#user365

[365days365movies]

Japanuary: Introduction

Well, holy shit, what year is it? It's been 4 years since I tried this whole Tumblr thing, and...eh, it wasn't the most successful endeavor ever, but fuck it! It was a fun ride in 2021! I tried to do the whole one-film-per-day thing, stuck with it for a while, and eventually failed that challenge. And I'm not gonna pretend that watching a movie a day and writing a blog post about it is possible with my current schedule, BUT! Even then, I have enjoyed the whole endeavor. So, why not give this shindig another spin? And how do I plan to do that? Easy: with a monthly themed challenge once again.

This time, though, let's not do Action in January. In fact, why be bound to genre at all this time? Theme, sure, but let's stretch the genre limit a bit here. So, with that, let's start a brand new month and a brand new year with a brand new theme...and a very-little touched country on this blog: 日本国.

Japan, sometimes known as the Sun's Origin (a direct translation of the country's name; "the Land of the Rising Sun" is a Western epithet), is one of the biggest movie-producing countries on the planet, since almost the beginning of cinema. However, the Golden Age of Japanese cinema began in the 1940s and 1950s, when prominent directors rose in the fallout of World War II. Pun...technically not intended, but valid all the same. Storytelling and tradition are treasured practices in Japanese culture, which is strong to this day. However, years of self-imposed isolation, followed by rapid acceptance of Western influence, definitely made film an interesting development in those storytelling traditions. While originally Western-influenced, Japan definitely injected itself into 35mm camera tape starting in the 1910s. And that continued, often through propaganda film, until...uh...well...

If you know, you unfortunately know, if terms of the above GIF. But, yeah, World War II happened, and Japan was involved and affected in...various ways. In any case, its civilian population was heavily traumatized, and that showed itself through the film industry especially. While wartime film really was a lot of propaganda about the Empire of Japan, it also came with a lot of restrictions, especially when Western influence was suspected. So, after the war ended with Japan surrendering, and the heavy boot of America made itself known in Japanese everyday life, the film industry was affected positively and negatively. On one hand, much of Japan's film history was literally burned for fear of its potentially offensive nature. Plus, jidaigeki, or samurai films, became incredibly difficult to make. Not impossible, but that's a point for later.

It's during this time that a number of prominent Japanese directors start popping up, or coming back into significance. Of note are Akira Kurosawa (MUCH more on him soon) and Yasujirō Ozu, amongst several others. Film stars like Toshiro Mifune also begin to appear. Japanese films also began their international spread, and suddenly, they also began to become popular in the United States and the Western world. By the time the 1950s came, Japan's film industry had entered its new, golden age, and that decade saw some of the most famous films in the country's history.

I've previously talked about Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon, which came out in 1950, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Seven Samurai, Tokyo Story, Ikuru, The Burmese Harp, The Human Condition, Ugetsu Monogatari (which I've also talked about), Sansho the Bailiff, Floating Weeds, amongst several others. All in the 1950s. Badass. I feel like there's a major one I'm missing, too, but I can't list every Japanese film ever made. You get the idea: Japanese film is sort of a big deal.

Despite this, though, when television spread throughout the succeeding decades, the film industry died back a tiny bit. CHina began their own blockbuster film industry with the boom of wuxia, and Japanese filmmakers became more experimental in their work, appealing less to the masses as a result. The two studio giants in Japan, then and now, were Toho Co., Ltd. and Toei Company, Ltd. Even then, neither company did great during the 60s and 70s. Toei would eventually find its footing in the world of anime, while Toho found its footing in...OH RIGHT

Sorry, Godzilla, almost forgot about you. This science-fiction horror (and yes, it is a horror film in an existential sense) would put an indelible stamp on the industry for DECADES, and would also color people's perception of Japanese films in the west for a while. That, combined with the resurgance in jidaigeki, would prove a bit of a downfall in terms of Western popularity. But even then, the film industry kept chugging along, and Japan did eventually find a new way to appeal to the Western world. Now, I'm skipping over a HELL of a lot of history (basically the entire '80s and the mini-theatre craze), but there's good reason for that.

See, once we get to the '80s and '90s, new directors suddenly step into the limelight. Takeshi Miike shocks people with Audition, which also becomes part of a new horror tradition in Japanese cinema that gets a LOT of attention. Hirokazu Kore-eda moves from documentaries in the '60s, and makes several films over the years up through the '90s, like Maborosi and After Life. And then, in the late 1980s, a new animated film based on the Lupin the Third franchise brings a new director into the public consciousness...and EVERYBODY starts paying attention again.

Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli come into prominence, and film is back, baby! And I mean that; Porco Rosso, that one Miyazaki movie with humanoid pigs, was more popular than E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, for one example. Satoshi Kon and Isao Takahata come into the fray, and large movie theatres also become more prevalent after their decline decades later. And now, Toei is making anime for Japan and the Western world, where it's EXPLODING. Suddenly, Japanese media is popular worldwide, and they never go back. The anime industry exponentially expands, and more films can be made and distributed. Hell, Toei also gets rich from the trend of sentai shows, which the Western world will most closely associate with Power Rangers! Seriously, shit starts to blow up.

Today, most people associate Japanese media with either anime or Godzilla, which is...simplistic. But, hey, there's a FUCKTON of Japanese media out there, and I've personally explored precious little of it. So when I was settling on watching more films this coming year, I was looking for ideas. And then I stumbled on one: Japanuary. Not an original idea on my part, and you can check out other lists for it (like this one, this one, and this one, for starters), but I'm into it! Of course...there is one caveat.

I, uh...I didn't watch all of these in January. I actually started in November.

NOVEMBER WAS A DIFFICULT MONTH!!! And not even for all the reasons you'd expect. But, honestly, I missed updating this blog. And I knew that, to do so in a timely fashion, I'd need a lot of extra time. So, to get that extra time, I started real early. And in truth, I'm writing this post from the past (specifically November 8. YES IT HAS ALREADY BEEN A DIFFICULT MONTH). Still, I'll be putting out the full list of films I'll talk about this month in this post! And, if this came out on December 30th as planned, that means I actually did it! Otherwise, this post would be left in the drafts, to die a slow and unfulfilled death. So, fingers crossed that you're reading this right now!

And so, with that said, here is my list for Japanuary 2025! Feel free to watch along if you can (so will I, believe me), and happy New Year!

Ikiru (1952; dir. Akira Kurosawa)

Throne of Blood (1957; dir. Akira Kurosawa)

Yojimbo (1961; dir. Akira Kurosawa)

High and Low (1963; dir. Akira Kurosawa)

Ran (1985; dir. Akira Kurosawa)

Late Spring (1949; dir. Yasuijirō Ozu)

Tokyo Story (1953; dir. Yasuijirō Ozu)

The 47 Ronin (1941; dir. Kenji Mizoguchi)

Sansho the Bailiff (1954; dir. Kenji Mizoguchi)

Harakiri (1962; dir. Masaki Kobayashi)

The Ballad of Narayama (1983; dir. Shōhei Imamura)

Fireworks (1997; dir. Takeshi Kitano)

Audition (1999; dir. Takeshi Miike)

Sukiyaki Western Django (2007; dir. Takashi Miike)

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (1984; dir. Hayao Miyazaki)

Castle in the Sky (1986; dir. Hayao Miyazaki)

Porco Rosso (1992; dir. Hayao Miyazaki)

The Secret World of Arrietty (2010; dir. Hayao Miyazaki)

The Boy and the Heron (2023; dir. Hayao Miyazaki)

Perfect Blue (1997; dir. Satoshi Kon)

Tokyo Godfathers (2003; dir. Satoshi Kon)

Wolf Children (2012; dir. Mamoru Hosoda)

Mirai (2018; dir. Mamoru Hosoda)

Nobody Knows (2004; dir. Hirokazu Kore-eda)

Shoplifters (2018; dir. Hirokazy Kore-eda)

Godzilla (1954; dir. Ishirō Honda)

Godzilla Minus One (2023; dir. Takashi Yamazaki)

Tampopo (1985; dir. Jūzō Itami)

Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1985; dir. Paul Schrader)

Drive My Car (2021; dir. Ryūsuke Hamaguchi)

Tokyo Gore Police (2008; dir. Yoshihiro Nishimura)

[365days365movies]

Action January II: Captain Blood (1935)

Part One: By the Sword

Fun fact about me: I am a non-classically trained fencer.

By which I mean I went through formal training as a child (starting at 6 or 7), then continued it sporadically through my youth and college. Kept up with it a little after college, but I'm no longer a fencer. Still, it was a pretty prominent part of my life, and one of the more bougie facts about me (of which there are admittedly many; I am, for example, struggling to not type bourgeoisie). I look back on it fondly, but it's not for modern-day me.

Still, I've always had a soft spot for swashbucklers, especially in film. Sure, traditional épée fencing doesn't resemble your typical swashbuckling film fight, even a little bit. Usually, épée with the fencing gear is put in a movie or TV show to demonstrate that the character or establishment practicing it is high-class or rich. Instead, I suppose cinematic swashbuckling is more similar to sabre fencing, which has a larger target zone than épée fencing, and usually involves grander movements...but even then, I've never seen any sabre fencer swing from ropes and rafters like, well...

Zorro is a character that I've talked about before on this blog. I've also covered the swashbuckler briefly in that post, but let's get a little more comprehensive this time, shall we? Zorro is maybe the prototypical swashbuckler character, starting with Douglas Fairbanks' epic film The Mark of Zorro in 1920! Yeah, old as hell. He was daring, dashing, and debonair; dressed in black and fighting for justice to get the girl and save the day, armed with only a sword and his wit! The prototypical action hero! Throw in some great choreography and epic music, and voila! A swashbuckler! To put one together properly, we need:

A dashing hero, with devil-may-care attitude that fights for the moral right. If we're talking in DnD terms, you can call this person chaotic good alignment, usually. Swinging from the rafters, a sword in hand and often a smile on their face. And, of course, a romantic aim and goal.

Swordfighting. Kind of critical to the genre. Swashbucklers are films that use swordfights as the driver for the plot. While not every action sequence may involve a sword fight, the main hero is always either armed with their sword or looking for it. And then it's time for the climax, you better believe we've got a big-ass swordfight on our hands. The villain of the piece, at least one of them, should also have a sword in hand.

A sweeping score is a very typical piece of these films. Whether in the past or present, swashbuckling can't be done without an iconic leitmotif for the hero, and battle music times to the clashes of steel. Usually throw some brass or strings in there, and you have a swashbuckling score.

Now, of course, there are a lot of swashbucklers out there based on those definitions, and...yeah, there are a lot of swashbuckler films! While The Mark of Zorro is typically called the first swashbuckler, it's not the first film to involve narrative swordplay by any means. The Count of Monte Cristo (1908) is probably the first of those, but there are others like The Prisoner of Zenda or Kidnapped. You may also notice that some of the classic swashbucklers are based on classic literature, like those above, and like Cyrano de Bergerac, The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Man in the Iron Mask, and the most prominent of these...

It's funny, for a character best known for his archery skills, Robin Hood gets into a lot of swordfights. Some of the most iconic filmed swordfights come from the emerald archer from Sherwood, and for good reason! There have been countless adaptations of the original stories, which are crazy cinematic, and they all take place in medieval England, during a time period where swords were predominant weaponry. Combine that with the fact that Robin Hood is, in many retellings, a nobleman who would've been trained in fencing, and you have a natural swashbuckler setup!

And honestly, Robin Hood is sort of the perfect swashbuckler. A morally good hero fighting against the evil establishment, for his friends, contrymen, and the woman he loves. Epic music, daring setpieces, classic fights, a lot of swingin' rafters...yeah, it's perfect. And again, one day, I'll talk about The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938; one of my favorite action films, and my favorite adaptation of Robin Hood for sure.

But there's another type of swashbuckler that's just as iconic as those listed above, also involving a setting conducive to sword-based action, but often with heroes that are...a little more morally grey.

Pirate films are essentially a subgenre of the swashbuckler (yes, a subgenre of a subgenre of a subgenre), focusing on high-seas action rather than fighting in a hall or castle. The pirate film is a curious beast, appearing in film history in sporadic bursts, with no real period to call its own. They were popular from the '30s through the mid-'60s, had a tiny boom in the '80s, got badly nuked in the '90s, and then had another tiny boom in the '00s with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. They're always around, but never the first genre you'd think of when you think of action films.

Still, pirate films have an iconic feel to them all their own. The wind in your hair, the daring sword fights against a surly knave or an overzealous government stooge, depending on the nature of your morally dubious hero. Hell, maybe the hero has resorted to piracy after being wronged or lost at sea, and we're rooting for him and his lost honor. Either way, he's got an open shirt and a sword in his hand, and his crew are there to back him up (or betray him; again, depends on the narrative). You know a pirate film when you see one. And that's where I'm headed today: to the open seas with Captain Blood, starring an iconic action star of the 1930s and '40s. In fact, he's so iconic, almost every one of the above GIFs includes him.

Errol Flynn is undoubtedly a major film figure of his day. He's also got a fascinating and...sometimes troubling personal history, putting him up there with some of the great Australian film actors in cinema. But as much as I'd like to talk about Errol Flynn (and I probably will later), I'd like to finally jump into the film that made him famous: Captain Blood, a 1935 film directed by Michael Curtiz, another interesting figure with some...interesting history with Flynn. Again, more later.

Flynn was an unknown before this role, and immediately became an audience and studio favorite, essentially succeeding Douglas Fairbanks as a films and action star. Only 26 at time this film came out, Captain Blood was the beginning of an often turbulent career for Flynn, who would die at only 50 years old. Again, more on him later. And so, without further ado...SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Recap

It's 1685 in England, and there's a rebellion happening! Known as the Monmouth Rebellion, it involved the deposition of James II, after succeeding his brother as king of England, which was contested by Parliament and Protestants, as James II was a Catholic king. Anyway, during the rebellion, Doctor Peter Blood (Errol Flynn) is summoned to aid a friend injured in a skirmish. A retired adventurer and swashbuckler in his own right, Blood is determined not to re-enter the...fight...

Is this Commando? Like, where a retired hero is forced to come back to fight for his country, and won't come back until a personal tragedy or offense is done to him? You know, like Commando? Just calling it now, before it happens.

As Blood is helping his friend, he's taken away and sentenced by Judge George Jeffreys (Leonard Mudie), who accuses him of being a liar and traitor to the crown, despite his complete innocence. Imprisoned and set amongst a group of similar prisoners for months, he attempts to defend himself on the stand, only to condemn himself even further beneath a biased kangaroo court. And for the record, Flynn immediately proves why he's so beloved at this time. He's an excellent actor in this scene, and I immediately sympathize with Peter Blood.

Meanwhile, King James II (Vernon Steele) is convinced by his advisor to send the convicts to the West Indies as slaves, as actual slaves are too expensive, and these guys are free of cost. So, yeah, British monarchy not looking too great. In any case, we set to sea for the first time, in the belly of an unrealistically humane slave ship. In Blood's words, the King was "granted their lives in exchange of an uncertain death". And with that, Blood and the convicts are sent o Port Royal, in Jamaica.

The convicts are set for sale (hate it), and most of them are sold to Colonel Bishop (Lionel Atwill) and his niece, Arabella (Olivia de Havilland). When she observes Blood's rebellious nature at being inspected like cattle, she decides to keep him from working in the mines on her own spoiled whims. Blood's not a fan, and the two immediately clash. Which, obviously, means they're gonna fall in love by the end. Come on, we know how this goes.

Blood's sent to work on the plantation with Bishop's other slaves, on a grinding mill that loves like it's ripped out of Conan the Barbarian. We see the indignity of slavery through...white slaves. Yeah, trying not to think about it, since this is a thing that happened, but it's tough. Anyway, our traitors are taught a lesson about treason, as an escapee is branded on his fucking face, and the prisoners all say how much they hate the fucking King. Great job, James, really fanning the flames of patriotism there.

Meanwhile, the uncaring and selfish governor, Steed (George Hassell) is complaining of gout, and is in need of a physician. Knowing of Blood's former profession, Arabella recommends him as Steed's physician, and is mostly elevated from the role of slavery, which seems...insanely easy. Irritatingly easy, even. But whatever; at least he hasn't forgotten his friends, his actual station, or the fact that Arabella bought him for 10 goddamn shillings! He's still understandably bitter about that.

However, he's in very good favor with the governor for relieving his gout, unlike the previous doctors Bronson (Hobart Cavanaugh) and Whacker (Donald Meek), who attempt to plot to get rid of the much more competent Blood. He puts them in their place, but begins a plot of his own. With the other slaves arrested for treason, he plans an escape attempt from Port Royal, with the help of friend (and the guy who got him in this mess to begin with, Jeremy Pitt (Ross Alexander). However, in the process, Colonel Bishop suspects some kind of plan, which is only circumvented with the help of Arabella. In the process, however, Pitt is captured and flogged for questioning.

While his friend is getting horribly whipped by the Colonel on the stockades, Blood and Arabella flirt (as expected), although a kiss from Blood is received poorly due to his status, leaving the encounter on a sour note. Peter goes back to care for the Governor before their escape that night, then finds Jeremy at the stockades and cares for him as well. He's caught by the Colonel showing mercy, and is about to share Jeremy's fate when a ship attacks the port.

This ship belongs to the Spanish, and the sailors aboard lay waste to the port. It's at this point that the slaves see an opportunity, and make their way to the ships. They take over the Spaniard's ship, and wait until the morning to take out the returning Spaniard captain and soldiers. With navigator Pitt and new gunner Henry Hagthorpe (Guy Kibbee), the new crew sets sale and escapes, under the purview of the new Captain Blood.

Colonel Bishop, like...like a fucking idiot, sails out on a rowboat to thank the men, not realizing it's his own slaves. And then, when he finds out, he still intends to keep them as slaves. THEY HAVE A SHIP, DUDE! You're fucked. Instead of killing him, which they consider, they toss him overboard, and Blood's crew sets sail for the Caribbean Sea, leaving Arabella behind. They abandon their citizenship, and officially become pirates.

The crew of Blood becomes famed and infamous across the seas, to the irritation of King James II himself. With Governor Steed having lost both money from the Spaniard assault, and being unable to reign in Blood in the first place, his appointment as Governor is given to Colonel Bishop, who swears to take care of Blood once and for all. Arabella is conflicted about this, but she's shipped off to England along with Governor Steed.

On Tortuga, Blood signs a deal with another captain, the French Levasseur (Basil Rathbone), and the two become partner pirates. Later on, Arabella finishes her extended holiday in England, traveling alongside Lord Willoughby (Henry Stephenson), who has been tasked to take out Captain Blood. On their journey, they see Levasseur's ship, which attacks them and takes the passengers hostage on a nearby island. They are soon joined by a surprised Peter Blood and his crew, who pretends not to know her.

Blood and Levasseur engage in an argument, as one of the articles of their contract was that no female prisoners would be taken. As a compromise, Blood pays for her ransom, both to save her and as payback for his purchase of her many years ago. This still enrages Levasseur, who wanted Arabella for himself, and he forgoes his honor to challenge Blood to a fencing duel. Fun fact, by the way: Basil Rathbone was an actual fencer, classically trained, and far better than anyone he ever fenced with on-screen, Flynn included. But, since he always played the role of a villain and cad, he was always forced to lose. And this fight is no exception.

Levasseur is killed by Blood...which is crazy, since he's Basil fucking Rathbone, and he was in this movie for maybe 5 minutes altogether as essentially a cameo, but...c'est la vie, et la mort. Arabella and Willoughby are brought on board, only for Arabella to angrily reject him. And yes, she's absolutely a goddamn hypocrite, but she's not fully unjustified. She puts Blood down as a beast like any other pirate (unfairly, of course), and Blood angrily rebukes her in turn. Even then, he plans to bring the two hostages back to Port Royal, where they are certain to die.

Willoughby and Arabella speak, where he convinces her that Blood's genuinely not a dick, and tells her that they're headed to Port Royal. At the same time, Blood's crew refuses to sail to Port Royal, officially acting in mutiny against Blood. And Blood...gracefully surrenders his command of the ship, admitting his affections for Arabella to be driving him against logic. And that ironically turns the crew back to Blood's command. I can't tell if that was a sign of their actual bond, or some straight gatekeeping-girlbossing-gaslighting from Blood, but...yeah, they're still going to Jamaica.

As they approach Port Royal, though, they find it being attacked by two French ships. Willoughby, finally being able to speak with Blood, informs him that France and England are at war. To their surprise, though, Governor Bishop isn't present, nor is the English fleet, since they're out chasing pirates. And so, the only ship to defend Port Royal against the French, is...well, Blood's.

It's then that Willoughby finally reveals his purpose for seeking Blood and his crew: the King has pardoned him. Obviously, they're not a fan of King James II given what he'd done to them, and refuse the offer. But then, Willoughby reveals the other political change: James II is out as King. With that knowledge, Blood and his men decide to fight for the English Navy, and for the new King William III.

Arabella is shuttled ashore, while the ship sails under a French flag to disguise themselves. They easily ambush the French ships attacking the Port, wrecking one and causing it to fucking explode. Honestly, it's pretty sick. The other ship mounts a harsher assault, and Blood's crew is forced to abandon ship. Instead, they simply take the French ship for themselves. And as the Captain swings over, you realize something: this is the prototypical pirate movie.

Yeah, OK, earlier films like The Black Pirate, as well as later ones like The Sea Hawk and Treasure Island, would be a major framework for pirate films in the future. But good goddamn, if this doesn't feel like a pirate movie, I don't know what does. The score is sweeping, the action is epic, and it's honestly just fun. And the most ironic thing is, this is happening at the point in the film when they aren't technically pirates anymore! Hilarious.

Anyway, Blood's crew wins the day for England, only for the Governor to finally return from his futile journey. Arabella, seeing Blood return and knowing her uncle's hatred of him, tries to warn him away while admitting her love to him. But to the surprise of her and her uncle, Bishop is officially deposed as Governor for abandoning his post in times of war to pursue his vendetta, even though he knew Willoughby was coming. He's at the mercy of the new Governor: Doctor Peter Blood. Honestly, it's funny as fuck. Blood bids him "Good morning, Uncle.", and the film comes to a close.

That's it for Captain Blood! Gonna do an old-fashioned review set-up and have a separate post for the Review! And that's because, while the review won't be terribly long...I would really like to talk about the man, the myth, the alcoholic legend himself, Errol Flynn.

See you in the Review!

[365days365movies]

Fantasy March: Omnibus

As I prepare for the future of this blog (and there is a future, if anybody's wondering), I find myself looking back at the good times, when I had the time to watch a movie a day and write a blog about it, which...yeah, wasn't even sustainable for me in 2021, so make of that what you will. ANYWAY, I decided that I would bring all of these posts together in an omnibus of sorts, so anybody that wanted to read these posts could find them all easily in one place. This, alongside other archives, are going to be pinned to the top of my page, and will serve as a long index of the films in the appropriate genres. The goal? To extend these archives as I go along, and have this running index for my blog. And again...there will be additions...

SO! With that, feel free to check out these films in the fantasy genre, which is another one of those overlap-prone genres, but with a very distinct vibe to them. The definition of the fantasy genre, for the sake of this blog, is any film where the plot is forwarded or the universe is built upon supernatural phenomena that cannot be explained by scientific means. That includes science fiction means, so no Star Wars, and no superhero films, but possibly some science fantasy. Any films you'd like to see in this list? Comment, reblog, message me, whatever! I'm always open to suggestions to add to my ever-building master list of fantasy films. And check out the other indices to come!

The Hobbit (1977; dir. Arthur Rankin Jr. and Jules Bass) (Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Review) The Last Unicorn (1982; dir. Arthur Rankin Jr. and Jules Bass) (Part One | Part Two | Review) Kiki's Delivery Service (1989; dir. Hayao Miyazaki) (Part One | Part Two | Review)

Spirited Away (2001; dir. Hayao Miyazaki) (Part One | Part Two | Review) The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (2013; dir. Isao Takahata ) (Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Review) Wolfwalkers (2020; dir. Tomm Moore and Ross Stewart) (Part One | Part Two | Review)

Onward (2020; dir. Dan Scanlon) (Part One | Part Two | Review) The Thief of Bagdad (1940; dir. Michael Powell, Ludwig Berger, and Tim Whelan) (Part One | Part Two | Review) Orpheus (1950; dir. Jean Cocteau ) (Part One | Part Two | Review) Ugetsu Monogatari (1953; dir. Kenji Mizoguchi and Kazuo Miyagawa) (Part One | Part Two | Review)

The Seventh Seal (1957; dir. Ingmar Bergman) (Part One | Part Two | Review) Jason and the Argonauts (1963; dir. Don Chaffey) (Part One | Part Two | Review) Kwaidan (1963; dir. Masaki Kobayashi) (Short One | Short Two | Short Three | Short Four | Review) The Holy Mountain (1973; dir. Alejandro Jodorowski ) (Part One | Part Two | Review)

Clash of the Titans (1981; dir. Desmond Davis) (Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Review) Legend (1985; dir. Ridley Scott ) (Part One | Part Two | Review) Darby O'Gill and the Little People (1959; dir. Robert Stevenson) (Part One | Part Two | Review) The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985; dir. Woody Allen) (Part One | Part Two | Review)

Wings of Desire (1987; dir. Wim Wenders) (Part One | Part Two) Death Becomes Her (1992; dir. Robert Zemeckis) (Part One | Part Two) Orlando (1992; dir. Sally Potter) (Recap) The Secret Garden (1993; dir. Agnieszka Holland) (Recap)

Omnibus: Film Reviews

[365days365movies]

January 1, 2024: The Great Train Robbery (1903)

I LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE

So. It's been a while. Life has been busy for the last couple of years, lemme tell you. I love this blog and I love movies, but writing can be...time-consuming for me. Anyway, I figure, why not start this whole thing over again, huh? Well, mostly. Am I gonna get to 365 movies this year? Frankly, that's unlikely, for a number of reasons. BUT! I can at least start small. And, since doing action films in January is a bit of a blast from the past...why not go all the way back this time? Plus, hey - it's a good way for me to get back into the swing of things.

Film history time!

Without going too far into it, the modern film industry began in the 1890s. The first moving pictures were mostly short documentaries, showing live as captured through multiple successive images. L'arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat is often called the first film publicly shown, but that's a misconception. What is true, however, is that the film was made by two luminaries in film history: the Lumiere brothers. Their invention, the cinématographe, was essentially an early film camera, and the brothers used it to document real life.

However, for every good 19th century inventor, there's got to be a rival. And honestly, when you're talking about the 1890s, there's only one real rival to speak of for a given inventor: the Wizard of Menlo Park.

Edison, of course, is legendarily one of the biggest assholes in American history. However, to his credit, the man was genuinely brilliant. Coming up with or perfecting various contraptions and inventions, Edison was a dynamo. In 1889, he had the idea for a device that could capture and display visuals to accompany sounds from the phonograph (which he'd, of course, invented). He had a member of his think tank, William Kennedy Dickson, develop the device, and they created their own early video camera of sorts. With the combination of these two teams, amongst others here and there, the first films began distribution around 1893.

However, again, these were mostly capturing real-life footage. The first narrative films began around 1896, likely with La Fée aux Choux in that year. A minute-long film, this is arguably the first non-documentary to be produced, and would be the first of a new industry. And, fun fact, the first film to be directed by a woman, Alice Guy! After this, the Edison Manufacturing Company released the first commercially available film, The Kiss, and made buckets of cash. The film industry is born.

But to really hit the head on narrative film, you have to go back to France. There, illusionist Marie-Georges-Jean Méliès expanded the genre with creative sets and productions that took film into the realm of the fantastic. Inventing a number of basic tricks like dissolves and multiple exposures, Georges is the true pioneer of early film. His 1902 film, Le Voyage Dans La Lune (you know, the one where they land a ship in the Moon's eye) is considered a classic to this day, amongst other Méliès staples like Cendrillon and Le Manoir du Diable.

However, Georges isn't alone. The UK has a slew of filmakers entering the scene with their own efforts, while in the US, Edison's company is continuing their work as well. Most prominently for this story, perhaps, is the work of one of Edison's early cameramen, and therefore one of his first directors, Edwin S. Porter. Porter started with Edison in 1901, and was one of the first real film scholars. Taking from the other prominent directors of the day, he injected craft into the films he worked on for the company. At this point, one of the big things in American cinema was the brand new Western genre.

This is the point to clear up a bit of a misconception about Western films: The Great Train Robbery was in no way the first one. OK, so, the Western has its origins in Wild West shows, like Buffalo Bill's Wild West, which would travel around the world to show off the adventure and action of the American West. In fact, that GIF up above is Annie Oakley, who was filmed by Edison's Kinetoscope as an early film doing her sharpshooting act, which was a part of the show! Anyway, these exhibitions also traveled to the UK, where they made a massive impact. America was the land of the Wild West, and it arguably wouldn't shake that image until around World War II.

Because of this, the first Western films were actually filmed in England, not the United States! The first was Kidnapping by Indians in 1899, followed by A Daring Daylight Burglary in 1903. That film in particular inspired Potter, alongside an 1896 play called The Great Train Robbery, to make...well, you read the title of the review. That film is sometimes called the first Western film by mistake, but is usually forgotten in favor of Porter's film. In any case, though, the Western genre was born in the silent film era.

From that point, of course, history is made. Stars like Tom Mix, John Wayne, and Jay Silverheels make their way into the public zeitgeist. Characters like Bronco Billy, or the Lone Ranger and Tonto become household names. Classic films like Stagecoach and more bring the genre to new heights, while even comedians like Laurel and Hardy (above) get into the game with Way Out West. Even actual Western figures like Wyatt Earp became a part of the industry briefly, consulting on how things were in those wild days. It was a new dawn for film, and a unique era.

Of course, I've talked about Westerns before. Didn't get to cover much that month, but I covered a few films like Stagecoach. I even got some facts wrong in that recap about the first Western! Go figure. Anyway, that's a brief history of the Western film genre up to this point. But why cover this now? Well, this is also, for all intents and purposes, one of the first action films in cinema history. Ironically, the idea of action on screen would kick off an entirely different genre. Rather than spinning off into the Western, which became its own thing, the first iteration of the action genre was the adventure film, and guns were supplanted by another weapon.

...I really wanna talk about this film on this blog, because I adore it so much. Anyway, the swashbuckler was the next real action film genre to emerge, but that's a question for the next review, I think. In the meantime, let's get to The Great Train Robbery! This post is a little bit of a return to form for me, writing a recap and review with my 5 categories of criticism. This format might not be maintained with every film I talk about this year (however many that'll be), but I'll play it by ear depending on the film! And, so, without further ado...

SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Recap

This recap is gonna be kinda weird, since as far as I can tell...there are no dialogue cards in this movie. A lot of what I'm writing here is a combination of inference and observation, as well as coordinating it with other synopses online after I'm done writing. So, yeah, this is an interesting one. Completely silent, as well.

A pair of bandits enter the room of a telegraph office, holding the clerk at gunpoint, and ordering him to write a missive of some kind before tying him up. The entire team of four bandits wait outside of the water tower used to refuel this old steam train, then sneak aboard. They immediately enter a firefight with a mail clerk on the train (who's apparently packing, damn), and kill him, then use a stick of dynamite to open a box that I assume contains valuables.

Two of the bandits climb to the top of the train, where one has a fist-fight with the fireman and...throws him off the train, damn! It's a dramatic throw, too. Anyway, once this happens, the train stops, and the bandits hold the passengers hostage aboard the train as the engine car is disconnected. The passengers are held up for their belongings, and...Jesus, guys, there are a LOT more of you than there are of the gunmen! Somebody just jump one of 'em!

Well, as if to answer my question, one of the passengers tries to run away, and gets shot in the back for his trouble. So, yeah, OK, I see the risk, but...I dunno, they only have so many bullets, I think you guys could take 'em. Anyway, the bandits escape, and the passengers immediately tend to the one who was shot. The bandits board the engine car and take off with their loot.

The party escapes into the woods a-ways down the train tracks, and meets up with their waiting horses. Meanwhile, the operator back at the station manages to get up and send out a message. His young daughter walks in and VERY smartly cuts her dad loose, making her the official hero of the film. She wakes him up, and we cut back to a dance party attended by some local lawmen. We get that Western trope where the lawmen shoot at a guy's feet to get him to dance, leading me to wonder if this is where that trope comes from?

The operator bursts in and tells the group of the trouble. They ride out to confront the bandits on horseback, but one of them gets shot in the process. Eventually, this leads to an all-out brawl in the woods, where the bandits are cut down as they count their loot. Good guys win, and the entire film ends with this classic shot of one of the bandits.

Review

So! Can I even review this one the way I would normally? I mean, probably; short films and silent films are still both films, after all, so it's not like it doesn't qualify. But there are some things obviously missing, or that need to be taken into context here. So, to go through it via bullet point method:

Cast and Acting - 7/10: Well, the actors are mostly forgotten, sorry to say; and while we know their names, none of them were actually credited in the film. The main character is arguably the bandit leader, as played by Justus Barnes, and possibly Gilbert Anderson as a few characters (including the dancer in the dance hall and the shot passenger), and Robert Milasch as the tied-up clerk (I think). Plus, it has arguably the first child actor in the form of Marie Snow, but that may need to be fact-checked. Still, they were all fine, especially for the time. Acting for no audience was sort of a new thing, after all. Hard to judge, this one.

Plot and Writing - 8/10: Hey, there is a plot, even if there's not really writing beyond a screenplay. Our writers here are director Edwin S. Porter and Scott Marble, who wrote the play this was based on. And for what it's worth, it's a simple plot. Men rob train, men get stopped. That's it. Not exactly Primer, this one.

Directing and Cinematography - 8/10: For what it's worth, I think Edwin S. Porter did a decent job in this outing. Again, this is a new doctrine entirely, so it's not like we're gonna find much creativity in either category here. Hell, according to some angles, Porter technically invented the concept of direction, but that's a very nuanced take on his role. At this point, directing just meant pointing the camera. Cinematographer (and yes, there was one) J. Blair Smith also did fine, as far as I'm concerned. Plus, hey...that last shot is iconic.

Production and Set Design - 9/10: Honestly, felt like I was watching a train robbery. So, it may feel a little Party City in terms of the bandit and lawmen costumes, but it also was authentic, so...yeah, high marks for this one.

Editing - 9/10: Normally, of course, I'd put music in this category, but...well, there's no music. So, it falls to editor...uh...oh. Shit. Wait, there's no actual editor for this one? I guess the closest I can get is Edwin S. Porter, who really carried this film. And there is editing, there has to be. After all, it managed to tell a story with literally no dialogue. No cards, no mouthed word, no music, nothin'. And yeah, I really wish that first or last one was in here at least, but the film still works without it.

So, yeah, in the end, that's an 84% for me! Which is probably causing some elderly film critic's tenderly cared-for stress-rage aneurysm to finally pop, but hey - it's how I feel. Great piece of history, completely free, and required cinephile viewing! Just go to Wikipedia or the Library of Congress.

OK, with that short-fill warm-up finally done, let's proceed through action film history! Good to be back!

Next: Captain Blood (1935); dir. Michael Curtiz

[365days365movies]

Romance February: Omnibus

As I prepare for the future of this blog (and there is a future, if anybody's wondering), I find myself looking back at the good times, when I had the time to watch a movie a day and write a blog about it, which...yeah, wasn't even sustainable for me in 2021, so make of that what you will. ANYWAY, I decided that I would bring all of these posts together in an omnibus of sorts, so anybody that wanted to read these posts could find them all easily in one place. This, alongside other archives, are going to be pinned to the top of my page, and will serve as a long index of the films in the appropriate genres. The goal? To extend these archives as I go along, and have this running index for my blog. And again...there will be additions...

SO! With that, feel free to check out these films in the romance genre, which is somewhat...difficult to define, honestly. Romance overlaps with a bunch of other genres, so even films that put the love story at the center of the narrative have more to them by necessity. So, just figure these as films whose narrative is driven primarily by romantic tension and motivation. Any films you'd like to see in this list? Comment, reblog, message me, whatever! I'm always open to suggestions to add to my ever-building master list of romance films. And check out the other indices to come!

Dirty Dancing (1987; dir. Emile Ardolino) (Recap | Review) Pretty Woman (1990; dir. Garry Marshall) (Recap | Review) Sleepless in Seattle (1993; dir. Nora Ephron) (Recap | Review) You’ve Got Mail (1998; dir. Nora Ephron) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) The Notebook (2004; dir. Nick Cassavetes) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Romeo + Juliet (1996; dir. Baz Luhrmann) (Recap | Review) Emma. (2020; dir. Autumn de Wilde) (Recap | Review) The English Patient (1996; dir. Anthony Minghella) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)

Doctor Zhivago (1965; dir. David Lean) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Review) In the Mood for Love (2000; dir. Wong Kar-wai) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) The Bridges of Madison County (1995; dir. Clint Eastwood) (Part 1 | Part 2) If Beale Street Could Talk (2018; dir. Barry Jenkins) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Before Sunrise (1995; dir. Richard Linklater) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Brokeback Mountain (2005; dir. Ang Lee) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Call Me By Your Name (2017; dir. Luca Guadagnino) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Carol (2015; dir. Todd Haynes) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Desert Hearts (1985; dir. Donna Dietch) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) The Danish Girl (2015; dir. Tom Hooper) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)

The Phantom of the Opera (2004; dir. Joel Schumacher) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) An Affair to Remember (1957; dir. Leo McCarey) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) The African Queen (1951; dir. John Huston) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Pillow Talk (1959; dir. Michael Gordon) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) My Girl Friday (1940; dir. Howard Hawks) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Annie Hall (1977; dir. Woody Allen) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review)Amélie (2001; dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet) (Part 1 | Part 2 | Review) Love Story (1970; dir. Arthur Hiller) (Part 1 | Part 2) Love, Actually (2003; dir. Richard Curtis) (Part 1 | Part 2) West Side Story (1961; dir. Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins) (Part 1 | Part 2)

Omnibus: Film Reviews

[365days365movies]

Action January: Omnibus

As I prepare for the future of this blog (and there is a future, if anybody's wondering), I find myself looking back at the good times, when I had the time to watch a movie a day and write a blog about it, which...yeah, wasn't even sustainable for me in 2021, so make of that what you will. ANYWAY, I decided that I would bring all of these posts together in an omnibus of sorts, so anybody that wanted to read these posts could find them all easily in one place. This, alongside other archives, are going to be pinned to the top of my page, and will serve as a long index of the films in the appropriate genres. The goal? To extend these archives as I go along, and have this running index for my blog. And again...there will be additions...

SO! With that, feel free to check out these films in the action genre, which remains one of my favorites! Any films you'd like to see in this list? Comment, reblog, message me, whatever! I'm always open to suggestions to add to my ever-building master list. And check out the other indices to come!

Introduction to Action (2021)

Top Gun (1986; dir. Tony Scott) (Part I | Part II | Review) Mission Impossible (1996; dir. Brian De Palma) (Part I | Part II | Review) Cliffhanger (1993; dir. Renny Harlin) (Recap | Review) First Blood (1982; dir. Ted Kotcheff) (Part I | Part II | Review) The Running Man (1987; dir. Paul Michael Glaser) (Part I | Part II | Review) Last Action Hero (1993; dir. John McTiernan) (Part I | Part II | Review) The Nice Guys (2016; dir. Shane Black) (Part I | Part II | Review) R.E.D. (2010; dir. Robert Schwentke) (Recap | Review) Kung Fu Hustle (2004; dir. Stephen Chow) (Part I | Part II | Review) Enter the Dragon (1973; dir. Robert Clouse) (Recap | Review)

Come Drink with Me (1966; dir. King Hu) (Recap | Review) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000; dir. Ang Lee) (Part I | Part II | Review) House of Flying Daggers (2004; dir. Zhang Yimou) (Recap | Review) GoldenEye (1995; dir. Martin Campbell) (Part I | Part II | Review) Casino Royale (2006; dir. Martin Campbell) (Part I | Part II | Review) Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014; dir. Matthew Vaughn) (Recap | Review) Atomic Blonde (2017; dir. David Leitch) (Part I | Part II | Review) The Mask of Zorro (1998; dir. Johnston McCulley) (Recap | Review) Léon: The Professional (1994; dir. Luc Besson) (Part I | Part II | Review) Taken (2006; dir. Luc Besson) (Recap | Review)

The Wages of Fear (1953; dir. Henri-Georges Clouzot) (Recap | Review) Drive (2011; dir. Nicholas Winding Refn) (Recap | Review) The Fast and the Furious (2001; dir. Rob Cohen) (Recap | Review) Speed Racer (2008; dir. The Wachowskis) (Part I | Part II | Review) The Poseidon Adventure (1972; dir. Ronald Neame) (Recap | Review) The Expendables (2010; dir. Sylvester Stallone) (Recap | Review) The Raid: Redemption (2011; dir. Gareth Evans) (Recap | Review) The Fugitive (1993; dir. Andrew Davis) (Part I | Part II | Review)

Mad Max (1979; dir. George Miller) (Recap) Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981; dir. George Miller) (Recap) Mad Mad Beyond the Thunderdome (1985; dir. George Miller and George Ogilvie) (Recap) The Mad Max Franchise (Reviews)

Action January: Summary (2021)

[365days365movies]

Hey! hope you're doing alright, I just read your Legend (1985) movie review and noticed that you have a lot of knowedge about fantasy movies from that period, so I wanted to ask if you know a movie that I loved when I was a kid and I have been looking for it for ages.

What I remember about the movie is that the protagonist is a girl with short black hair, who lives in our world but ends in a fantasy world, where she meets a werewolf (If I'm not wrong he tries to eat her but he can't do it, don't remember why he can't), some kind of witch is after this girl, I think she had something the witch wanted (I think the werewolf was the witch's minion). Then I remember the end, where the girl returns to her world and the werewolf follows her because he is in love with her. I also remember at some point in the movie the girl eats an caramel apple and she wans't suppose to do that, don't remember why, also remember that the werewolf propose to her in the fantasy world.

That's all I remember, sorry if is so little but I hope you could help me, I loved that movie when I was a kid and I just were able to watch it when it was on TV, so I never learned the name of the movie.

Thanks for reading my ask and hope you have a great day!

Oooooh, great question! And thanks for the inquiry into my well-being! Doing good, just a little busier than I want to be these days; but I’ll be back shortly, I promise that! In truth, I'm not entirely sure which movie you're referring to, as I may need more details on it. BUT, were I to venture a guess, it sounds a little bit like the 1984 werewolf film The Company of Wolves, a British fantasy film starring Angela Lansbury (R.I.P.), Sarah Patterson, and David Warner, as well as a take on the Red Riding Hood story. There are a couple of things that make me think it could be this movie, like the phrase about "never eating windfall apples", and the fusion of our world and a fantasy world, as well as a romanticized take on the original story.

Buuuuuuuut, on the flip-side, its protagonist is a long-haired brunette, and I can't necessarily think of any witches in the story, so that's a little bit of a conflict. However, if you have any other details (live-action vs. animated, country of origin or present accents in the film, when you remember watching it in terms of time period), that might help! So, if this isn't it, I'll take some more details to try and help you out! If anybody else has any details, feel free to contribute!

[365days365movies]

31 (Films) to Life: End of Year Round-Up I

Well, here we are: the start of another year of movies!

Geez, 2022 was interesting. Changed up the format from doing daily films and monthly genres, and focused mostly on films in one genre: crime. Aimed for 31 films, and out of that goal hit...24. Which, honestly, not too shabby. Didn't get as many reviews out as intended, but that is honestly OK. Was a busy-as-hell year for me, so I'm pretty well satisfied.

So, what did I see last year, exactly? Well, this post is about to be a round-up, which includes the films I wrote about, and the ones I didn't get the chance to. And at the end, I'll get into my plans for 2023. So, before I hit the "Keep Reading" button, here's the full list of crime films I saw in 2022.

M (1931); directed by Fritz Lang

The Maltese Falcon (1941); directed by John Huston

The Third Man (1949); directed by Carol Reed

Rashomon (1950); directed by Akira Kurosawa

The Killing (1956); directed by Stanley Kubrick

Cool Hand Luke (1967); directed by Stuart Rosenberg

The Italian Job (1969); directed by Peter Collinson

The Godfather (1972); directed by Francis Ford Coppola

Chinatown (1974); directed by Roman Polanski)

Dog Day Afternoon (1975); directed by Sidney Lumet

Taxi Driver (1976); directed by Martin Scorcese

Scarface (1983); directed by Brian de Palma

Once Upon a Time in America (1984); directed by Martin Scorcese

Thelma and Louise (1991); directed by Ridley Scott

Reservoir Dogs (1992); directed by Quentin Tarantino

Casino (1995); directed by Martin Scorcese

Heat (1995); directed by Michael Mann

The Usual Suspects (1995); directed by Bryan Singer

L.A. Confidential (1997); directed by Curtis Hanson

American Psycho (2000); directed by Mary Harron

Catch Me if You Can (2002); directed by Stephen Spielberg

Monster (2003); directed by Patty Jenkins

The Departed (2006); directed by Martin Scorcese

Zodiac (2007); directed by David Fincher

And there you have it! Now, this upcoming short set of summaries (behind the Keep Reading wall) may be a little too long for one post, so we'll split it up a little bit. But in any case, let's get this started!

M (1931), dir. Fritz Lang - 92%

This one, you can check out my full recap and essay about if you're curious, but here's the summary: I loved this movie. Lorre's brilliant as the titular killer, the simple story is well-constructed and effective, the ending is beautiful, and the film as a whole is so impactful. Direction and shot composition is top-notch, the sound and music usage is genuinely revolutionary (having essentially invented the leitmotif), and while it's not the most iconic-looking film, it's still brilliant. PLEASE check this movie out if you haven't already.

The Maltese Falcon (1941), dir. John Huston - 92%

Holy shit, I forgot I tried writing that whole review in noir-speak. Anyway, here's another classic film that I really like! Haven't seen many noir films, especially prior to this year, but this was a great one to start with. Definitely the prototypical noir detective movie, complete with Bogart's private eye, Astor's dangerous love interest, and the twists and turns that come with the genre. Beautifully shot, excellent plot and writing, wonderful music, and great acting. No complaints; check this one out.

The Third Man (1949); dir. Carol Reed - 96%

Holy shit, this movie! Absolutely my favorite Orson Welles performance, and that very much includes Citizen Kane. He's extremely good in this movie, which is a sort of non-traditional noir in a number of ways. The cast is perfect, from Cotten to Valli to Howard to Welles (especially the last one). Plot is perfect, and contains more twists than I know what to do with. Directing is great, if a little overly-tilted at times. Production and art design is beautiful. Music is...a lot of zither music. It's...it's a LOT of zither music. As I'm typing this, the score is BACK IN MY HEAD, and I haven't seen this film in 10 months. Let that shit sink in. And yeah, watch this movie, ASAP, please. You won't regret it, I promise you that.

Rashomon (1950); dir. Akira Kurosawa - 100%

It's a perfect movie. A trope-maker, and revolutionary film in its own right, this movie...dear shit, this fuckin' movie. No words. Nothing needed. Just trust me when I say watch this film immediately. It's stellar. Man, I hit a lot of bangers early on this year.

The Killing (1956); dir. Stanley Kubrick - 90%

First of all, before anything else...fuck Sherry. And secondly, this movie is a great one, too. Still have more Kubrick movies to watch, but this one was absolutely worth it. Nail-biting and anxiety-inducing, yes, but also with one of the strongest plots I've seen thus far this year. A fantastic heist movie, it's only real weak points are a kinda normal production and art design, and sorta forgettable music. Other than that, it's an amazing film that people don't talk about. And, honestly, they really should. Check this one out if you're into heist movies and classic films!

Cool Hand Luke (1967); dir. Stuart Rosenberg - 90%

First one of these I didn't post a review on! And honestly...yeah, I'm OK with that. This Paul Newman vehicle is complicated to describe. On one hand, it's an interesting character study full of interesting characters. Newman's Luke is a great example of a rebellious character forced to face consequences for his actions, only to revert to his original nature, Frog and the Scorpion style. It's technically a trope-originator in that way, or at least a major trope-definer. And with a number of interesting supporting characters, especially George Kennedy's Dragline and Struther Martin's Captain, this is a surprisingly memorable movie...in some ways.

But it also...isn't that memorable? Don't get me wrong, there are a number of moments that come to mind in my head, as well as some shots and compositions that are great (the sunglasses of the Captain come to mind immediately), but it's also not exactly Lawrence of Arabia. Rosenberg and Hall are fantastic as director and cinematographer, for sure, but not always the most memorable and iconic. Also...there's the car wash scene. Like, I get the point of that scene, but it definitely cuts through the tone in a way that puts a weird taste in my mouth. Is it an effective scene for what it's trying to do? Um...yeah. Very, very much so. Possibly TOO much, in fact. And I realize that this is a huge nitpick that shouldn't make me give points off for editing, but it speaks to a weirdly inconsistent tone in some places. That scene isn't the only example of that, is all I'm saying. Still, excellent film, check it out if you're into prison movies.

The Italian Job (1969); dir. Peter Collinson - 92%

Holy shit, this movie is fun! I genuinely love this film so much, even if it has its flaws here and there. Other than being a movie that was absolutely made at the cusp of the 1970s, it's one of the most British heist films I've ever seen. And that's not a bad thing in the slightest, believe me. But, it may be an acquired taste for some. But that said, here are the main things to know. This is a British heist film that stars Michael Caine and features a lot of car tricks, as well as one of the most iconic film endings of all time. And that about covers it. Michael Caine is the most Michael Caine you'll ever see him, and if you ever wondered why he was cast as Austin Powers' father in Goldmember, this movie will make you understand why. Supporting cast is also very good, but everyone takes a passenger seat to the car stunts, which are some of the best care stunts I've ever seen on film. If you want Ocean's Eleven with cars, this is the movie for you. Love this one.

The Godfather (1972); dir. F. F. Coppola - 100%

Cliché? Absolutely. The obvious choice to praise universally? For sure. The most mainstream, boring, dull, basic bitch film I could possibly like? Yeah. Yeah. BUT I DON'T GIVE A SHIT, BECAUSE IT'S FLAWLESS. Even if I didn't think this movie was essentially perfect, there isn't really anything I can say was wrong with this movie, in my inexperienced opinion. Cast and acting? Perfect. Plot and writing? Twisted and perfect. Direction? Iconic and perfect. Production design? Immersive and perfect. Music and editing? I CAN HEAR THE THEME SONG RIGHT FUCKING NOW, THIS MOVIE IS PERFECT. And you gotta understand, I put off watching this movie for YEARS because I thought it was gonna be boring. And then, I watched it. And post watching it? It's amazing. Watch. This. Movie. NOW.

Chinatown (1974); dir. Roman Polanski - 96%

...I saw a lot of good movies this year, OK? Look, this is also an excellent film, despite its reprehensible director. Just divorce the art from the artist and all that, and go into this movie completely blind if you haven't seen it. Taking it from me, it's essentially perfect. Only issues I had were that the Production Design wasn't particularly distinctive, and the music was mostly forgettable after the fact. And those were nitpicks. Watch this movie!

Dog Day Afternoon (1975); dir. Sidney Lumet - 90%

Did...did I watch a bad movie this year? I mean...yeah, I did. Black Adam sucked. And, like...Violent Night was...well, no, I liked Violent Night. Ooh, I was forced to watch Minions 2: The Rise of Gru, which was mediocre at best! I...OK, OK, look, you've heard this before at this point, but...watch this movie, OK? Another heist film, based on a true story this time, as well as being a benchmark in LGBTQ film representation, this film is a great one. Maybe I didn't like an acting performance, maybe the plot wasn't perfectly accurate to real life, maybe the cinematography wasn't always iconic, and maybe it could've used literally any music...but it's a great movie. Watch it.

Taxi Driver (1976); dir. Martin Scorcese - 90%

The "good movie" train keeps chugging forward with this one, because yeah...Taxi Driver is also fantastic. Truly one of the best character dissections I've ever seen, as well as a fascinating look at one of the most dangerous and crime-ridden environments in American history, Scorcese makes a really morally complicated film with...well, frankly, troubling consequences and implications. I didn't put out a review on this one (sorry, got stuck in the wasteland that is my Drafts page), but this film was partially responsible for Reagan getting shot, fun fact. And that may be because the shooter partially identified with Travis Bickle, who is a troubled and fascinating character. And for the record, the rest of this is fantastic as well, but De Niro's Bickle and Scorcese's NYC are the most prominent and most important parts of this movie. Love this one, too. Watch this film if you like character dissections!

Scarface (1983); dir. Brian de Palma - 90%

OK, so...is this the most stereotypical college-age dumb jock poster-in-the-dorm-room movie in the fucking world? Yeah. Yeah, it really is. But is it a great movie despite that? I mean...holy shit, yeah, it's a very good movie. Sure, Italian actor Al Pacino playing a Cuban immigrant is a weird casting choice that's aged poorly in today's sociopolitical landscape...but he's also really fucking good at it. Seriously. Over the top, absolutely, but an extremely enjoyable watch all the same. Watching him slide into depravity and chaos when he already started there is fascinating, and Pacino just EATS the movie with how hard he chews the scenery. Look...it's a fun fucking movie to watch, and that's not even talking about the iconic lines, the supporting cast, the well-structured plot and story, the iconic costumes, and every other enjoyable part of this ride of a movie. I resisted watching Scarface for a LONG time, because I associated it with college-age fuckbois, but...shit, it's a good movie. Watch it if you haven't seen it.

OK, lemme pause here. Part Two coming next!