (or dare I say K'Harma) has a way of coming around.

The film is a bit of a kitchen sink that ended up greater than the sum of its parts, maybe because I had no idea where it was going, or maybe because I was taken by its cast. It's a satire of the entertainment industry and the paparazzi first and foremost, but also mixes in romance and drama, somehow managing to feel original. The scene with the parents was hilarious, which helped balance the darker aspects of what it was telling us. Similarly, there is some seriously acerbic dialogue coming from Steve Buscemi, but the offbeat nature of the plot tempers it. This had me engaged from beginning to end, and feels underrated. Loved the cameos from Elvis Costello and Cinqué Lee, Spike's brother, too.

A rare film about the Holocaust in which no Jews inside a concentration camp are shown, creating a different perspective about events which have been told of many times (and of course should never be forgotten). Instead we see the family of a German officer who works at Auschwitz, a real-life commandant, blithely living their lives as if there wasn't a war or a genocide going on, just on the other side of the wall from horrific events. We see smoke billowing up from a chimney, we overhear camp officers firing their pistols or enforcing cruelty, and we see signs of murder in the water when the family goes down to the river, making it both terribly present and yet detached at the same time. There is obviously a statement about complicity here, and it's amplified when we hear the vile threats to the Jewish maids from the lady of the house (Sandra Hüller).

Of course, when the film shows the commandant and engineers talking about the logistics and efficiency with which they will carry out still more murders, it's direct and chilling to say the least. The calmness with which the order to ramp up "death production" so that 700,000 Hungarian Jews can be executed per Hitler's order is terrifying, as there is never a moment of compunction or uncertainty. We see just how far gone the commandant is when he's talking to his wife over the phone, and confessing that at a party he's just imagining how long it would take to gas all of its guests, a task he realizes will be more difficult with the high ceilings. He's not thinking of the human beings involved, he's thinking of murder in an engineering way, having lost all sense of humanity, which I thought was a great moment.

The cut to the present day, with the workers cleaning the hallways and exhibit space at Auschwitz, is a powerful moment too. Seeing things like the massive pile of boots of those who died always brings a lump to my throat no matter how many times I see them.

Distancing us from the actual killing or its victims may seem like a gimmick, especially when it's played out so calmly over the film's runtime, but I found that it led to introspection and the disturbing parallel to the present day. As we ourselves blithely enjoy the good life, eating well, feeling comfort, writing silly movie reviews, and doing the best for our children, people both near and far are suffering in this world, and the vast majority of us don't do that much about it, whether we're complicit in some way for unjust actions in the world or not. I felt a larger statement about humanity being made, something that wasn't just in an incredibly dark chapter of a history book, but something I myself was an active part of, which was troubling. The film hits hard in this way too, like a sledgehammer to these walls of virtue we've built around ourselves, and it's devastating.

Was there any pre-Code actress more cooly glamorous than Kay Francis? The story that has her a married woman trying to resist the charms of a private detective (the less than amazing George Brent) who's trying to entrap her is pretty average fare, but it's livened up a bit by a con artist (Glenda Farrell) taking advantage of his assistant (Allen Jenkins), getting drunk on champagne cocktails among other things. In fact, this is one where I might have been more interested in the subplot of the supporting players.

The main story is set in motion because Francis's character is being blackmailed and she feels she can't tell her husband the truth, so he suspects her of having an affair. Without going into all the details, it's a pretty contrived scenario that leads her to Cuba. Aside from Francis's wardrobe and a glimpse of an airplane (the seating section for which was amusing to me) there aren't really a lot of interesting period details, and don't come here expecting any pre-Code naughtiness. Rather predictably, the detective and the woman begin developing feelings for one another in the moonlight, which I'm not sure I was really rooting for. The ultimate fate of the sinister blackmailer (the well-cast Monroe Owsley) was a nice touch though.

It was worth the price of admission to see the part where Hitler's yammering away on a recording about how great he's making Germany while Rossellini pans around a scene of Berlin in ruins, one of many in this film. Germany Year Zero is utterly unique for what we see of the destroyed city physically, real footage, as well as the very dark neorealist lens Rossellini uses to portray the condition of its citizens through a melodrama.

This is the story of Germans in the aftermath of losing the war, one in which kids scrimp, steal, or prostitute themselves, young women turn into escorts for allied soldiers, the veterans hide for fear of being imprisoned, and the elderly only fare better if they're lucky enough to be admitted to an overcrowded hospital where they can get regular meals. There's a loss of humanity that comes from privation here that echoed the loss of humanity the nation experienced under Hitler, something I thought effective.

It's a film about survival and that is of course first and foremost on the minds of all its characters, but I would have loved to see another dimension, e.g. The extent of their knowledge of what happened to Jews there and in the rest of Europe, a little more depth about their views about the Nazi party over time, etc. The speech the ailing father gives acknowledging mistakes and guilt attempted a slim portion of this, but it was vague and not all that satisfying. I also thought that the groping by the boy's former teacher trotted out the trope of linking Nazism to sexual perversion, homosexuality, and pedophilia while conflating all of them, which was unfortunate.

Abel Ferrara's re-telling of Romeo and Juliet, only here it's not two families who doom a romance with their feuding, it's two ethnic communities whose neighborhoods border one another, Chinatown and Little Italy. The way Ferrara tells it, there is an accord that's been reached by the OG's on both sides, but the young bucks are constantly battling one another, and it amplifies with the budding threat of interracial romance.

Despite some fine on-location cinematography, decent performances, and seeing the immortal James Hong as one of the elders, one of the big problems I had with China Girl was that the romance was completely buried by all of the gang violence. It really wasn't possible to see why these two (Sari Chang and Richard Panebianco) would be in love with one another because they felt secondary to the story, and hardly ever together. Definitely don't come here looking for tender moments analogous to "What light through yonder window breaks?", instead you'll get a cheesy sex scene amidst the shootouts, and a ridiculous moment where they ask how to say "I love you" in each other's language, as corny as it gets.

I have to say, I also got "great replacement theory" vibes out of that opening scene, as white residents looked on sadly when an Italian business had been sold to a Chinese restauranteur, who in turn was having his workers scrape the old decaled sign off the glass and hoisting the name of his own business up over the entrance. While there were characters that were well integrated (like the girlfriends with their adorable New York accents), there was a feeling of the Other in the various ways Chinese culture was shown here (carrying the whole pig down the street, letting the cats nibble at fish in the market, etc), and it was an odd choice to have the ultimate solution for some of them to be to "go back to Hong Kong." At least the slurs spewing out of the vile character David Caruso were eventually called out as racist. Overall, it was a mixed bag on this front, and a little conflicting.

"(watching a nasty wipeout, and in a deadpan voice) Here's a fella in about fifteen different positions on one wave. All of them were wrong, too."

It was nice to see Bruce Brown out from behind the camera being interviewed in portions of the three shorts collected here, as he was so knowledgeable and articulate about the sport. The interviewer, Bud Palmer, is a little square, asking more than once about the practical purpose of some surfing move when it's obviously just part of the fun, but he serves his purpose. Early on in the first short, Hanging with Bruce, we see Corky Carroll, a 16-year-old who's great at "hot-dogging," doing tricks like spinning on the board or dipping his head close to the wave (and who would grow up to continue a long career in surfing), as well as Phil Edwards, who Brown calls the best surfer in the world, so fluid and balanced on big waves. We also see footage of surfing with catamarans. As with Brown's other documentaries, it's impressive that he had no help at all in filming or formal training either, and yet captured surfers that must have been far away and moving quickly, often in slow motion so we can better understand their rides.

Brown and his friends attempt to surf in "new frontiers," with the difficulty of finding places around the world where surfing was completely unknown, and to have the luck for a good surfing day while there. He follows Del Cannon, on a break from college, and Peter Johnson (age 12, 4'2", 80 lbs) out of junior high, to Japan. It was initially intended for The Endless Summer but left out, and nice to see here - everything from them carrying their boards underneath a giant Buddha, to surfing on Katsuura. They also surf at Kamogawa breakwater before going to the north shore of Oahu, where they surf at Waimea Bay, and where we see a lot of wipeouts in the big waves.

The second short, The Wet Set, goes through the terminology of surfing as well as a bit of its history - well at least since the 1930's, with giant boards, unfortunately not the centuries of surfing by Hawaiians, though that's at least alluded to earlier. We then follow the ten members of the Hobie-McGregor surf team, wearing the latest clothing line, which is highlighted, as this was essentially a promotional segment. Included were "Hobie" Alter and Mickey "The Mongoose" Muñoz, though the footage in California and Hawaii is rather brief, making this the least notable segment.

The final short is America's Newest Sport, about skateboarding, and it's a real treat, particularly after having just watched the 2024 Summer Olympics and seen how far skateboarding has come. Here it's really in its infancy - both with the newly designed boards from Hobie Alter, and in the moves his Super Skateboard team attempt. Brown shows the parallels between surfing and skateboarding, and we can just see the adolescent minds at work in doing (now primitive) stuntwork. While they go off a ledge, no one remotely has the idea of using the rail right behind them - those unfathomable tricks like frontside boardslide were a decade or two away. Seeing these kids skating, as talented as they were for the time, is a little like watching a newly hatched bird that will eventually soar. It's precious to see.

There's a lot to like about this film, including its empathy for the working man, the authenticity of its visuals, and the performances from Richard Pryor, Yaphet Kotto, and Harvey Keitel. It's also got a brutally dark statement on the difficulty of workers sticking together over the long haul to watch out for one another, versus splintering into their own self-interests. These workers living paycheck to paycheck and threatened by inflation captures a period of time and a vulnerability which Reagan would exploit two years later when he swept into power (which of course hurt the working man even more).

The thing that held me back from loving it, however, was just how much anti-union sentiment it expressed. Corruption in union management can be an issue, but to watch this film you'd think unions were a bad thing for workers, which is difficult to swallow given the dramatic reduction in their power over the 46 years since this film was made and the coincident expansion of the wealth gap. As one character expresses it, "they (the union bosses) treat us worse than the company does," which I find problematic since no other view or nuance was expressed. "We'd be better off I didn't work at all, at least then I could collect government welfare or something," another says, also parroting a typical conservative criticism of government.

It's too bad, because there is such grittiness from the very beginning with those shots on the car manufacturing lines, and the keenly felt desperation of the workers. They're tempted to commit a crime because of their low wages, even with a pay raise from previously going on strike. With all of their family expenses (and apparently some personal expenses in the form of a cocaine party, which didn't feel right), they're constantly broke, and in one of the powerful smaller moments, we see there is barely enough food to go around at the dinner table. There are also a lot of other period details here, like the plaid pants, white belts, a Steve Martin inspired prop arrow through the head, and a T-shirt with the Big Mac jingle "two all-beef patties..."

On a final note, it's ironic that the film's main message, that worker solidarity is so difficult to maintain, was produced out of a white-collar cast and crew that were so at odds with one another.

Also, one last quote: "And that's exactly what the company wants, to keep you on the line. And they'll do anything to keep you on their line. They pit the lifers against the new boys, the old against the young, the black against the white, everybody, to keep us in our place. I mean, can't you understand that?"