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.

The Night of the Hunter (1955) Review

One of the most unsettling shots in the film.

The Night of the Hunter deserves all of its accolades for many reasons. It is ideal to experience this film with no kind of idea of what will occur in it. To still discuss such things, one of the best and more noticeable aspects is the directing. Every shot looks gorgeous and cinematic, as if meticulously planned. Their grand scope evokes the sense of new and intimidating terrains. The dark shadows show the horrors just around the corner. Many shots, such as one famous shot of Lillian Gish appearing pitch black and covered in shadows, still tell you what you need to know about the scene. The expressiveness of her silhouette and details of the lighting are the key. As an example, her being surrounded by an aura of light in that scene suggests holiness on her part.

The antagonist Robert Mitchum as Harry Powell often does bad things in the dark, which suggest he is quite petty and unimposing, so to essentially “steal” power for himself utilizes one of his only abilities, to hide away. Another common theme is him standing tall while others are lying down, with him projecting his meaty voice and knife, essentially trying to subtly manipulate those into cowering in fear and doing as he says. Mitchum really gives a great and terrifying portrayal in how he can seem nice and stable before going looney. Harry often uses Christianity to make himself look noble and holy to those around him, showing how manipulable religion is. He believes he can talk to God and appears to use his religion as justification for the murders he does. Whenever Harry screams, he comes off a little goofy, though it does go to show how pathetic he is when his actions catch up to him. I won’t defend when he sticks his arms out like Frankenstein in a serious moment.

Willa Harper, played by Shelley Winters, seems to feel she must follow Harry and do as he says. Willa is portrayed as a well meaning, but vulnerable and alone woman always trying to do right by her family and others. Lillian Gish as Rachel Cooper represents the seasoned and embittered woman that has had to deal with men taking advantage of her all her life. While Rachel believes in God and is also shown to be virtuous, she still goes her own path, as opposed to doing something like make herself find a man to marry. Her clear main concern is helping those around her, instead of listening for God to tell her what to do, as Harry does.

Shockingly, the greatest performances are of the eleven-year old Billy Chapin as John Harper and the six-year old Sally Jane Bruce as Pearl Harper. Both pack an incredible amount of emotional complexity in their roles. What the older John is aware of is how little power he has. While he can assess threats, we see this sense of dread from how little he can meaningfully do. This is shown by how often he is just out of reach of great danger. His face can seem withered and tired, but not defeated, like he can’t comprehend the horrors as much as an adult might. He also misses his father and is more unsure of himself without him, though this isn’t ever made explicit and at least a few more hints at this desire would clarify the character and the ending more. Pearl is less discerning of her surroundings, with it sometimes being for the best and the worst that she will essentially trust anyone. The shot of tears running down her face and especially when she yells about her doll are extremely moving and unsettling. She takes most things in stride, so her showing emotions communicates the change in intensity.

SPOILERS

Willa’s death scene shows her in a bedroom with shadowing and architecture that is reminiscent of a church, like she’s tried to familiarize herself with a space and person that are supposedly Godly and will lead her, but those only serve to hurt her. One of the best looking moments of the film is the terrifyingly creepy shot of her in a car in the bottom of a river. A common theme is adult women and children essentially being forced to trust authority figures and men around them. This doesn’t do them any good, with Harry’s behavior probably traumatizing John and Pearl. He tries to get information from them either by insulting them or promising food for knowledge of where the money is.

John and Pearl are expectedly at his mercy, not very clever in how they keep themselves safe, like when John lies about the location of the money, then tries and fails to run away. The reason they do get away from Harry is by luck. First they lock him in the basement, then narrowly escape on a boat, then find Rachel. She happens to be smart and Harry happens to give her a lie that doesn’t make sense. Luck can be a fickle thing, with the reason he is able to again find them because of their foster sister being sweet talked to by Harry. This is also another case of a woman doing what she’s supposed to, being interested in a holy man, hurting everyone. Taking all this in, the film arguably is criticizing power structures like this where a family has essentially no choice but to trust the patriarch.

To contrast how much control Harry projects over people, notably Willa, Rachel mostly sees him in light. When she fires at him, we see Harry just before he’s hit reasonably clearly and with Rachel standing prepared. All she needed to defeat him was to stand tall and firm. I had wondered why Harry would go in a house with a woman with a gun and also why earlier Rachel would sing with him. Harry may have started singing, and a religious hymn specifically, with the point of getting Rachel in a false sense of security. Rachel might’ve sung back to make him feel she was safer than she was, so she could have an easier time shooting or getting him arrested.

John inadvertently revealing where the money is at the end to the police mirrors the earlier scene of his father making him take an oath to keep it hidden, showing how religion can essentially change to serve any purpose that is needed or be broken entirely. John breaking down when Harry is arrested and later unwilling to testify against him shows an opposition to the brutality of the criminal justice system, of course skewed by his eyes. While John’s father did murder people, what good did it serve to hang him? John in turn can’t handle more killings occurring, especially when Harry’s arrest was so similar to John’s dad’s.

John hitting Harry with the doll, causing the money to spill out, could mean he doesn’t want the trouble the money was giving him and thus wants it out of his life. This rejection of the supposedly good legal system and capital could suggest at least a change for John, perhaps even a good one? He also seemingly rejects life in a populated area, as he witnessed the townsfolk wanting to lynch Harry, showing that a supposedly just society is subject to wanting vengeance. John is now finally with a stable and loving home, wearing clean clothes and enjoying Christmas. One part of the final act that eludes me is why Pearl would drop her doll and hug Harry as if he was her father. Shouldn’t she be afraid of him? This could represent both her and John’s desire for a father figure.

OVERVIEW

The reason why The Night of the Hunter is such a classic is not mainly because of its deeper themes or visual aesthetic, it’s because of the expertly paced noir thriller that is direly suspenseful and intriguing. On top of that, Mitchum’s role is not only well fleshed out, but memorable. The elements that throwback to silent films or biblical references are just icing on the cake for movie nerds like myself.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Review

Batman admittedly looks a little silly here in costume.

The Dark Knight Rises famously makes no sense. Virtually every step of the way there’s a giant stretch in logic or at least believability. This messy tone is established as soon as the first scene. It’s a completely mindless and superfluous action set piece where the big baddie of Bane may as well be a cartoon character. He seems to just exist to be evil. By contrast, the Joker in the last film had clear goals. The mild humor in the dialogue doesn’t do it any favors. Most of the plot beats of this whole story are extremely basic, with little to distinguish it from any other story about a disheartened and defeated hero getting back in the game. The overly witty or comic dialogue just goes to show how little it has to say. Characters can even just say some thought provoking phrases in hopes of getting an emotional response from the audience, sacrificing realism. Admittedly, this was also in the first two films of the series.

The movie is generally better when we actually see Batman, as it typically has the most action that actually forwards the plot. Some of the themes of the series are prevalent, like how Batman may be strong in a lot of ways, but he has serious limitations that can create issues, such as how he distracted the police from Bane. As an extension of this, possibly the best part of this effort is that things get extremely bad and desperate for everyone. One reason The Dark Knight is so good is because of the constant terror that goes on around it. Rises arguably gets even worse for its characters, with you wondering how anyone would ever get out of it.

Christian Bale’s performance as Bruce Wayne is a lot stronger here than in Begins. He is surprisingly out of the spotlight, at points leaving you wondering when he will come back into his own movie. There are some often joked about moments of his silly gravel voice or facial expressions, but you can also feel his fatigue, angst, and struggle to find purpose for himself; which he often tries to mask. The first film in this series asks a lot of Bale by comparison. The actor seems to be best at making himself look different to fit a role. Here, he really does look sickly, though not so much acting like it, seeing as he can do so much fighting. It doesn’t make sense how he could get back to being Batman so easily. Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth pulls some decent drama, though him and Bale clearly struggle with the theatrical lines and Alfred’s eventual absence barely makes an impression on our lead. It is very understandable Alfred would be sick of the reckless actions of the Wayne family.

Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle is almost a parody of underwritten female characters. She looks pretty and functions around Bruce. There’s one scene of her criticizing the power structures Bruce has taken advantage of, but this just seems manufactured to make her seem deep. Of course any kind of criticism of Bruce may as well not be here, considering how the character develops. Hathaway isn’t strictly bad, however. It would be difficult to get much out of this role. Her advocacy for stealing from rich people almost seems like a token effort to fight against claims of these movies being pro-Conservative. Tom Hardy as Bane is solid as a physical presence, though the cheesy or straight up comic dialogue makes him hard to take seriously.

There’s a lot of plot conveniences. If it wasn’t for complete chance, things would go very differently. While some revelations and surprises come, they don’t serve the greater narrative. The movie easily could’ve simply continued where the last movie left off. We’re introduced to the “Dent Act”, which has arguably gotten people unfairly thrown in prison, at least according to Bane. This law, as well as how this affects the prisoners, could be really fascinating. Maybe we really get inside the head of a prisoner? Maybe we see some awkward confrontation between what the public has been told about Dent and Batman vs what is true? At least we get a look at a cop, John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. His arc is one of the better handled here, though he and the returning James Gordon spend a lot of time running around and getting into action set pieces. Speaking of which, the action is noticeably worse than before. The hits are weightless, with a lack of emotions behind them. The shoddiness of the production is so bad that some of the punches by characters obviously don’t hit the other actor. One benefit over the first outfit of the series is that the pacing has improved, with cuts not being nearly as jarring.

SPOILERS

A theme of this movie is people figuring out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. You’d think it would be foolish for Bruce to tell anyone when he does or concerning when someone figures it out on their own. However, that never proves to be any conflict, it only provides a few shocks. Apparently Blake figures out that Bruce is both Batman and didn’t unjustly kill Harvey Dent. What if this gave him some idea as to how corrupt the police system was earlier than it did? If he was supposed to figure that out at the end, why include this big revelation of him figuring everything out so early on? Shouldn’t he be mad at Batman for hiding the truth?

One of the big sins of the movie is after Bruce confronts one of his greatest challenges, he acts basically the same. Sure, it’s entertaining seeing him get in those dire stakes, and the movie also does decent in getting him out in a fair way, but it should still affect his mindset and condition more than they do. The exception to this is him learning to fear again, but that is surrounded by a lot of fighting, as if he’s not getting into serious injuries or facing the same emotional stressors. A lot of this movie feels like retreading, like how the Joker and now Bane let themselves get captured, as that was part of their plan. Imagine if we had something a lot bolder, with the prisoners now-free causing more havoc than they do?

Moments like the football field collapsing, with one person with the ball in hand inadvertently outrunning the explosions is shot as something to be laughed at. Think of a bit in a comedy show where everyone surrounding the main character realizes something or is afflicted with something, while the lead is clueless. The police leaving the dirty place they were trapped in for three months in basically clean clothes and later when a crowd opens fires on them, with only about one casualty, also make the movie laughable. One of the more famous ridiculous scenes is when Batman has very little time to get a bomb away from the city, but he spends precious seconds saying goodbye to everyone.

Bane went out so easily. Why didn’t someone just shoot him in all that time if it was that simple? What was the point of building him up so much if his demise wouldn’t reflect that? Part of what made Bane interesting was that he was unstoppably strong where even Batman would lose a fight to him. Admittedly after training more, Batman simply fights him again and wins. Apparently Bane’s often exposed mask makes him vulnerable, which is unbelievably dumb. Instead of Bruce having to overcome some greater struggle to beat Bane, it was essentially just a matter of him in the first fight not happening to hit his mask or not bringing a gun. When Selina Kyle kills him, we repeat the theme from last film of killing sometimes being necessary.

One of the stronger elements of the story is the theme of the relevance of Batman. It seems it was best for Batman to go away, which in turn leaves Bruce feeling rejected and unable to move on from his problems. As such, he is not afraid to die when the time comes, as that would free him. This is overcome by having to embrace fear in order to escape prison. He arguably hopes to be needed again. The perceived death of Batman at the end represents him finally being able to move on, especially because he now has another female interest, even if they lack chemistry. Some issues with this are that nothing is stopping him from going back to his depressed state afterwards, as the situation apparently reverts to normal, only Bruce is now physically stronger and has an added ally in Selina. Bruce pretending to be killed and presumably starting a new identity implies that Bruce is inseparable from Batman. By contrast, this movie was about Bruce moving on and continuing life without him. Both entities having faked their deaths at the same time would lead people to think Bruce was Batman.

There are many more noted issues with this film. Not to get too deep in them, but some more include us having little reason to trust Miranda. Why not have her be dating Bruce from frame one? John just being an orphan is seemingly how he figured out Batman’s identity. The “Death or Exile” trials are just filler, wasting potential. What if Bruce needs something from someone, such as Gordon, but he is either killed or busy being exiled? Gordon’s exile may as well be cut out due to adding nothing. The hopelessness of the story would be emphasized if a beloved character died, especially if they had some important information they didn’t get to share. Bane’s death doesn’t have anything to do with him or tie into his character. Bruce really should’ve told at least his friends he’s still alive. Why even fake his death? Is there any reason to suggest Bruce and Selina will work together as a couple? They barely got any positive time together.

More notably, the setup of a new hero and Bruce retiring is supposed to be a feel good message, but Bruce should have plenty of reason to worry. Why would Bruce think John Blake will do good with the power he’s been given? Bruce has trusted Ra’s al Ghul, Harvey Dent, and now Miranda in the past, and they’ve all tried to cause chaos. Also, based on the established conflict of whether Bruce should accept he can’t be Batman anymore, the movie doesn’t decide if he should be or not. Him essentially totally saving the day unharmed would suggest he can still be, but him retiring implies he shouldn’t. As such, his arguing with Alfred amounts to less, especially because Bruce already wanted to retire last film.

OVERVIEW

Due to the use of killing enemies, if not by Batman than by his allies, the movies interestingly seem critical of Batman. The daringness to criticize its hero makes for a unique-feeling series, despite other issues. Based on the darker tone of the trilogy and the theme of no black and white characters, ending with some sort of condemnation of Batman would make a lot of sense, so it’s sad this ending doesn’t provide. Mainly because of some decent catharsis for Bruce, with Bale giving a decent performance, this is still better than Batman Begins. The hopelessness is another prime factor. While it is true that a lot of movies have plot holes, and thus it is something that can be forgiven to a degree, The Dark Knight Rises is so littered with them that you cannot even get into the story. I would say “See for Cillian Murphy’s amusing cameo”, but really just skip this, as well as Begins, and watch The Dark Knight!

Gravity (2013) Review

Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone

Gravity is a novelty. Its story and visual look are very unconventional, so on its own it’s interesting due to its advancements in digital effects and unique plot. The film focuses on Sandra Bullock as Dr. Ryan Stone, who is often thrown around and consistently disoriented. She is decent enough as an audience surrogate, though has almost no personality or character traits, which makes the story really fail as a typical movie. If the special effects were really stunning or the drama really thrilling, maybe that would be enough? The lack of development of Stone makes her feel like a video game character, which makes sense when matched with the CGI and fake-looking graphics around her. This makes for a really awkward viewing experience.

Stone doesn’t learn anything or change at all. Not to excuse that, but the movie doesn’t even commit to that, as we get a few moments of vulnerability or backstory for her. These matters, like her daughter having died, don’t functionally contribute anything. That information could be removed or replaced easily. There’s little meaningful stakes, with it often apparent Stone will get in some trouble before moving on. George Clooney as Matt Kowalski is an odd choice for someone to play an astronaut. He does some of his normal quipping and acting like an asshole, sometimes being comic relief. This does lead to one of the main issues with the story, especially when trying to get into it.

Bullock and Clooney are Hollywood actors. They look like Hollywood actors. There’s little sense of “we are seasoned scientists or astronauts getting down to business”. Their lack of emotional depth and understanding of their scientific dialogue makes it feel like two people playing characters. Lesser known actors would’ve been ideal. Perhaps if you showed this movie to someone who didn’t know who Bullock or Clooney were then this would not be an issue?

Some of the directing is solid, with it succeeding in making us feel distress or claustrophobia, which adds to this film working more as an experience to slip into, rather than a proper movie or story. Shots of Ryan trying to relax or something sudden happening draw you in with the use of wide shots or changing the speed of the camera. The opening of the film is also effective. You might expect a movie like this to open on a normal environment that gets tense, like if we saw everyone go to space and then things start going wrong. We get added intensity from starting unfamiliarly. 3D effects however almost always date movies and this is no exception, especially when watching a 2D version of it. Little things can come into focus, as they’re supposed to be 3D.

SPOILERS

The opening just feels like a series of events with little pacing or fluidity. Building tension and establishing relationships would work to make this feel more like a narrative. Everything is just fine before it isn’t. Events occurring seemingly randomly is a frequent issue, such as when Kowalski and Stone are making their way shortly before a jam, wherein Kowalski quickly sacrifices himself. Ryan is afraid of losing him, but we don’t see her traumatized or lonely or anything. She just keeps on her way. You’d think Ryan would be more distressed by everyone having died. Her later imagining Matt is a nice moment that implies she’s holding it in, though we should’ve gotten more. There also isn’t any reason to “hold it in”. The few emotional scenes, such as of Ryan accepting that she will die, aren’t used to let us into her, they are intended to mine easy sympathy for her.

OVERVIEW

People analyze themes in the movie, though they play more as window dressing than as something that feeds into the story. They’re incidental. Still, Gravity is quite short. Some of these sorts of stories want to feel excused to be absurdly lengthy, so it’s appreciated that this one decided to be short enough to keep its charm running throughout, though some just won’t be able to meet the film on its terms and will just be constantly bored.

The Dark Knight (2008) Review

While Batman Begins feels edited by a blender, The Dark Knight virtually corrects that and all its other issues. It still contains some segmented story elements, as if we’re covering multiple issues of a comic that tell one overall story. As such, certain characters are much more prominent in specific segments, though this plays into the general themes of the story and the overall “plan” of the main antagonist, that chaos can come in different ways and come to haunt us in perhaps the one way we are vulnerable.

Heath Ledger as the Joker is wonderfully chaotic and less controllable than it may seem. This even comes through in little moments. He at one point asks for half of the mobs’ money, but he doesn’t even want it just to use it, he wants to cause trouble by making a claim on it. The Joker barely appears in the movie and he’s all the more intimidating for it. This is mirrored early on when he was essentially hiding in plain sight. He often is getting other people to do his bidding. He has many quotable phrases about how fickle people are, which admittedly are trying a bit too hard to be smart. Less would be more with those. We should only be suggested about how the Joker thinks. This also follows on from the problem of exposition, which is still here, but much better managed.

Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne gives a much stronger performance than last film, also going for a less is more approach. He is focused on less, being much more about watching the situation and getting down to business. Thus, this does somewhat suggest that Bale lacked the range to be more complicated, though he really doesn’t need to be here. Him trying to remain stoic while having a slight sense of fear and uncertainty on his face speaks wonders. A big theme of this movie is letting you essentially come to your own conclusion on its events. This is even represented in admittedly one of the weaker scenes of a group of people debating if Batman should turn himself in or not, where the dialogue and actors are a bit too over the top.

Part of what’s so great about the Joker is how he really is a genius. He thinks several steps ahead, with no one else able to keep up. As I’ll discuss in spoilers, this movie is better if you erase Begins, but one positive is that characters like Gary Oldman as James Gordon drop much confidence or assuredness, coming to terms with just how little control they have. This even plays into Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, wherein the film subverts how last installment and many other movies include a hero getting the girl at the end. The situations in this movie are often hopeless, with it hard to imagine how anyone would escape and it thrilling to see what people do. This is complimented by a darker visual look that’s not overpowering. The scene of Batman at the top of a building is particularly stylish, as well as the famous one of the truck.

The different focuses of the movie subtly play into each other and make for escalating tension. The story as a whole is more about showing the full area, focusing less on a specific character. As such, a big character piece on someone like Batman would distract. A lot of this movie feels like a police crime drama that happens to have superhuman elements and more action, being about the situation than anyone. As an example, Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent is focused on more as a symbol than a character. As a character, he is surprisingly uncomplicated.

SPOILERS

The most convoluted part of the movie is Harvey going bad. While there is an attempted explanation of him going crazy and blaming people like Gordon, it’s all just a bit too out of bounds of what we know of him. Maybe there could’ve been some way where Harvey felt the only chance to save the day was to do something that would get innocent people killed, but take fewer risks? What if he advocated for the evacuation ferry with the prisoners to be blown up?

In mostly believable situations, everyone breaks their own rules. There’s often the debate of whether or not to make any given decision, typically because there’s lives at risk. This challenges the idea of a moral code. Batman and the Joker are positioned as polar opposites, as Batman seems to be the least corruptible and most moral, while the Joker is the least moral and only incorruptible as there is nothing to corrupt. The Joker even often puts himself in a position where he could be killed, probably because he doesn’t really care if he is. While the Joker is apprehended eventually, he does “win” on multiple levels.

He achieves his main goal of breaking Harvey Dent, but he also breaks Bruce Wayne in a more subtle way. For starters, it seems Bruce would be malleable when it comes to trying to save Rachel. He clearly cares more about her than Harvey. Beyond the more obvious example of Batman beating the Joker more brutally than was likely necessary, he directly kills Harvey at the end, which is something he was opposed to ever doing and never did before. He’s also symbolically killing his hope of correctly finding a morally upstanding person that can “take his place”, which suggests he won’t ever be able to retire, at least with assuredness the city is in good hands. This effect is a bit dampened by Bruce being responsible for deaths in Batman Begins, even where in the one at the end, he could’ve just as easily had the victim get arrested, though he instead chose not to save them.

Say what you will about Batman, if he wasn’t here everyone would be screwed. The notable example is it seems the Joker was really going to blow up the ferries, with Batman stopping that from happening. Part of how he gets his information is through shady means. The most realistic is his technology that spies on people with their phones, which reflects real life a little too closely. I doubt the movie wants to make a judgment call on this sort of thing being used in the real world, especially because real people are a lot more breakable than someone like the Joker and don’t have the means to cause this much destruction. Batman beating the Joker earlier also shares similarities with police brutality, mirroring people justifying torture for the purpose of getting information.

If Batman had not done lawless things, like breach the privacy of innocent people, things would be worse for the characters. Whether or not such a thing is needed in real life has of course been a big debate. On the other hand, if Batman had not allied himself with the government, namely Harvey, then the criminals and the Joker may not have seen the need to fight back, mainly by killing Rachel. Even when Harvey early on lawlessly interrogates a minion of the Joker, Batman criticizes how this would affect his image more so than it being unethical. Our hero is more than willing to project something fake and be dishonest for the apparent good of society.

Some would argue the real solution was to not put so much faith in Harvey to begin with. Imagine if Bruce retired, then Harvey went nutty? Even if that is correct, doing so did serve a positive purpose. This mirrors how the audience trusting Batman is foolish when he is sometimes blatantly dishonest or self-minded. The Joker simply being an unknown and intimidating threat ruins the idea that anyone here, from Batman to Harvey to Gordon, are as noble as they say. No matter what, it is scary that Gordon and Batman were left with a dramatic amount of power at the end, which they used to deceive, even if they have good intentions or that it may very well be the right answer.

OVERVIEW

Ironically, one reason this movie works so well is that the strongest actor of the previous film, Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth, does almost nothing here, suggesting that we’ve moved beyond the lighthearted and relaxed nature of Batman Begins. Everyone is constantly so busy that there’s no time for fluff. You can imagine that Batman might collapse under stress. With us not seeing that, we reinforce this image of Batman not having fun and instead always working. Some might say it’d be better to give him emotions for the audience to grasp onto, which admittedly may improve the story if done right.

It seems the answer to the question of whether or not it’s good to have a vigilante like Batman is that it is, but only to have a few that know what they’re doing, have the resources, and can be trusted. However, realistically we don’t know who those trustworthy people would even be. Even a genuinely well meaning person might have significant issues that draw them back from being untempted by power. This movie throws its hands and does not claim or show that Batman is this perfect force, just that he is the best of the bunch. That is frankly terrifying seeing as he is so trusted, which only goes to show how often in society sketchy people are trusted. A positive interpretation of Batman is that he is the best a rich and educated person that wants to do this whole thing could be. Someone that wants to fight criminals like this would likely have some sort of issues going on that causes them to justify their behavior. The Dark Knight sews in this inherent issue with Batman in a more believable and narratively fulfilling way than most superhero movies that have attempted such a task.

The Unholy Three (1925) Review

Lon Chaney in the film

The Unholy Three doesn’t relent with captivating performances and interesting drama. Despite this, there are some issues with both. Lon Chaney is consistently intimidating, but sympathetic as “Professor Echo”, a wonderful name. This is exemplified by how masculine and dominating he looks normally, as opposed to when he’s dressed as and pretending to be an old woman. Chaney really sells it as “Mrs. O’Grady”. If he had played an actual old lady, you could imagine no one knowing it was him. As is common for the time, some of the negatives he does are not forgivable, like how little he respects Mae Busch as Rosie O’Grady. Still, the movie could’ve been a lot worse at getting you to root for a villainous person. Chaney’s low moments are humbling to the character and relatable, with the exception of things like the misogyny. His treatment of some, like Rosie, make him impossible to like or support. Echo is colored in interesting ways where in some regards he’s very moral, being against killing people, but in others he’s not.

Rosie’s goals are a little narrow minded and typical of what you’d expect from a woman in a movie written by and about men. There were plenty of opportunities to show her emotions that weren’t taken, though Busch does serviceably with what she has to work with. Harry Earles as Tweedledee is the other really great performance here. He is someone you love to hate and has this sense of bitter energy, like his appearance contrasts or causes a hateful and selfish person. Even in Harry’s earliest scene, his explosive temperament is on display.

Victor McLaglen as Hercules comes off as disappointing in how he is less distinguished and noticeable than the other members of the “Unholy Three”. A few more moments to shine definitely should’ve been given to him, though this element of his character is used as a strength later in the story. He laments how the flexibility of the others, who both use disguises drastically different to how they really are. That makes it easier to escape situations. He is just a normal person and is at a greater risk. Some of his behavior later could be read as a response to this attitude, though this isn’t delved into directly or anymore. For the most part, Hercules just plays off of the more energetic and interesting Echo and Tweedledee. Matt Moore as Hector McDonald is the weakest prominent character, just being a little nervous and awkward.

Despite being a drama, the movie finds time to let our characters have a little fun. It understands that a lot of stuff here, such as Earles dressing like a baby, is entertaining and we want to see him do things. There’s one point where he grabs onto a necklace and doesn’t want to give it back. It’s funny to think Tweedledee was hoping they’d let him keep it. There’s some fun lines like, “If you tip that boob off to who we are, I’ll lay some lilies under your chin!”

The opening of the film is reminiscent of director Tod Browning’s later work Freaks. It features similarly abled people. Browning’s direction is beautiful in many shots, like when the main trio come together to become “The Unholy Three”. Focus on their shadows shows how nefarious what they’re doing is. It is a little silly they’d name themselves at all, as that makes them seem like comic book villains. That name also overemphasizes how bad they are. “Look at us, we’re sooo against God!”

SPOILERS

Echo stopping Hercules from letting a detective in because Tweedledee is smoking while dressed as a baby is a funny bit. There’s really great suspense when everyone is really nervous about whether the detective will discover the necklace they stole. You do genuinely feel for Hector when Rosie says she doesn’t love him, and later when she says she actually does. Why would Rosie tell the Unholy Three she has a plan for them? Obviously they would try to stop her. It’s a shame we didn’t get to see much of how Rosie feels about being kidnapped and essentially forced to leave her boyfriend. She takes it all lighter than you’d think.

Echo giving his voice to Hector in the courtroom is pretty silly, but such a well filmed and interesting idea as to be an enjoyable sequence and not sink the movie’s engagement. Hercules and Tweedledee’s fates are far too predictable. They turn on each other, then get killed for being so evil. Boring! It’s a shame this wasn’t tied to Hercules’ resentment at not having a disguise. It is good that he strangles Tweedledee to death. He utilizes his two main attributes, lacking the morals of Echo and the obvious brute strength over Tweedledee. The most interesting part of this scene, though not for the right reason, is Hercules’ ridiculous and comical facial expression. Busch’s face watching this is even more over the top and seems destined to be featured in a gif. Outside of this scene, we get Echo’s look of shame, sadness, and contentment around the end. They are strong highlights here, letting you read so much of the character off of Chaney’s face. The music and cinematic lighting make for a powerful climax in the courtroom.

Echo basically did whatever he could to stop Rosie from being with Hector, being willing to ruin Hector’s life, then we’re supposed to feel sorry for Echo when Rosie leaves him? Why would Rosie have any fondness for Echo? At the end, she seems really happy with him and a little content with potentially spending her life with him, though the reason Hector got arrested in the first place was because of Echo. She should hate him. If the movie wanted him to be likable, why not have him be unknowing of Hector getting framed, then against the plan when he finds out? If they wanted to keep Echo gray, why not have it so he’s very reluctant to this idea being proposed by his accomplices, but he’s threatened by them in some way, so he decides to go with this instead of taking personal risk?

OVERVIEW

This movie would make more sense in sound, so you could better appreciate things like the ventriloquism. Appropriately, this movie was remade in sound and is Lon Chaney’s only talkie. The Unholy Three successfully balances many tones, from comedy to drama to tragedy. The ending wraps this all up nicely and emphasizes the whole flick as a powerful and moving experience, despite some issues. “That’s all there is to life, friends… a little laughter… a little tear~”

The Most Dangerous Game (1932) Review

Doctor Who template

At least by modern standards, The Most Dangerous Game is hard to take seriously. Its drama is heavy handed, with strong music overemphasizing big moments, a comically villainous antagonist, and a strong jawed male lead. Joel McCrea as Bob Rainsford gets some unintentional laughs in how he never seems to show fear or even emote. It’s as if McCrea wanted to look good, so insisted his character have almost no “faults” by some strange standard. Still, off of the thrills and scope of the scenes in the jungle, the movie is hard not to love. Even the scenes indoors or other settings look really creepy and intimidating, creating a very striking scenery. The directing adds to this, with some intense shots, like someone in the background watching another in the foreground, which creates a sense of dread. There’s also a lot of darkly lit closeups.

Fay Wray as Eve Trowbridge works as someone for Bob to work off of, but lacks much character or substance. If this story was a book, she could be naturally replaced with us hearing thoughts in Bob’s head. She covers some stereotypes of how women typically are in these movies, but she doesn’t get stuck in those too badly. She has a few highlights. Leslie Banks as Count Zaroff can never be taken seriously, always a mustache twirler. He often overacts his scenes. The character is written reasonably well, with his self-centered obsession with experiencing thrills and being a destined hunter playing into his decisions often. He says his father said his hand was “made for the trigger”. Some of the lesser moments are scarier, like when he asks one of his minions to smile. The smile looks very unnatural.

The final act is decent, but goes into some dull directions of essentially everyone running around a lot. It sometimes does pack in some excitement, but that’s not very consistent. Before that final act, there’s too much setting up the characters, which doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. Throughout, there are scenes like Eve calling Bob over silently while Zaroff plays the piano and other bits that at least serve to give the actors slightly more range and things to do that are pleasant to look at. The movie is another overwhelmingly dull.

SPOILERS

There’s a great early scene of screaming and panic befalling those on the ship, with graphic shots of bodies hitting the water and people being eaten by sharks, all filmed with quick cuts and peak intensity. We see a lot of people die horrible deaths. This is all the more terrifying because everyone seems really afraid and as minor characters, they don’t have plot armor. When Bob and Eve are being hunted later, they don’t seem that afraid. The intense brutality of this all is minimized by Bob. Right before all this happens, he says he’s a hunter and not prey and nothing will ever change that, being really oversold foreshadowing.

When someone Bob is on a piece of wreckage with is pulled down by a shark, he barely tries to help them and doesn’t even really seem to care. He later says that his “best friends” were killed on the boat, however he never seems traumatized or shaken by any of it. Based on how he acts, you’d think at worst maybe his friend’s friend died unfortunately and he was just hearing about it, instead of seeing people die in front of him as they scream. When a very worried Eve tells Bob that Zaroff has been keeping her and her brother from leaving, Bob says that maybe he enjoys their company, like what she’s saying isn’t terrifying in its implications. Eve later telling her brother to get an early night, as if concerned Zaroff will do something bad, is a really chilling moment.

Wray does a pretty good job when her character discovers her brother is dead. It’s hard for someone that’s never experienced that to know how someone would act, but it is believable what happens, where she seemingly has a second of disbelief, then starts raising her voice and hitting Zaroff, then she’s taken away by force and begins screaming. Her yelling as she leaves the room is a chilling moment and a highlight of this adventure. When we next see her, she’s distracted by many other things, so it makes sense she might be more focused on her own and Bob’s safety, than her brother’s death. It is a shame that at no point after she is taken away screaming does she mention her brother. When she’s on the boat at the end, why not show her crying over that?

When Bob and Eve are taken into the jungle, Bob says they’ll win, Eve says the others didn’t, then Bob raises his voice with, “We will!” This is a great point that finally shows some insecurity from the lead. He doesn’t seem confident that they will, but it makes sense he’d want to at least try to believe it. Eve later foolishly almost steps on a tripwire that would’ve gotten her killed and she knew about. When that tripwire plan fails, as it was likely to, it appears the leads had no backup plan on how to get Zaroff. Zaroff shooting an arrow right beside Bob and talking to him as Bob silently listens is another great scene.

At one point, Eve starts running away, which doesn’t seem terribly like her. There’s no reason to get away at that moment and Bob obviously would be someone she should stick with, as he knows what he’s doing. The structure of the game itself is a little dull. Instead of stakes escalating, a lot of time is spent on things being tried, then just failing. This problem is eventually corrected when the baddies start getting closer and closer, then eventually it seems Zaroff really does kill Bob. It’s also nice that Bob and Eve are forced down a path that Zaroff’s other victims were killed at, despite originally making a point to avoid it.

It would’ve been a shame if Bob had done everything you’d expect an average person to do, then survive. He does do some things differently, namely jump into the waterfall. It makes me wonder if the only reason Bob was written to be a talented hunter was so that that could be used to explain how he would manage to survive when no one else before him did. The waterfall fight is also really intense. Zaroff playing the piano, only for Bob to unexpectedly and quietly walk in is a tense and sharply directed moment. Bob does manage to really look like a badass by seeming so composed and intelligent, instead of before where he just seemed unable to emote. “You have beaten me!” “Not yet.” is a great line.

Zaroff seems to be lacking in principle. As per his word, he should’ve let Bob go, but he was still trying to kill him at the end, probably because Bob might tell the authorities about him. That weakens some moments where he empowers Bob, such as by giving him a knife, as he wants to be fair. While him saying he’s principled is all well and good, why not have a twist where he proves he’s not in a more dramatic and apparent way? He says he won’t kill Eve, but what if at one point he tries to and is stopped by Bob, thus giving Eve a real reason to be afraid and the both of them to doubt they’d be allowed to get off the island even if they won the game?

Zaroff ultimately suffers a lame death, being mostly taken out by being stabbed by an arrow, then falling into his dogs. Doubly foolish is he seems to have not intended to actually let Bob leave, but he does give him a key and instructions on how to escape. The last shot of Bob and Eve driving off into the distance is a pretty one. It is a novelty that they never explicitly end up together romantically.

OVERVIEW

The Most Dangerous Game is frankly very silly. Still, it’s so much fun that it’s hard not to love for how wacky it can be, while having genuinely beautiful cinematography and direction.

The Invisible Ray (1936) Review

Karloff and Lugosi in the film

The Invisible Ray has the story of a corny b-movie, but does offer some quality elements that make it more interesting. The acting is relatively strong, especially when it comes to Boris Karloff as Dr. Janos Rukh and Bela Lugosi as Dr. Felix Benet’s complicated relationship. Something that made the first half of the movie reasonably strong is that while everyone has their strong opinions on each other, they put that aside for the sake of maturity and also helping others. These sorts of stories usually turn towards the characters hating each other, so it would be frankly novel to have otherwise. The second half plays way too much into old tropes. The weakest and most hammy moments are in the second half, though not exclusive to it.

Another big issue is Frances Drake as Diana, who is lacking in much characterization, more being a focal point for the men. Her marriage to Rukh and involvement with the various characters could’ve been used to emphasize certain points about the story, mainly that some don’t like or understand Rukh, but obviously she does to some degree, or else she wouldn’t have married him. Rukh’s mother, played by Violet Kemble Cooper, essentially fills the role of being someone that seems to relate and appreciate Janos Rukh. If the mother had not been a character and instead her scenes reworked to be for Diana, especially the mother’s last in the movie, the scene and Diana herself would arguably be more poignant and meaningful.

The other main players seem like they are supposed to have more relevance, but ultimately amount to very little. Frank Lawton as Ronald Drake is essentially just eye candy that doesn’t have a presence in the same way female characters in these sorts of movies often are. Karloff and Lugosi, however, have great chemistry and make the movie. You can tell their characters have strong opinions on each other, even when they first appear in the movie together. It would’ve been nice to learn more about them, though that’s not necessary. They both have the same desire to help people and use their scientific minds. As events occur, their different views manifest in their own ways. Sometimes that means some cheesy shlock, but more often than not they have an uncomfortable tolerance of the situation. Also, it’s fun seeing Bela be a good guy.

The opening text is pretty silly, basically trying to say the technology in this movie could exist one day. There’s an amusing shot where Diana walks across a hallway as dramatic music plays. Possibly the best scene in the film is when Rukh describes the solar system as we see shots of the solar system and those watching it. The editing does wonders to make things feel otherworldly and like Rukh has really been onto something. The scene oozes atmosphere and intrigue. The movie doesn’t have much to do with space, which does let this moment down a bit.

SPOILERS

Rukh has random moments that foreshadow his villainy, even before he gets poisoned. Rukh’s madness is shown (briefly after being poisoned) when he terrorizes some Africans in order to get them to help him. He later kills a dog, albeit by accident. When Diana goes to see Rukh after he knows he can kill people with a touch, he’s such a jerk to her and acts like nothing is wrong. Why be so rude? Rukh and Benet are later way too comfortable being close to each other. For all they know, what Rukh has got could be transmissible through breath or if Benet touches something Rukh just did. After Benet cures Rukh, he touches him. How does he know he isn’t getting something dangerous on him? He wouldn’t know how good the anecdote is. Rukh should’ve immediately quarantined and not interacted with people unless done very safely.

Rukh’s turn to murder is foreshadowed subtly when he is enraged that Benet has shown some of what they learned to others, so the dangerous power wouldn’t all be in Rukh’s hands. He was right. Rukh shouldn’t be the only one with that control. Karloff is a little too hammy when he learns Diana is leaving him. Despite that weak spot, minutes later we get one of Rukh’s last moments of humanity and normalcy when he cures his mother’s blindness. Janos looks genuinely shocked and joyous that he helped her. His mother doesn’t forget this is a horror, and is afraid. It’s a great scene with both giving great performances.

When Rukh starts his killing, Benet becomes way too much of an idiot. Hilariously, he drops a negative that proves Rukh killed someone. The scene is so clumsy you could about believe Lugosi dropped it by accident. Instead of immediately reporting Rukh, he seems to do nothing. Rukh is then able to take another victim’s life. Benet and Drake’s plan to get Rukh is even more absurd. It endangers them, Diana, and plenty of innocent people. They know Rukh has gone nuts, so would they really know he would not kill someone uninvolved? Benet at one point nonchalantly says that anyone that touches Rukh dies. If one didn’t know conventions of this era of cinema, you might think Benet was actually a villain who wanted people to die, not that that is the case.

Rukh is able to sneak into an event by convincing a professor to go into a dark alley and take a sip of a drink. You’d think the guy wouldn’t have been so foolish. When Rukh and Benet see each other later, both talk instead of immediately going to kill the other. Why wait when Rukh just wants Benet to die and Benet has to consider the safety of the others? In fact, Rukh later has the opportunity to kill Diana and would’ve if he hadn’t decided not to. The two have a bizarrely casual conversation. Rukh seems to be trying to convince Benet of why he deserves to die instead of just doing it. He then says, “It will be easiest just to shake hands.” Benet understandably goes for his gun, but did Rukh think Benet would just let himself be murdered for no reason?

Later, Drake is weirdly casual about the fact a killer is after him and his wife and he could very well end up dying. Diana later doesn’t seem to try very hard to stop Rukh from killing her new husband. Do Drake and Diana even like each other? Rukh’s mother destroying the cure to Janos’ poison and thus causing him to kill himself is a powerful moment that plays on their scenes throughout. It’s tragic she would have to do that, but it makes sense because she knows what he’s been doing. Still, Rukh’s actual death and the ending as a whole play too much into being over the top and too dramatic. While you can imagine why the mother would’ve killed him, it’s a shame we didn’t get much on how she’d take something so morbid. Their relationship was so touching in the movie, it’s a shame that wasn’t concluded in the last moments or at all, which would’ve made for a sharp ending.

OVERVIEW

The Invisible Ray is a lot of fun, but don’t take it too seriously. The third act drops way too much of what was working about the film.

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.