Klute (1971) Review

Wonderfully fashionable, as they often are.

Klute is a story about many things, though the most of it is certainly not the character of John Klute. He feels fairly aloof to the main struggle of the protagonist. Jane Fonda brings a wobbly confidence to her portrayal of soft hearted and unassuming prostitute Bree Daniels. Moments of extreme exposure; like unexpected sex scenes, her opening up to her therapist, and her nudity in her first appearance of the film are contrasted with her generally being closed off to others, and especially herself. You get the sense that she might not know why she does what she does consciously, and that the purpose of the story is for her to figure that out. She does discuss her feelings, but that is merely her interpretation. The level of fakery she has when trying to act a certain way to people and her relatable struggles make for a very compelling character. It speaks volumes to see things like her running to her friends and other comforts, with the screen covered in colorful lights, as if trying to run to safety. Later, she’ll sit in an uncomfortable silence, with pondering or a misplaced sense of control on her face.

At the time, you would expect a sex worker to be depicted poorly, but Bree is given lots of humanity in her relatable struggles and likable demeanor, while also showing an ability to figure people out in such a way that she can get ahead. Bree’s paranoia seems to serve the purpose of humanizing her and to say that men who treat her badly are to blame for why people like her have such a hard life. That being said, another interpretation the film might be claiming is that doing this profession is the problem. Elements like the stress the plot puts on Bree and prostitution promoting “junkies” and violence could make you think the movie is anti-sex work. Her manipulative tactics could be seen as communicating, “This is why the job is bad, prostitutes lie to you!”

The inciting incident, Klute investigating a disappearance, largely takes a backseat to Bree’s story. It gives the impression that there’s supposed to be some parallel between Bree, who we ultimately learn a lot about, often literally because of confessions to her therapist, and Klute, who we learn very little about. Such a parallel doesn’t come naturally to the mind, with you having to dig into the film to pull out meaning, possibly so much where we’re taking large leaps to “figure out” the point. What may be being suggested if you take the anti-sex work interpretation is that such a lifestyle will lead to these sorts of troubles with law enforcement and those that find it embarrassing to be with a prostitute. Taking a view that the message is pro-sex work is at least acceptable as it’s how some survive, finding a parallel gets tricky.

The worlds of Klute and Bree are often filmed in darkness, as if they share feelings of insecurity and exclusion. Bree of course knows that others will be with her and either feel ashamed or hope others don’t find out about her. However, it is possible Bree wants to be known. She says she likes her job, as it gives her a sense of control and that she’s the “best actress in the world”. Based on that profession, it’d be for the best if she was well known to the point that people wanted her above others. She is shown at one point finding comfort in the arms of her pimp, as if striving for affection from someone that indirectly gives her money and even more affection. Klute on the other hand has a practiced neutrality, showing little emotion as that’s his job. He is sometimes shown to be incompetent, which might weigh on him or suggest he was once worse before mostly becoming stoic. How he feels about himself is not much said. The connection the two leads have in the pro-sex work interpretation is that one has a very official and legal job and the other is ignored or sometimes harmed by the law. The story is partially about both those extremes coming together and bonding.

Why does this story have to be a murder mystery? The movie noticeably changes gears when it gets into a scene of just detective work that doesn’t relate to Bree. The point seems to be to elaborate on Bree’s paranoia. She apparently often fears being watched. That’s all well and good, but Klute drives the mystery scenes, leaving Bree to feel pushed to the side. Ideally the inciting incident and plot movers could relate more to the main character, like if for whatever reason she was driven to be more actively involved or we only saw scenes from her perspective or that she was in. Arguably those scenes serve to characterize Klute, whose role does prove important, but he could still be shown in ways that also relate to Bree. He is someone that can be determined to get his way, another way he mirrors Bree. His lack of personality brings out many of Bree’s personality traits. Her desire to best him, someone apparently dignified and all business, tells us a lot about Bree, her need to feel important and desired.

SPOILERS

Bree thinking tracking down her old friend Arlyn Page is impossible, only for her and Klute to essentially partake in the same scene multiple times of them talking to people about her is fairly ridiculous, especially when they find her and are very disrespectful for no reason. More scenes of Bree with that old friend may have added a new layer to the story, but it’s understandable such a thing may not have been important. Talking about her more with her therapist would have done a lot to make Arlyn feel like she’s adding something to the story of Bree, not just of the mystery. Considering Klute’s colder demeanor, this demonstrates a way where Bree is becoming more like Klute.

At the end, the character of Peter Cable, who recruited Klute to investigate the whole situation in the first place, turns out to be the killer. This character is rather bizarre. In the beginning, the case of the missing man is fruitless, and thus Cable is good to go. There is no reason for him to want to keep the case going. One interpretation is that he wants to have a stronger case for there being “no evidence” of the incident by getting a detective to say as much, with Klute only getting the information in part from his romance with Bree driving him. That may be true, but in practice this is merely a contrivance so you expect the culprit less. Would anything change for the worse if the wife of the victim hired Klute instead?

In the finale, Cable finds Bree and just tells her his whole character, as well as the point of the character. This is extremely on the nose, introducing a litany of questions. Why would he be telling her all this information about who he killed and why? While it makes sense he doesn’t think it will matter as he’s going to kill her, there is little to suggest why he would share these supposed deep insecurities. While Bree’s conversations with her therapist are written as if she has a lack of confidence in herself or what she’s believing, Cable merely says everything straight. He hates feeling like this and he blames her and he will just directly tell her that. Why not have more subtlety on the matter instead of explaining it to the audience? It’s also obvious that the scene will end with him trying to kill her, so much of this is time wasting. Instead of showing a recording of him killing Arlyn, why not have him say that he did it to shave off the time? The ultimate murder attempt of Bree is unbelievably silly, with extremely quick cuts that force us to the end. We had previously seen Klute struggling to find Bree, but now he’s right there. Cable falls out the window, as if the film needs the most overly dramatic method possible of ending him. Why would we even have the scene of Klute arguing with someone over the phone to get info on Bree, couldn’t that have been replaced with something like him quickly finding a clue of her whereabouts? Despite how slow the movie is, this is all ungodly sudden.

Another one of the weaker scenes of the film is when Klute attacks Bree’s pimp. This would only serve to distance him from Bree and he hasn’t been shown to be this much of a hothead. This is in turn not resolved, though Bree does lose trust in Klute. Another weak moment is Bree’s discussion about feeling love to her therapist. It is written and performed so clunkily. It admittedly would be difficult to essentially describe love, but Bree’s proclamations about finding love so foreign and not knowing how she could feel this way lack the vulnerability you’d expect her to have about saying this, with her lines almost emotionless. It also doesn’t match the nature of the romance we’ve seen, which is questionable. While it is underdeveloped, that probably is for the best. If you look at their entanglement as not real, but just Bree trying to get to someone that is “hard to get”, it makes sense that she might feel for him, as he’s a challenge for her. If we take the romance as trying to be a real relationship, barely anything even happens to show why they like each other. Essentially no reason is given for Klute to want to sleep with Bree. There’s also not much of a clear sign of its fakeness, which gives the impression this might not be the authorial intention.

In the last scene of the movie, Bree is unwilling to start a real relationship with Klute or possibly even make significant changes to her life, showcasing that while he did push her in the direction of change in her life, she really has a long way to go. However, the idea that Klute and Bree dating is what is changing her perspective in life asks for us to see more of their romance, especially because in practice he isn’t behaving differently than anyone else that just wants things from her. What makes him different is that he needs something from her without seeming to open up to it. Sure, he will have sex with her, but he won’t act like she will satisfy him or is getting anything from it. What would Bree see in him if not a challenge? Thus, why would she discuss him like he’s there for her, remaining when she’s been a mess, when we haven’t seen him be there for her outside of trying to get his job done? Even them in bed together seems to be more about him doing it for the sake of getting her to give more support in the case. This is the biggest fault with the film, it needs to pick if Klute is aloof and uncaring, only caring about work or if he’s emotionally invested, someone who will fight a pimp he thinks is bad for Bree or try to form a real connection that could make for a long term relationship. Klute still has importance due to exposing her to a type of man and a situation that is asking her to reflect on what she is doing with her life, as opposed to him being special and the person who will bring Bree a better life or escape from her trauma. Thus, it makes sense the solution she sees is to just move away, a simple solution that does create a big change, but leaves many other things alone. The seeds are still planted for more, like the new people she will meet, wherein various interactions will leave impressions on her that will shape her over time, which can give her healing and clarity.

OVERVIEW

If this movie was the same, except the lead role was done poorly, the movie would not be good. However, Jane Fonda really delivers a compelling performance as a woman broken and unsure of how to fix herself or if it’s worth it to do so. The story is really about her journey. Thus, it makes sense this movie is called Klute, because his purpose is to facilitate the start of her journey and her change. No one else had as strong of an effect on her in these events. While the writing of the title character is mixed and a bit inconsistent, it is solid enough to communicate the point of the story, about a call girl lost in the world.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

Shamefully, after watching this movie I wrote down Donald Sutherland’s name in my notes as Donald Pleasence. I feel vindicated due to my friend calling him Kiefer Sutherland.

Painted Faces (1929) Review

Is this not supposed to be terrifying?

“See you in jail!”

Painted Faces offers some surprising moral gray in a story that takes advantage of many tropes of the time. The familiarities of men arguing in suits, music numbers, circus shows, and more make for a nice backdrop for how weird this film can get at times. It comes off as being weird as it doesn’t know how else to be, instead of being a conscious choice. The issue is how sometimes that weirdness originates from poor storytelling, but this is still better than being bad and typical. The story focuses on Joe E. Brown as Hermann and his troubles. The nonlinear narrative reveals more and more about him. While his struggles are not terribly engaging, at least Brown himself gives him this humble outsider aesthetic, with him often being kicked to the side or mistreated. However, his mistreatment only pushes him to think that sometimes the common choice that will make you liked isn’t always the right one and that you might need to stand in defiance of others. Brown is very convincing as this incredibly shy and nervous fellow just trying to do the right thing.

Practically every character here is very bendable and dubious. This is handled with nuance, instead of just having people be pure good or pure evil. Many of the characters feel like they could be real. The first notable example of this is how the supposedly civilized jury pressures Hermann into voting guilty in a case where someone’s life is on the line just because they want to leave. When he refuses, they threaten, insult, and are violent to him. Before it’s revealed who didn’t think he was guilty, the foreman assumes it was one of the women, acting like they’re too stupid to know to go guilty. The jury are also portrayed as illiterate, racist when referring to the foreign-accented Hermann, and manipulative in how they used a woman’s crying to try to sway Hermann. This just goes to show the sort of issue with these sorts of systems. People wanting to go home and resume their lives could mean death for another. Admittedly, instead of it taking many days for the jury to resolve, it could have been much faster if everyone had the conversation they ultimately had at the end.

The pacing is extremely awkward, such as when Hermann waits to share important information or when there’s lots of setup for something that doesn’t matter just so we can have a bit more context or suspense. The movie is very blatant about often having nothing to say, with filler instead of plot progression. Hermann will be asked by the jury to provide evidence for his opinion, only for him to give non-answers. Some of this seems to come down to possibly having to fill a time quota or not knowing how to make a sound film. Note that 1929 was the second year to have all-talking pictures. In universe, Hermann comes off as really dumb for this. He does have many other negative traits, as well. A more minor example is when he’s so hurt by his love interest not giving him attention that he tries to distract her from what she’s focused on. More consequentially, that interest is his underage step daughter. Maybe that was okay at the time, but you at least can’t deny that him ever making a pass at her would be very manipulative inherently. There’s a point where he may have kissed her when unconscious, though it’s not really clear if she was. In a scene of him at a Chinese restaurant, he and the others with him are belittling and racist to Chinese people.

SPOILERS

Buddy, the man being accused of the murder, is a little funny in how one note and also idiotic he is. He’s a bit hot tempered and tries to attack someone in front of the jury for “lying” about him, which could not possibly have turned out well. Despite being about a murder, the tone is a bit light, with a musical number and some comedy, with that underage step daughter eventually getting with another man… then we find out that other man murdered her. That particular scene is about the most memorable and jarring one here for how suddenly pitch black it gets. This is spoiled by Brown delivering the reveal of this like it’s being told for dramatic effect instead of as just something he experienced. A real person wouldn’t include the theatrical pauses and other flourishes. For no apparent reason, Hermann continues to hold off important information until it’s dramatically convenient. The big twist comes when he ultimately confesses to being the killer himself. The scene features some nice angst on Brown’s face, though every line and motion from the cast feels staged. While it’s understandable that he wouldn’t want to confess until it’s his only choice, there’s not much buildup or tension for the reveal, so it feels like something that could have just been mentioned earlier. Wouldn’t Hermann have understood that his story wouldn’t sway anyone without that part at the end?

The jury suddenly turns over to Hermann’s side and hard defends him after he confesses, which breaks from how they were before. You’d think they would still be mad at him for taking up so much time, but they act like he’s a swell guy now. “Oh, well now that we know you murdered someone…” It’s like they’re all so proud of him for his vigilante justice. Their bold appreciation for Hermann comes across as a parody of media in favor of said vigilantes. Wisely, they don’t seem to act like they’ve been unfair to him, such as by apologizing, showing how selfish people can be. Maybe Hermann doing clown tricks for the others was supposed to be them softening to him, but that doesn’t come across as they go back to being really mean to him right after?

In a movie about seemingly noble people who really have a dark side, it is telling that Hermann, who was portrayed as the most noble, would really be one of the creepiest. He starts laughing at the end of it all and asks the others why they aren’t laughing now that they “know the story about the funny clown”. His face is also particularly frightening. The movie ends with him walking out the court covered in some darkness saddened by the fellow jurors having something to look forward to, while poor Hermann is still fragile, probably unhealed, and primed to do something emotional and regrettable because of all that he’s experienced.

OVERVIEW

Don’t confuse Painted Faces with Twelve Angry Men. As a jury story or a lost love story, it’s a bit weak, but there’s a few tricks and interesting blends of the concepts that makes for a shaky film that can about manage at such a short runtime. The lead character here being less confident and more prone to negative behavior is a fun difference.

Midsommar (2019) Review

Midsommar wastes little time throwing us into the depths of a tragic and realistic scenario. The protagonist of Dani, played by Florence Pugh, is in a dark and unloving environment, cut off from everyone and left unable to have any control in a situation where she would obviously so badly want it. Pugh’s performance of anguish and desperation makes this the best scene of the film. While she in turn goes to her boyfriend Christian, played by Jack Reynor, for emotional support after the death of her family, this doesn’t bring fulfillment as she needs a lot and he was already somewhat checked out. While Christian is in the eyes of many unlikable, he is somewhat sympathetic as he clearly wants more from his life and doesn’t know what to do. It’s arguably honorable of him to not go through with breaking up with Dani after her family dies.

Other than the dynamic of Christian and Dani, much of what is set up in the opening scenes matters much less once they get to Sweden and meet the commune. The movie would basically still work if you started it with Christian, Dani, and their friends arriving in Sweden, though there is subtextual significance. Dani’s experiences with the “Hårga commune” could be seen as an exaggerated metaphor for dealing with grief and how one finds where to go after losing something of significance. While various moments of the film can be looked at as either Swedish folklore, very fictionalized Swedish folklore, or something to be ripped apart to derive a deeper meaning, a lot of what happens are simply horror tropes. The movie is here to creep you out.

Many of the characters that went to the commune with Dani and Christian are far less interesting and seem more like filler and something for the leads to play off of. They have essentially nothing to contribute to the story. The commune does spooky things just for the sake of it and at the ending there’s someone who simply explains some of the mysteries you may have had about the story. The slow build pacing seems to be moving towards a bigger ending, but we basically just end with that explanation and an admittedly important resolution of the Dani and Christian plot while not touching other aspects, like Dani’s family, Christian’s argument with his friend Josh, their desire to write a paper about the commune, and the inbred character, among other elements.

SPOILERS

We see less and less of Dani’s emotions, especially as she affiliates herself more with the commune. This is all covered in stages, like when she starts cooking with the girls and wearing a little of their white clothes, only to eventually completely adopt it. To take this as a metaphor for dealing with loss, after she jumped to Christian for support and didn’t feel she was getting it, she would understandably want something else. The commune not only accepted her, but provided empathy and support in her time of need. She is also escaping the drab and depressing scenery of modern life for a more organic and social one. Cults often recruit vulnerable people that have recently gone through something very negative. It doesn’t  make sense that Dani would be so willing to go along with them, even the killings, but much of the movie is depicted with surreal and dreamlike hazes, like it’s not supposed to be taken at face value. She at points sees herself with grass growing off of her and by the end is covered in real flowers, like she is being taken over. Her being drugged could also be here to address this, possibly to provide for those wanting a “logical” explanation.

It is weird that Dani and company would be mostly tolerant of two elders jumping off a cliff publicly early on. Maybe you could say they were drugged to care less, but two of the people involved are clearly extremely upset by this and react more realistically? The audience seeing closeups of the deaths puts us in Dani’s mind. She just experienced death, so would this not deepen her trauma? Something about this scene that is brilliantly creepy is the explanation for this, that the elders are avoiding the suffering of old age and taking part in a rebirth. This does seem like the type of logic one might actually use to justify this, especially seeing as many don’t want to live to be very old. Dani’s tolerance is a bit more understandable this way as it’d be nice to think her family’s death is part of a great and natural thing.

Us seeing Christian’s perspective on things, like at the end where he is being used for his sperm, then runs around, sees the other character’s dead bodies, and gets killed himself can feel unnecessary, as this is Dani’s story. To tie it to Dani, she might see him as worth scorn due to him wanting to break up with her and then cheating. Before this climax, he is the only person not wearing white for a time, as if he’s a toxin to be expelled. Him dying represents her committing to this perceived solution to her trauma and leaving the last seen remnant of her life behind. Her choosing to kill him also finally gives her power, which can feel great to have even if you are not using it for a good reason. Christian earlier being alone nude can represent him losing his power and when a group of girls cry in unison with Dani, they’re giving her the support to feel stronger. This also shows that those that give you support in a time of need can very well manipulate you.

OVERVIEW

Midsommar doesn’t seem like it’d satisfy on a rewatch or even from one watch by someone who doesn’t want to look inside a movie. Many of my interpretations could very well be unintended, so the film is really just what you make of it. As it stands, you can’t deny the decent visuals and acting, even if sometimes the movie is focusing on something a little off topic.

Thirteen Women (1932) Review

A great promotional photo for the film

Thirteen Women is a slasher. The only thing about it that doesn’t fit that mold is a lack of blood, though it does have a kill count, pretty sorority girls, and a dark secret that’s come back to haunt them. Just like the more common examples of the genre, it gets far too stuck in bad performances and absurd plot developments. There’s little to get out of it, especially if you want more graphic violence.

Myrna Loy as Ursula Georgi and C. Henry Gordon as Swami Yogadachi both try way too hard to be witchy and creepy, coming off as cartoonish. The two have a romance for like one scene, which just seems like someone’s trying to fit in as many tropes as possible. “They’re a man and a woman, so they must kiss!” There is a clear attempt to give some layers to Ursula, but her solution to her plight is to just be evil and act like any other horror baddie, with Loy just having this eternal menace that comes off as not understanding the story or how to play this role.

Some of the sorority girl characters are better acted and have more interesting material. Irene Dunne as Laura Stanhope and Florence Eldridge as Grace Coombs are an example. They talk about the letters they’d received predicting a grizzly end and discuss whether they’re real. You also get the sense Laura is more so trying to keep a level mind, so someone is. Laura is a mother and a decent amount of the movie is her worrying about her kid. That relatable goal makes her very compelling. You can feel for her and understand the angst this must cause her. Dunne supplies a sharp performance, giving the movie some edge as a drama about coping with intense stress. She often shows her feelings on her face and body.

There’s a few really strong lines in the movie. One is, “You two are stumbling in a dark, material world. I am above it, as Yogadachi was. Death means peace, freedom. I shall meet him… gladly.” “Well, I shan’t.” While moments like this hint towards some deeper focus of death, living, and what it means to be in peace, these are mostly dropped for a little action and fighting. The ending of the movie is clearly trying to say something, but really just comes off as laughable. Other good lines are, “Depression or not, personally, I’m mad about this world.” The following quote is edited to avoid spoilers, “They’re all I’ve got. How can I help it with things I don’t understand striking out of the dark wh–where you can’t do anything, imagining that–that every little breath taken may be the last!?”

The opening scenes concerning the “Raskob sisters” are very suspenseful, especially when we see Mary Duncan as June Raskob’s nervous face as she approaches the dangerous stunt. See her face when the drumroll starts and she is making concerned faces to someone. Overall, moments of slow suspense, like wondering if a certain thing will happen, are solid. The big dumb action fair or scenes of basically nothing of use happening should’ve been removed. Speaking of which…

I watched this movie for my latest obsession, Peg Entwistle. I love her, though her acting is mediocre and hammy. She may as well not be here due to how little she gets. Apparently instead of four minutes of screentime, she originally had sixteen before a cut. It’d be nice to see those missing scenes, especially because it seems quite a whole lot was removed, including two of the thirteen girls mentioned in the title. That’s right, we only ever see eleven. Some of the shown eleven have very minimal roles, so it’d be nice to have gotten more development, such as in seeing the bond they have. The fact they were in a sorority together, as opposed to other connectors, suggests a familiarity with each other. They’re honorary sisters and either should stick together or dig up old issues from the past.

SPOILERS

When one of the Raskob sisters jumps from the trapeze, seeing her in slow motion with no music makes for a chilling moment. It’s a little ridiculous June wouldn’t have warned anyone of the letter she received that predicted this. Interestingly, Entwistle’s character actually survives the movie while so many others. Even her character in the book this is based on doesn’t make it. Entwistle herself didn’t live to see this movie released.

My favorite character here is Helen Dawson Frye, played by Kay Johnson. She projects a lot of confidence, though you can tell how broken she is by both her friends’ and her child’s death. She seems to not know what else to do other than to have a light heart towards the letter saying she’d kill herself. She bags the great and somber line, “Yes. That’s why she’s getting us all together– To laugh it all away. I haven’t laughed in so long.” She later has a surprisingly dark moment of pointing a gun at her chest, then she starts doing what sounds like a mix of laughing and crying. She also mirrors the other mother here.

Laura’s son almost dies a few times. The intensity and simultaneous casualness is so creepy. The son might just be living his normal life, only for us to know something nearly happened. At least Ursula had beef with the titular women. That son didn’t do anything, so he would’ve only been killed to make Laura suffer, possibly only for a little before her demise. The ending seems to try to make Ursula a little sympathetic. She says that the sorority girls she’s been killing off picked on her for being only part-white. Laura in turn doesn’t deny that, though does seem apologetic. The message here seems to be to not discriminate, though that is muddied by having the non-white character be a vindictive killer who seems to blame all white people. Thus, the movie isn’t better than the average racist media of the time for showing minority groups as villainous, scheming, and unable to relate to white people.

The acting is also particularly bad here. Ursula’s laugh is a notable silly part. She then runs to the end of the train and jumps off, thus following the great tradition of villains getting killed off very suddenly and sometimes in a ridiculous way. Her seeing Swami’s face before she jumps is also quite novel. Her having a gruesome death was foreshadowed, but why not have something like her trying to escape authorities, slipping on something, and falling off? She just throws herself away to get the movie to an end.

OVERVIEW

While perhaps the film is saying something worthwhile about racism, such a message gets caught up in hokey performances and a dreadfully dull and by the numbers story. There are a few worthwhile segments, so many it’s possible with the deleted scenes a better film could be made, though Loy’s portrayal makes that difficult.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

Entwistle’s character in the book is a lesbian, so here’s hoping the deleted scenes of the movie show that, which I highly doubt, but it’s fun to dream as the Peg Entwistle fan I am.

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) Review

Joan of Arc in the film

Mystery of the Wax Museum demonstrates something many don’t know, that The Wizard of Oz isn’t the first color film, not even the first to be pretty much all color. Admittedly, the color in Wax Museum and a lot of other early examples don’t look terribly realistic, unlike Oz. Still, this movie has a surreal look to the color. It looks like it could be an intentional artistic decision, especially because we’re seeing a lot of wax sculptures, which are intended to look like people, but often aren’t perfect. The “unrealistic” look doesn’t compromise any mood or ability to see something.

Everything looks stylish and atmospheric. Some of the shots look like they could be professional photographs. A favorite is one of Glenda Farrell running and yelling at night. A lot of the story is set during the night. The look of the film also compliments the narrative itself. The movie is generally dark, while the tone is a bit brighter. That suggests that there’s something sinister that’s hard to place, but always around.

Glenda Farrell as Florence Dempsey is a lot of fun, while also being a really effective focal point for the story. While the other actors have lots of charm and class, Farrell has it all. She’s funny, relatable, a guide for the narrative, and much more. Those little comedy elements don’t detract from or lessen the horror, instead making for tasteful comic relief that also shows us something about Florence, that she tries not to take things too seriously. Farrell and Frank McHugh as Jim have really good comedic chemistry, while also driving the plot and our protagonist. She sometimes does things in response to what he says. McHugh is also the master of cheesy 30s movie dialogue. “That you’re a sure bet to place in the breadline. There’s no room on this rag for the purely ornamental. You’re easy on the eyes and pretty conceited about it.” “Is mama’s little dumpling getting tough?”

Other funny moments include, “Okay brother, then you can go to some nice warm place, and I don’t mean California!” A scene of Jim throwing a ball of paper at Florence seems like it could’ve been the actors having so much fun they improvised a bit. At one point, Florence asks someone how their sex life is. A character openly discusses in front of policemen having a bootlegger. Still, this film is not a comedy, but doesn’t let the comedy overtake the other elements. There is one point at the end where the comedy is too much.

Lionel Atwill as Ivan Igor is easy to relate to after all the bad things that happen to him, selling him as a wise older figure with a passion for his craft. Fay Wray as Charlotte Duncan has less personality than Farrell, but still is very serviceable in her role here. Charlotte screams so much it becomes a plot point. It’s really irritating how often she does it, making her seem like a damsel in distress. It’s both very stylish and creepy when Igor sees Charlotte and imagines her dressed as Marie Antoinette. Wray has immense beauty, looking like someone worth having a statue made of. Most of the handsome male leads are perfectly fine, but don’t do much.

While practically all of the wax sculptures have this to some degree, the one of Joan of Arc is especially creepy. Not sure why, probably the longing eyes. There’s one point where Farrell’s sentence is amusingly cut off awkwardly by a cut. Some of the wax sculptures move slightly or blink. Of course, these are extremely minor issues, just personally notable. The movie delves mildly into b-movie horror tropes, but they do add to the sense of fun. The climax does much more strongly embrace the spectacle of a horror villain doing villainy, with everything happening in an over the top way that lacks substance. Most of the movie doesn’t even really have a villain, so having one at the end, and even an evil laboratory, is something one might laugh at, and not in a good way.

SPOILERS

The opening fight scene is really creepy and thrilling. An intense fight scene is surrounded by realistic wax sculptures melting. It’s very unsettling. When Florence takes some bottles of booze that don’t belong to her in front of some cops, they ask her what she’s doing, she talks back to them, and they let her carry on. It’s incredibly disappointing that we discover the big twist because someone just explained it instead of seeing it. Why not have us find out the wax statues come from dead bodies by having us see something like one being built or Charlotte being told she’ll be turned into one?

We get a great reveal of a different twist when Igor’s face falls off and we learn he covered his badly burnt one with wax. After Igor overpowers someone, why leave him just lying there? He could get up and attack him later. Igor was in a wheelchair, but we see him running and jumping around in a chase later. Regardless, the scene of him fighting the police is very cinematic and stylish. It’s a lot of fun seeing what’s going to happen next, though it makes no sense.

The typical romance of old movies is subverted. A character directly says he’s in love with Florence, with it being played as silly that he would be. In the last moments of the movie, Jim, who showed no interest in Florence, asks to marry her. This, as well as Florence accepting, is played as being ridiculous, but so much so as to be funny. This scene also doesn’t forget to fit in some actual jokes. One issue here is that the movie has almost no comedy in it, being more about horror and the comedy usually only serving to give extra personality to Florence. Thus, the ending should’ve reflected that. Still, this scene does work on its own merits and would be great at the end of a screwball. It also ties off our protagonist in a believable way. She wasn’t particularly ethical or unselfish at any point, so it’s good she doesn’t just become “a nice girl”. She was shown to care mostly about getting ahead in life financially, never showing interest in love. It makes sense she wouldn’t care about who she’s marrying, as long as it helps her.

OVERVIEW

While in some ways a little cheesy, Mystery of the Wax Museum is so much fun with its nail biting mystery and a consistently lovable cast as to be a great watch. Glenda Farrell really kills it.

Memento (2000) Review

Three frames from the film

The best way to talk about Memento is to not talk about it. Its mystery is best left to be enjoyed on its own. Still, for those who have seen it or want to know more about it, it’s a great thriller with an intriguing, albeit maybe slightly hard to get used to structure. The scene order is mostly, but not entirely, going in reverse. Based on how the film is structured, we usually only know what our protagonist knows. The movie opening on an image of a dead body is a really dark and effective way to open, perfectly setting the dark tone.

Guy Pearce as Leonard Shelby makes for a fascinating protagonist due to his stoic determination, though you’d expect him to be more emotionally vulnerable, trying to deal and cope with being involved in such a horrible mess. He is often too willing to brush things off and move on with his life. Carrie-Anne Moss as Natalie is generally a little simplistic, but this works as we’re only seeing her through Leonard’s limited perspective. Little bits of more going on peek out here and there, but that neither needs to be explained or should be. It’s more interesting to make your own interpretation. Down to even his look, Joe Pantoliano as “Teddy” looks untrustworthy and is easy to root against. He is often dubious. He brings a lightheartedness to some moments, like when he says one benefit of his friendship with Leonard is that he can retell the same jokes.

It’s a little awkward when Leonard tells someone some information about himself for the sake of the audience, but there is a reason given why later that makes decent enough sense. Some seemingly random parts manage to come back into effect later. The story is extremely clever once you’ve gotten into it. The movie really succeeds off of all the interesting things it has to say about human nature. As an example, Leonard is correct when saying that all memories are distorted, thus it’s better to rely on facts. Yet, there are issues with even that. We humans have to interpret those facts. The story itself is still very engaging. It’s hard to deny lines like, “What’s the last thing that you do remember?” “My wife…” “That’s sweet.” “Dying.”

SPOILERS

To expand more on my analysis of Natalie, she obviously is willing to lie to Leonard. It’s easy to believe she might keep saying whatever lie can get him to do whatever she wants. This obviously isn’t really the point of the movie, with us getting what we need, that Leonard shouldn’t be trusting the sources he is. One should not consider Natalie’s characterization or Moss’ performance bad, as they are very well crafted for this story. The unreliability of Natalie is shown when she thinks Leonard will remember her, probably because she seems to be falling for him. She wants, at least for his sake and probably her own, for him to be able to remember things.

It’s heartbreaking seeing Leonard talk about how he can think his wife has just gone to the bathroom or something like that, as he can’t ever really come to terms with her being dead due to his condition making it so recent. More so than anything else, he just wants to be able to accept she’s gone. The most crushing part of the film is between Sammy and his wife. Namely when the wife tries to work out a system with him or get him to be able to remember things. Of course, nothing comes close to what happens with the insulin. Obviously for those that have seen the movie, Leonard and Sammy end up being related in more ways than it initially seems.

There’s some questionable, albeit minor, moments. Why would the person working at the motel be honest about ripping off Leonard? Why wouldn’t Leonard care? When Leonard sees Dodd in the bathroom, why would he immediately start fighting him, seeing as he doesn’t know who he is? What was the point of Leonard breaking into the wrong room?

Cleverly, Leonard’s view of events is challenged slowly. The movie is set up to make Leonard sympathetic, with little reason to doubt his narrative. Natalie also similarly seems good natured. Both are shown to have deep issues, with Leonard even hitting Natalie. That sets up the darker things we learn about Leonard. We also see the manipulative side of Natalie when she uses that to her advantage. While it is proven that some of what Leonard believes is wrong, it is fun to decipher what may be true. Despite the twist that Teddy didn’t kill Leonard’s wife, he was still tricking him. At the beginning of the film, we were told Teddy was not to be trusted and that was proven to be true by the end. Still, by the end, Leonard is now understood to be villainous, with him knowing he will just keep following and killing random people for his own sake.

Seeing as Teddy was helping Leonard and he’s now dead, and Natalie probably won’t want to play along much longer, it’s interesting to know what’s next for Leonard. Especially as his body count will presumably increase. To speculate, if he kills enough people, or even just attacks them and lets them go, he’d probably get arrested and maybe the death penalty?

OVERVIEW

Memento is a brilliant story that proves itself a very rewarding experience for those willing to engage with it. It has that “early film feeling”, mainly noticeable in the clearly low budget, but it doesn’t suffer from that low budget. While arguably the movie could’ve had a more striking look at points, Christopher Nolan makes the story work very well, so you’re not focusing on things like that, instead the great narrative.

Flesh And Fantasy (1943) Review

Betty Field as Henrietta in the film

Flesh And Fantasy is an immediately atmospheric anthology fantasy film with a lot of interesting and inviting elements, while also some lowlights that are typical of the time. The dark and moody shots, mainly in the first short, look wonderful and bring a great creepiness to the whole affair. It’d be fun to think all these events happened in a short period of time, with mystical things going on around these different people. All the shorts have many spooky qualities that are interesting to think on, like a poignant line of dialogue. As an example, the discussion of a dead body is really morbid, with points like thinking if he wanted to die.

Regardless, a problem with the best and worst of this film is the dialogue. It’s usually incredibly on the nose, despite some great lines here and there. In my favorite of the segments, which is about a woman that feels she’s ugly, she calls herself hateful. She does seem well meaning, so it’s odd she’s prescribing that to herself. Let’s see her act in a hateful way, as opposed to just saying it. One person describes what she should be seeking to achieve, instead of leaving it unsaid and letting her get to that point on her own. Later, a shopkeeper comes in and just describes important details for the plot, despite it not making sense why he would care or feel a need to do so. The framing segments of men reading these shorts as stories are probably the worst example of this dialogue problem. They’re also just pretty unfunny. One of the men at a point just describes the “moral” of the first segment, as if it wasn’t obvious.

The shorts, especially their endings, are really incongruent. There isn’t much of a thematic throughline. It’s as if these were three unrelated stories stitched together. Another oddity is that the second goes straight into the third, but neither of the last two are connected to the first. This feels a little jarring, especially because it would probably be very easy to include something like a character of the second in the first. There was going to be another segment that didn’t make the cut. I’m curious if it would’ve been a fourth that maybe ties things together? Maybe it was replaced by one of the ones here, which would explain a lot?

In the first short, Betty Field as Henrietta is said to be horribly ugly. Camera effects and dark lighting are used to aid this. However, she is obviously extremely beautiful. It’s ridiculous to think that she is mockingly unattractive, as the character apparently is. She is also said to have an ugly personality by someone when all she did was not give a woman an outfit that she wasn’t then able to pay for. The narration of how Henrietta feels seems like a bad case of telling and not showing, though it’s slightly vindicated by being revealed to be said by a person played by Edgar Barrier with otherworldly qualities. Barrier gives a great presence and supernatural atmosphere to this story. Still, the explaining instead of showing isn’t ideal.

There is an interesting feminist commentary here. When Henrietta takes the “pretty” mask, the mannequin it was over has an ugly face. This can show how people try to cover up their negative traits. When she looks at herself in a reflection with and without the mask, she’s relaying a common experience of comparing and judging yourself against supposedly “perfect” standards. When Henrietta goes out with the mask on, it’s obvious she’s wearing a mask, but people around her talk about how beautiful she is, as if that was her actual face. Beauty standards sometimes reflect that it’s more desirable to look fake than like how average people look. Then again, that’s not to say Field isn’t already very beautiful.

At one point, the protagonist of the second short, Edward G. Robinson as Marshall Tyler, verbally says out loud alone that he can’t work or think, which is quite silly. That summarizes the move to more pulp fiction-styled stories, though the performances, even by Robinson, are quite good, especially when he has to confront the main ideas of the short. The second outing brings more horror to the show than the first segment did. Tyler talking to his reflection is both creepy and well filmed. It solves the issue of how we can know what he’s thinking when he would have no reason to tell anyone, while not being handled in a comical way, like if we simply heard his thoughts.

Charles Boyer as Paul Gaspar in the third short walking while imagining himself falling in his dream is a really striking image. There is also a beautiful discomfort to the shots of Gaspar and the audience as a seemingly endless drumroll plays. Later, a friend of Gaspar is understanding of him not doing his most dangerous stunt because he “only has to be wrong once.” Gaspar speaks to the part of people that is attracted to trouble. Some of his actions are very risky, but he does them anyway. Unfortunately, instead of focusing on an idea like a person afraid of, but attracted to, bad things, the movie doesn’t focus much on them. Gaspar kills some time with Barbara Stanwyck as Joan Stanley. Other times, we’re just going through the motions without much analysis of the story or what’s going on. How does Gaspar feel and think about all that’s happening?

There are a lot of little moments here and there that give some value to the whole proceedings. As an example, the first short has the best lines. “Perhaps we could put our time together and make it last twice as long?” The character of Podgers at one point amusingly walks up to someone with a cat in arms, as if to make him seem more witchy. In the credits, a costumer is described as serving “Miss Stanwyck’s Gowns”. An assistant of Gaspar is funny, probably doing the best job of injecting some comic relief. When Joan puts on the earrings that Gaspar earlier dreamed, he asks if he’s currently in a dream too, which is such a chilling moment. Despite this, the biggest issue with the third segment is that Stanwyck is phoning it in so hard. She doesn’t seem to care about any of this, having a weirdly wooden vocal.

SPOILERS (FIRST SEGMENT)

When Barrier’s character helps Henrietta, she starts to show more warmness, suggesting a little kindness was all she needed. Betty Field and Robert Cummings as Michael have such good chemistry that it’s easy to overlook the parts of their relationship that don’t make sense, namely how short their time together has been. Their discussions of their feelings are so realistically it’s at least a smidge believable they’d feel how they do about each other.

Henrietta and Michael have a very profound and relatable conversation. “I’ve never done anything else but wait, just working, walking, eating… eating sometimes, sleeping. When you have the time your mind will let you sleep, but that’s only… only just waiting for life. It’s not living.” “I know. You watch other people enjoying themselves, as if you were hungry and outside the window of a restaurant.” “And you don’t have enough money to go in.” The angst of these feelings is delivered very realistically, as if the actors really went through these issues. This sharp moment is offset by Michael not understanding how Henrietta could relate, considering how pretty she is. Ignoring that that’s obviously a mask she’s wearing, a pretty woman could still relate to this.

“If staying here meant staying for you.” “You hardly know me.” “I know your voice, the touch of your hand, your eyes. They’re what I was waiting for.” “But I wanted you to believe in yourself, not in me.” “Couldn’t that be the same?” This really captures the sense of ecstasy love can create. “I know your face is beautiful, because you are.” Probably the intended interpretation of this line is to foreshadow when the mask comes off and she has a face of makeup on. However, I like to interpret it as meaning that her personality is so beautiful that that glows up everything about her. As can happen with people in love, it can be hard to see the faults in others.

Henrietta’s insecurities speak very strongly when she’s asking Michael to forget about her and she’s not like what he believes, with her not wanting him to learn the belief is wrong. Seeing as this movie can’t resist outdated values, it’s a shame Michael is pressuring her to take the mask off. He continues to push her, instead of letting her decide that impartially. “I’m not anything like what you believe. I don’t want you to lose your belief by seeing me as I really am.” “But you created belief in me. That’s real and it includes belief in you. You can’t doubt that if I mean anything to you.” “I lied to you from the start. There wasn’t nobody looking for me. There never has been. I pretended I was beautiful to lead you on. I’m only telling you now because you mean so much to me.” Henrietta continues to criticize herself and call herself things like selfish. Yet, here she is trying to do what she thinks is best for Michael, despite the fact they both love each other. She’s internalized so much about herself and her face that she can’t handle someone else seeing it.

“What does it matter how you look? I’d love your face no matter what it is because it’s you.” “Oh, please go, I’m not asking for myself but for your sake.” “Won’t you believe in me? In my love, enough to rely on it.” Later he says, “You gave me belief in that miracle [love], won’t you let me give you belief?”, which is another great line. Henrietta apparently being pretty once Michael removes the mask does ring a little too hollow. There would be a much nicer message if she looked the same, but was still admired as beautiful. That beauty would probably be more evident if the lighting was brighter and she was smiling. The message of this installment seems to be that Henrietta really was ugly and just needed to become better looking, which is frankly absurd.

SPOILERS (SECOND SEGMENT)

Tyler being convinced to actually do the murder is a chilling moment, with a shadow of him talking to him about it. It gets more chilling when he tries to pick the right person and then justify how he’d be doing his victim a favor. Later, he gives poisoned medicine to a woman. When she asks how she can get more if it works, he says that if it works she won’t ever need any more. We see the lead become more broken when after originally having very strict standards for who he will kill, he simply looks around a room, wanting to get it over with, so as to fulfill other plans he made. Here, he’s putting himself over anyone else. Seeing him look at the others, who of course don’t know what’s in his head, is haunting.

Tyler’s humanity comes out when he realizes what’s become of him when he almost kills someone in a reasonably brutal way. He seems ashamed. While this isn’t commented on in the film, his first plan of killing someone would be reasonably difficult to trace back to him, but his plans become progressively more brutal to the victim and harder for himself to look innocent. Tyler killing Podgers, mainly because of the music, is a little too hammy. The fact that he is killing someone brutally and painfully in a public area suggests he was never really as normal or as much an everyman as he probably wanted to believe. This could be a commentary on how most people have dark qualities to themselves or could be driven to drastic behavior under certain circumstances.

The fact that Tyler wouldn’t find a better solution here speaks to him not ever really being standup. Why wouldn’t Tyler kill someone that’s terminally ill or a death row inmate that admits to their guilt, or better yet just not do a murder? You’d think his conscience would be really inflamed after killing an innocent person. The twist that the woman he tried to kill didn’t actually die because of him is such a good moment, restoring the sense of fear to our lead. Tyler’s confession to the police suggests he has basically gone mad, openly discussing his actions, but not taking any blame. It is a wonderfully tragic way to end the segment.

SPOILERS (THIRD SEGMENT)

Various elements of Gaspar’s morbid dream have come true. When he sees the girl in his dream in real life, you’d think he’d want to make sure she isn’t at his show, because then the dream couldn’t happen as he remembers it. However, he actually does his best to get her to come to the show. That woman is Joan. Gaspar constantly pressures Joan into being around him. It’s extremely creepy and makes it hard to like him, especially because she likes him back. When Joan doesn’t want to have dinner with him, he assumes there’s another man she’s hiding from him, which is really manipulative. Of course, there is really no reason for Joan to like Gaspar.

The second short basically says prophecies can’t be broken, then the third one does just that. There isn’t any comparison between the different ideas. We simply get one message, then the other. It’d be one thing if Gaspar did something to essentially break the prophecy, but here he just does the stunt he had failed in his dream for no other reason than to give a happy ending. More strange is that Joan is arrested for criminal activity. This comes really out of the blue and doesn’t have much to do with anything.

OVERVIEW

The film basically feels like three episodes of The Twilight Zone, albeit not as good. Still, the spooky nature of Flesh And Fantasy makes a fun experience that is worth at least one Halloween viewing, especially for fans of the famous Rod Serling series. Despite the problems, mainly formulaic story elements, there are lots of interesting bits to keep things rolling.

Laurel and Hardy 1930 Shorts Review Part 2 // #42-44

A frame from Another Fine Mess

Hog Wild

Hog Wild is a better version of “We run around and destroy things for twenty minutes.” It’s got more heart and work into the pot to make things interesting, though it suffers from the inconsistent gags and simple characters the earlier shorts have as well. There’s a little too much doing what has been done before or otherwise a really basic idea, but there’s more creativity and insanity, even with some good ol’ cartoon logic. Hardy would at least be in the hospital, if not dead, if this short was true to life.

Hardy comes off as verbally abusive to his wife, yelling and accusing her of things. While it is possible she actually has hidden things from him in the past, that’s not likely as he acts like that’s something all wives do. Hardy of course amusingly looks like the world’s biggest idiot for looking for his hat when it’s on his head. Fay Holderness follows the tradition of the female side characters stealing the show. Her facial expressions, which suggest she’s heard all this before and barely takes note, is quite amusing.

Not to leave him uncredited, Hardy bags a lot of good moments, like when he finds out where his hat is. We see how low he thinks of his wife and how used to all this she is that he then acts like he wasn’t wearing it in front of her, with her playing along. Hardy seems determined to try to exude a confidence and upper lip he obviously doesn’t have. This plays well into the comedy trope of men who are shown as timid to their more dominating wives. Hardy here is acting like he’s trying to act like he has power and his wife is letting him think he’s got it.

Holderness’ over the top reaction to get Hardy to do a chore is really funny. The introduction of Laurel, with his blank faced expression, is amusing. To prove the old saying of what sells, we get some nice lady legs for those fond of such appendages. The gag of Laurel looking back while driving looked like a really dangerous stunt. The final joke is really funny and especially well directed.

SPOILERS

There’s more good laughs. Fay hits Hardy unexpectedly with a frying pan; typically, but especially when the rubble falls on our leads, they look really done with things. Considering what about this short is formulaic, maybe they were? Regardless, it’s still a good moment. Fay tells the leads to stop “playing” after they clearly had an accident and weren’t just wasting time. Near the end there’s, “Oh, Oliver, darling, this is terrible.” “Oh, don’t cry over me, dear, I’m not hurt.” “I’m not crying over you. The man came and took the radio away.”

The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case

The opening of the boys on the dock takes forever and is representative of the common issue of these movies taking really slow detours. As much can be said when they’re in bed. It feels like everyone’s trying to do things as slowly as possible. “That’s it, not knowing where you were born?” “Well, I was too young to remember.” feels like a joke written for the stage. It and some other “stage” lines feel a little awkward, due to how flat everything is shot and performed. This might have worked better in front of an audience. The pacing is really awkward, like there are pauses for audience laughter. Still, the performances and material aren’t bad.

The movie really gets going when we get to the spooky house, with wonderful atmosphere around the shots of the building in the storm and the kooky characters inside. These minor characters provide a lot of hamminess to the vibe that keeps it from being too serious. When a woman finds out a murder had occurred, she falls over in the most ridiculous way. A man goes crazy and tries to escape, with Fred Kelsey as the detective response hilariously underplayed.

The ending is pretty disappointing. It represents how unloved this installment seems to have been. A lot of good ideas, but nothing to tie them together, so there’s just a lot of the leads dilly dallying. The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case seems to promise a lot, then deliver something with such a weak structure as to hold no water. Speaking of water, Hardy wiping his hands on Laurel’s pants by the dock is funny.

SPOILERS

More miscellanea includes: There’s no way there was that much water in Hardy’s hat. Why would Hardy question Laurel about his life, instead of just revealing his plan? Kelsey’s character is such an amusing jerk. He rips up someone’s theater tickets, is always scaring people, and makes everyone stay in a house with a murderer about. Hardy is right. Laurel was a really bad friend for not wanting him to get some of the money. Admittedly, if we are to say the duo’s films are in continuity with each other whenever possible, Hardy is a bad friend as he’s always blowing up at Laurel. Laurel’s look of shame during this sequence is quite good.

Hardy strangely seems to not understand why Laurel is scared or be scared himself. They’re being kept in a scary house in a storm where there might be a killer around. Laurel messing with the detective at the end is fun. The moments that focus on the admittedly light story of the killings is really amusing. It’s a shame we couldn’t have gotten something like Laurel and Hardy having to solve the case. Imagine a Hal Roach version of Clue?

Another Fine Mess

The two women at the beginning that read off the credits are extremely creepy. Ironically, despite this omission of text, we learn of the actual story and are introduced to James Finlayson’s “Colonel Buckshot” through a newspaper, instead of having someone verbalize this. Still, things improve quickly with some good gags. “Mr. Hardy takes charge of the upping, and Mr. Laurel does most of the downing-”. Later, “Say, Kelly, did you see a couple of bozos come this way?” Near the end is, “Call me a cab!” “You’re a cab.”

Something great about this movie, that also distinguishes it from other installments, is that it opens on the boys running away from the cops. While these movies typically are so slow, this one gets to the point and also provides a quality introduction. Based on how things typically go, you could’ve expected us to start on them sitting around, then they aggravate a cop, so they must run away. A policeman amusingly describes Laurel’s behavior to another, subverting how we might typically see it play out. That’s especially rewarding for those watching the Laurel character over all these films. It almost makes you wonder if Hal Roach and/or his writers hate the police, seeing as they make them out to be very unlikable, doing things like being flabbergasted that the leads would sleep on a bench.

Laurel and Hardy are clearly having so much fun that it’s infectious. Laurel walking away from the curtain and Hardy looking for him is a good moment. Laurel then covers his face, as if knowing how Hardy would typically retaliate. While Thelma Todd doesn’t get too much to do, she gets a nice scene of riffing off Laurel. This is like a better version of the riffing in Murder Case, as it has a sensible place in the story. Some of the lines kill. “Half a year, to be exact three months.” The joke about having a nursery in case of “accidents” is really daring for the time. The manic energy James Finlayson brings makes him the funniest performer here.

Despite the increased cleverness and jokes being built on others or otherwise being unexpected, the ending is a little disappointing, due to not having much to do with the rest of what’s going on, but it’s so crazy as to be charming. It feels like a fever dream. There are far worse problems this flick could have.

SPOILERS

Laurel shows some intelligence, having a good and funny reason for Hardy to become Buckshot, though there were other options, like positioning himself so the cop couldn’t see him when he opened the door. Remember, he ain’t too smart! This short suggests more than most that most of these films are in continuity with each other. Laurel and Hardy act like they’ve been going through these various adventures and are a little tired of it all. We’ve seen Hardy hit or resist hitting Laurel when an issue occurs. Here, he suggests a ridiculous plan and when Laurel is reluctant, Hardy just gives him a big and realistic shove, like he just wants to get it over with and not hear the complaining. That’s so much funnier than the others due to how unexpected it is. Laurel falling down the stairs is another more “brutish” bit, again playing well for the same reason as last mentioned. Even better is the silly music that plays as he falls.

Hardy’s reaction to finding out that Laurel is staying with the couple as their female maid is very funny. Him being pleased with this suggests Hardy might not like Laurel anymore and is glad at the prospect of losing him. Another favorite point is when Laurel starts crying after being told to get Agnes, which of course means he’ll have to change again. There’s also the horror music to and shot of Laurel seeing the painting of the real Colonel Buckshot. Buckshot later shooting at a random person and later an arrow at a cop are a little typical of Roach if you know him well, but on their own they do the job of getting a laugh here.

OVERVIEW

Laurel and Hardy make some minor developments, but they’re mainly just more straightened out versions of how they are in the earlier soundies. Laurel is still dumb, but he’s allowed to be smart sometimes. Hardy seems more focused on reacting to and bouncing off of Laurel’s insanity, lacking a strong identity outside of that. Thus, it’s a little surreal seeing him do things like play the piano without Laurel present in Another Fine Mess. At his best, he’s a bit more supportive of Laurel, not just constantly being angry at him. Still, from the best installments to the weakest, everyone consistently steals the show from the leads, especially James Finlayson. Their little flourishes really add to the dull and uncharacterized protagonists.

The 1930 batch is better than the 1929 one, with more energy and ideas to go around. There’s a dullness and directionlessness to the 1929 ones that is much less prominent next year. While 1929’s Unaccustomed As We Are is still the best of the series so far, most of the runner ups are from 1930. In fact, Another Fine Mess is so sharp as to remind me of that great first outing.

To rank the 1930 shorts, Brats is the only reasonably weak installment. The Laurel-Hardy Murder Case, Hog Wild, Blotto, and Below Zero are a mix of some great and some dull. Relatively speaking, the most consistent are Night Owls and the better Another Fine Mess.

The Thing (1982) Review

Kurt Russell as MacReady

The Thing is rightfully considered a great atmospheric horror movie that strives in showcasing the insanity of human beings in these sorts of stressful situations, with the otherworldly terror here adding a new layer to the dread. The movie establishes its slow creepiness from the get go, with the opening titles being white text on a black background, with the sound initially silent before music slowly starts. The acting is mostly very good, as is the tense dialogue. The characterization is a little token at points and the effects are mixed. Some of the effects are fantastic, while others don’t hold up, looking too much like dummies or sculptures. Some of the bad ones are prominent enough that their faults are easy to spot, when the movie could’ve been careful to mask them.

Many of the characters are more muted than I originally thought in previous viewings. A notable example is Keith David as Childs, who is relatively uninvolved. Many of the others just serve as fodder to make you wonder if they’re the thing or not. Thomas G. Waites as Windows is the weakest actor, notably when complaining about not being able to get in contact with anyone, not that his performance is so bad as to sink the movie. A scene of Nauls and Windows shouting comes off a little comical due to the lack of other noises. Perhaps the actors thought there’d be more noise added in post, so it’d make sense for them to be as loud as they are?

The opening shot of the arctic is handheld and rugged, looking like documentary footage. That mirrors the general discomfort we’re supposed to have with this closed off and unloved space, where it’d be dangerous to even go outside for a long period of time. The core of the movie is Kurt Russell as R. J. MacReady. He gets the most focus in the story, despite not being very strongly defined. He for the most part seems to have a moral compass, though he is in some ways very unlikable. There doesn’t seem to be much reason why he is the main character due to him not having much more insight or significance throughout the story than the others, other than at points being considered the leader.

SPOILERS

The Norwegian seemingly was going to throw a grenade at the dog, which may have resulted in people being killed. That would cause the others to distrust him. There’s a shot of someone trying to find the grenade after it’s dropped. That was probably left in by mistake. It could be explained as there being a second person that was in the helicopter that got out to get the grenade. How did MacReady understand the danger of the thing before he went to where the dogs were? Him hearing their barking seemed to be what was supposed to have caused that.

MacReady shooting Clark and a dog makes him hard to like when the movie wants you to. They sink him to at best careless and at worst malevolent. Moments like the others wanting to trap him outside in the desperate cold seem to exist to get you on his side, but if we’re supposed to be then why include his moments of cruelty? Any potential commentary intended about him is so easy to miss it might not even be there or be intended. The scene of the Bennings-Thing screaming is rightfully an iconic moment, bathed in an uncomfortable dark mood, especially with the creature eventually being lit ablaze, creating illumination. Clark witnessing the murdered dogs is very impactful, with us feeling his pain. However, this character and his story doesn’t get resolved. He ultimately is killed unceremoniously by MacReady. It would’ve made more sense for MacReady to have killed all the dogs, so Clark later trying to jump him would be retaliation.

The Norris-Thing is another special effects highlight, especially seeing the head separate and try to run away. Just before, Copper losing his arms doesn’t look very realistic. Later on, Windows’ death scene makes for probably the worst special effect, with the use of a dummy being extremely obvious. When MacReady says they all won’t make it out alive, the others don’t seem very phased in response. The movie could’ve included some foreshadowing to this, like if the characters he talked to were either shown to be eager to return home and see their families or were carefree and willing to do dangerous things, something for MacReady’s line to follow.

There doesn’t seem to be much point to who dies and when, save for MacReady making it to the end. At the point where it’s just him, Garry, and Nauls; it being them would make more sense if they had a specific bond established. Maybe they exceptionally disliked each other, but now have an understanding and are content to work together? Garry and Nauls are soon killed off with little fanfare. Some of the characters, like Windows and Nauls before their deaths, made really dumb decisions. Characters like the two mentioned and Clark have deaths that seem crammed in, like they were forgotten about in the script, then at the last second their deaths were written in. Thus, the pacing and stakes are janky, with certain things being established, like Blair going mad slowly and Garry being a good marksman, only for the movie to end with a succession of progressively faster and meaningless kills that negate much point to the cast. There’s little reaction to someone these people have personally known dying. Other deaths like Norris’ and Bennings’ are necessary and they work well because of that.

MacReady is ultimately proven to be a terrible leader. The movie glorifies him a little, such as with him being the focal point, being the one to defeat the thing, and ultimately surviving to the end. When the others think he’s been replaced with the thing, we’re supposed to want him to make it. However, by the end of the movie everyone except him and Childs explicitly dies, sometimes by MacReady. They might have been better off getting a competent leader or letting MacReady freeze to death. There’s not even much reason to think that he successfully destroyed the thing. It’s suspected and not contradicted that any piece of a thing that escapes destruction could grow and reform. It’s likely some of it could’ve escaped the burning base, especially because the thing can survive in the cold. Considering the enormity of having to destroy every molecule of the thing, how could anyone ever hope to kill it? There’s also some tension as to whether or not Childs is really the thing, with MacReady seeming to think that’s possible. That being said, MacReady earlier in the movie saying that if everyone except him was a thing, they’d all just kill him could potentially be foreshadowing for this ending, with Childs being still human as if he wasn’t he’d kill MacReady.

The ending is best left ambiguous. The lack of resolution creates for a poignant and impactful takeaway, though it is a little annoying for those invested in what will happen next and if the thing was really destroyed or not. A lot of endings you could imagine might have plot holes, such as the aforementioned unlikelihood of truly killing every last bit of the thing. It’s best to be able to imagine your own resolution. If you are to take any of the sequel media as canon, then MacReady explicitly failed to destroy the thing, which is unsatisfying due to all that was sacrificed for him to perhaps accomplish that.

OVERVIEW

Due to things like character dynamics not coming to much and some plot contrivances, this movie isn’t as flawless as it is to some, including myself the first time I watched it. I thought I’d like it more on a repeat, but alas. Despite the criticisms, the mystery, tension, performances, among other aspects rightly push this movie to the level of “classic”. I recommend The Thing to all, as most would.

It’s easy to imagine an alternate universe where Russell returned for sequel after sequel, which expands on what the thing is and his character, with a fan favorite The Things and an unloved CGI-fest The Thing: 2000.

Clue (1985) Review

A frame from the film

Clue is one of those comedies that was destined to be a Halloween classic. There’s a dark edge to the morbid mystery and a phenomenal cast, topped off with Tim Curry, who delights in every film he’s in. Every character has little flourishes and charms that make them very funny to watch. The witty humor is delivered with either naturalism or comical exaggeration when needed. To elaborate on that, the characters aren’t always realistic, but it’s in a way that fits the tone. It’s like you’re watching a mystery with absurdist elements poking out. The script and directing can let the cast down, however.

While there are a lot of quick jokes that are very funny and witty, the storyline is poorly thought out. The beginning and ending(s) cover a lot of dialogue which serves to explain characters and events over the runtime. Due to the explaining, it’s difficult to get into the story. The middle features generally insignificant wandering around. Theoretically, one could edit so after the setup we get the few key events in the second act before the ending, though such an edit would have offensive pacing. Moments like Mrs. Peacock pressuring other characters to talk about themselves elicit the thought of a screenwriter struggling to figure out how everybody is supposed to get information about themselves out. Lines like the ones in that scene are overly theatrical not for the sake of comedy, but to justify the exposition.

Tim Curry delivers a lot of information related to what’s going on. He partially gets away with it because he’s just so effortlessly sly and natural. There’s also some very funny jokes involved, like when Curry’s character of Wadsworth restages some events and involves the other characters. However, some of this exposition either isn’t from him or is just too much. A lot of the concepts are funny or creative and perhaps they’d take a while to depict more naturally, but it can be so tedious getting scene after scene of explanations. Characters sometimes ask information about others when based on their personalities you wouldn’t think they’d care, like Miss Scarlet questioning someone early on. The pacing suffers badly from all the scenes of telling the audience what’s going on.

The opening is too fast. After a little atmosphere building, the characters are introduced and dramatic things randomly happen. There are bits of light periods, possibly to not make the moments feel so sudden. The cast make do with these sorts of moments, doing probably as good a job as anyone could. They’re so vibrant and filled with personality that it’d be hard to imagine people better at capturing these roles and delivering the mixed dialogue. With lesser actors this could be such a slog. Take Madeline Kahn as Mrs. White’s famous improvised monologue, “Flames on the side of my face”. Eileen Brennan as Mrs. Peacock similarly has a great moment of acting like she doesn’t know what to say. Christopher Lloyd as Professor Plum’s forward behavior makes him easy to hate, with this weird devilish personality brought to life by Lloyd.

Some miscellaneous comments include: There’s a lot of shots of women’s bodies, with a grotesque nature to some of them, like any excuse to include them was taken. This sometimes adds to the allure of the mansion most of the film is set in. It’s very forward about how it presents people and how it’s unorthodox. Some moments, like a woman’s butt being grabbed and us getting a close-up of it, don’t really have anything to put towards the vibe and feel gross and pointless. Secondly, there’s a real fake looking eye-poke and some other shots of characters being hurt, with the ways to fake that due to the actors not really being hurt being less than stellar. Finally, Lesley Ann Warren as Miss Scarlet’s car won’t start so she leaves it with the car still on. That is the death of me.

SPOILERS

Some favorite jokes include three men crossing their legs upon hearing about someone’s demanning (which I’ve remembered since first seeing the movie in 2018); “No Mr. Green, Communism is just a red herring.” is such a good line, the political jokes are among the sharpest written; and Tim Curry monologuing throughout. The ending sequence of him running around and restaging events from the film as if he’s a child excitedly describing an amusement park is joyous to watch. Curry wasn’t the first choice for the role, which sounds insane. Rowan Atkinson was considered, which would’ve been a very interesting choice, though a significantly inferior one. The film seems to reference an outdated trope of a woman in hysterics being “slapped to her senses” (which Airplane also parodied). The slap was also very fake looking. That’s an amusing way of giving this a “50s” feel.

You’d expect the characters to be more intimidated by how spooky everything is. When it’s revealed that they’re all locked inside the house, they don’t react much. You’d expect that to terrify them. When everybody receives a wrapped present of weapons in a box, they touch them, confused. I was expecting their fingerprints now being on them to come in handy at some point. You also might think someone would be concerned about fingerprints. Yvette, who just screamed in fright and is now crying, explains why she did so and answers specific questions. It’s weird and unrealistic for her to basically stop to satisfy what the audience wants to know. While it’s understandable for characters to break from what’s realistic for the sake of elevating the story or selling the comedy in certain circumstances, this is yet another example of plot convenience.

Colonel Mustard’s plan of everyone splitting up was pointed out to be not a very good one, but then everybody still did it. In fact, their splitting resulted in several deaths. A relevant plot point later on is that Professor Plum mistakenly believed Mr. Boddy to be dead. It’s just a little convenient, don’t you think? Wadsworth reveals that he invited the policeman and motorist, though they don’t act like they’re at their intended location when they arrive, instead like they happened upon this place and were going somewhere else. Michael McKean as Mr. Green seems more virtuous than the others, with them being more “aggressive” or violent than him. In one of the three endings, the other six main characters each commit one murder. However, he then shoots Wadsworth for no reason. What was the point in that, especially because he revealed himself to be part of the FBI and was to have the others arrested for confessing to murder? As an aside, if Tim Curry dies in a movie, it’s a sad ending.

OVERVIEW

It’s pretty fun to have the three endings one after the other as a modern viewer, but for those seeing just one in the theater, the first two may have seemed a little anticlimactic. Even the third could be better. It’s a lot more satisfying to have them together, which suggests that there’s a million ways for the events to have occurred and you can essentially pick how you want things to go. Even though one of the endings is picked as the “real” one, it’s deemphasized by the others and thus doesn’t really matter or feel like the ending. The filmmakers were right to exclude the fourth ending, which didn’t sound as funny and breaks the perfect “rule of three” approach to the three resolutions.

Clue is a fun movie to watch once for the Halloween season for its excellent cast and humor. The story and pacing are a lot more rough around the edges, but they aren’t a big deal if you want an enjoyable comedy. There’s a dark wit, crass moments, and so much madcap insanity that there’s three endings, which gives it an unworldly and unique feel.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

Upon watching The Apartment in theaters a while back, the audience seemed uncomfortable by a scene where a woman is slapped by a man as if it’s healthy for her (excuse my vagueness so as to avoid spoiling that fantastic film). That 1960 movie can feel a little silly for including such a thing, though of course the audience of the time would see that differently. It’s good to know that by the 80s people were making fun of it.