Change Your Image
jeremyfrydman
Reviews
Better Call Saul: Fun and Games (2022)
"and then i go and spoil it all by saying somethin' stupid like i love you..."
The fact that Jimmy and Kim finally, FINALLY, were able to say "I love you" to each other and that was the thing that broke them apart... my god this show is so good, SO GOOD, it's too good.
This episode broke me. It's the show at its best. This is maybe my favourite episode in the entirety of the show. These writers... they're too good.
This show goes beyond being a great TV show, it's a work of art. It's perfect.
Bravo to the entire BCS team. Give Rhea and Bob their Emmy's, like now.
Eternals (2021)
Good Elements... But Lackluster
It's far better than I thought it would be, to call this worse than Ant-Man and The Wasp is braindead.
The CGI is great, some performances are really good (not you Selma Hayek), the story had a few clever elements, the representation is great, deserved and needed, I think the costumes look great and Zhao did a good job directing.
Bryan Tyree Henry was the best part of the movie, his character was dope and I wish they did more with him and that he had more screen time.
Richard Madden (aka worse but sexy Homelander) and Gemma Chan were the standouts here, each elevating their material even when it becomes ridiculous and crazy.
Ok the downside is that this movie really has no idea what it wants to be. It's tone completely changes constantly, some characters just turn evil and then good again, oh and some literally just leave lol.
It wants to have the grandeur of a world ending threat that's so unbelievably impossible for the characters to solve that they're forced in their third act to come up with this ridiculously easy and stupid plan that is right out of a Power Rangers movie.
The villains are boring, forgettable and underdeveloped, plus the CGI for the lead deviant is horrendous. The worst part about this is that the movie knows how bad the villain is because then, you know, the main cast of characters basically become the villains themselves.
Some performances are pretty dry, especially from Salma Hayek who looks so miserable to be there, it really sucks. Angelina Jolie's character is cool but her performance kinda lacks, she's a completely forgettable character that does and achieves very little.
Kumil Nanjiani's character also just leaves and does nothing in the third act and then gets credit.
One characters name is literally Sprite lmao, like the soft drink.
The pacing is kinda all over the place, the movie is pretty boring, which is weird for a Chloe Zhao film, since Nomadland flows so beautifully.
Look, it was better than I thought it would be, it has nice moments but overall it's kind of a giant mess.
Chloe Zhao did the best she could but yeah it was like "eh", it's no 'The Suicide Squad' 😎
Oh and also they reference DC characters in the movie??? Wtf.
Twin Peaks: The Return: Part 16 (2017)
Audrey's Dance Analysis
"Isn't it too dreamy..."
In the pilot episode of Twin Peaks, we are introduced to Audrey Horne. Audrey goes through a pretty simple character arc over the original series, she goes from being a self-loving, cold-hearted, scheming daddy's girl to becoming an activist through civil disobedience.
Audrey is a character in love with herself who over-time realises there are more important things in life to fight for.
This idea of Audrey gaining her emancipation is first established after Audrey finds out that Ben Horne, (her father), had sex on numerous occasions with Laura Palmer during her time working as a prostitute at One-Eyed Jacks, a brothel that Audrey also later discovers Ben owns. Through this Audrey learns and becomes ashamed of her bloodline and rebels against them.
However, when you think about Audrey's character, her ark and finding of her emancipation is likely not what first comes to mind, is it?
The moment audiences alike fell in love with Audrey Horne is universal, her dance in episode 2 of season 1. But why is this moment so undeniably powerful? It's simple, in this scene we learn everything about Audrey's character. The music playing on the jukebox (composed by Angelo Badalamenti) has a deep effect on Audrey. "God, I love this music," she tells Donna, adding, "Isn't it too dreamy?" She gets up and slowly dances (more like swaying), lost in the beautifully woozy melody, here this character we've only really seen cold-hearted, has an innocence and real beauty to her. The customers at the RR Diner look at Audrey with pessimism but she doesn't care, it's almost as if she gets thrilled by it. Not just the dance reveals truths about Audrey, but her theme does too. The soft, jazzy, swing says so much about the person Audrey is, it's fitting this piece of music follows her around for the entire series. The rhythm is calm and seductive much like Audrey in the earlier seasons but it's also got this calm gentle sense to the tune. Audrey is one of the two characters (the other being Laura Palmer) to have a theme in Twin Peaks. The creative team, mainly Lynch and Badalamenti knew this theme was essential for the audience to connect with Audrey's character.
With Twin Peaks The Return, David Lynch brings Audrey Horne back to the spotlight and gives her character the conclusion that is not just fitting for the themes of The Return, but also for Audrey.
In Part 12 of The Return, we are finally introduced to Audrey again. She is a bored housewife unhappily married to a man named Charlie. Throughout episodes 12-15 we see Audrey argue with Charlie to take her to The Roadhouse where her lover Billy is waiting for her. Finally, in Part 16 Audrey arrives at The Roadhouse. The MC announces "Audrey's Dance" will be the next act and in an act of pure surrealism, the audience moves into a perfect circle to watch Audrey perform her classic dance as her theme plays in the background. However, a Roadhouse patron starts a fight interrupting her dance and in fright, Audrey runs to Charlie and yells to "get me outta here" only to wake up to realise that she is in some sort of delusion.
Audrey's dance in part 16 is the most terrifying realisation I've ever experienced in a film or series. Having to contemplate your reality and mindset in a setting you've been so familiar with and feel so welcome in is terrifying. Is everything Audrey has seen a dream? Is the entirety of the series Audrey's dream? Do we live inside a dream?
Lynch here openly breaks the fourth wall
Many people have come to the conclusion that Audrey is actually just trapped in the black lodge and that is why we've seen these scenes. This theory mainly comes for two reasons the first being that when the MC announces "Audrey's Dance" whooshing noises are heard therefore identifying that lodge spirits are at work and also that when she's transported to the white void, the classic Twin Peaks electricity can be heard. Secondly, after we cut to black the credits play Audrey's classic theme in reverse as to symbolize that she is in the black lodge. Further, it's an out-there theory but the MC does look and dress a whole lot like Jimmy Scott's character in the season 2 finale in that sings Sycamore Trees in the black lodge, perhaps this character was meant to be played by Scott if it wasn't for his death in 2014? I'm not sure, but it's interesting to think about it nonetheless. However, whether he is or isn't Jimmy Scott's character I am going to assume that the MC is a lodge entity. However, I don't necessarily believe that Audrey is in the black lodge.
Just because Audrey sees black lodge characters and hears noises doesn't necessarily mean she is in the Black Lodge. Not only would it not make any sense for her to be there seeing as she would've had to give birth to Richard Horne but it would also undermine what Lynch is trying to say here. Agent Cooper has visited and seen black lodge characters in numerous dreams, as has Laura Palmer, why can't Audrey? Lynch wouldn't be doing this all for a cheap "ha, she's here" reveal, if Audrey was in the black lodge, Lynch would've said as much. I think what Lynch is doing here is making a comparison to the theme he brought earlier in part 14 with Gordon Cole's dream. Who is the dreamer? And with this scene, it becomes apparent who the dreamer is, we are. Just like Audrey. We delude our own minds in our own constructs. This is existentialism 101 people.
In Audrey's dream, she is a bored housewife married to a short chubby unflattering looking man who she is only with really for what it seems to be, money and prestige and she is searching for an escape from this boring life, a strong new lover found at a hip club. Here Charlie and Billy represent the present (Charlie) and the past (Billy).
Audrey is obsessed with how people perceive her in The Return, she seems embarrassed whenever she is with Charlie (her present, real-life), she years to return to the past and relive those iconic moments that made people fall in love with her and she does. Audrey dances and people watch just as they did 25 years prior, they admire her beauty, her confidence, her stride but this time instead of fading to black she's interrupted by an act of violence. Almost in an act of desperation Audrey runs up to Charlie and tells him to get her out of these delusions, here Audrey returns to what is her real life, she escapes her dream.
Now to answer the question of where she is, the honest answer is that I don't have the slightest idea. I think likely choices are in a mental institute or the white lodge but it doesn't matter. Audrey's story shouldn't be reduced to a "SHE'S BEEN HERE THE WHOLE TIME" kind of story, if Audrey's location mattered, Lynch would've told us, as many people may not believe, Lynch isn't actually trying to confuse you. Lynch is showing a woman's struggle and yearning for the past, of course, the idea of lodge characters being at play during her dream is an absolute possibility, however, I think if any lodge entities are involved in this story it would be white lodge characters we haven't met yet. We know she is dreaming and that is enough to understand the significance of this moment.
In finality, Audrey's dance at the end of part 16 is a beautiful yet somewhat depressing send off to Audrey's character that continues to amaze me every time I watch it.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
"It'll be just like in the movies..."
People often needlessly and falsely associate David Lynch with mindless and impossible to understand films. This same belief has in many ways been associated with Mulholland Drive his 2001 film that was greeted with both critical and commercial success, but a sort of stigma has been attached to Mulholland Drive that I feel is absolutely needless and discredits Lynch's masterpiece as something incomprehensible, which it certainly isn't.
The films I appreciate the most are movies which at surface value, seem like a certain thing, but if you really want to and care enough to dig in and investigate the picture you will find that the film means a completely different thing. So in the case of Mulholland Drive, the story seems pretty simple on surface level. An actress dreams about living a Hollywood fantasy with her lover who she hired in the real world to be murdered only to wake up out of her delusion and see the real world.
Which, no doubt, is exactly what the film is about, on surface level. But if you look deeper you will find what the film is really about, the struggles of female actors in a Hollywood system that doesn't value them. A system that treats them like objects, tools to look over, only there to look at and forget as time goes on. This is seen with Diane (Naomi Watts) who has made it to the top of Hollywood through sexual favours and espionage. So of course, in Diane's dream, she's the all-too lucky, super talented, Hollywood actress who has a famous Aunt and an apartment. Everyone adores her, everyone appreciates her, she's living the Hollywood dream.
But her dream is flawed, just like Dianne herself, even when still inside her own dream does Dianne deludes herself and hide away from the truth. This can best be seen with, Camilla Rhodes (Laura Harring) who in Diane's dream takes the name Rita after famous old Hollywood actress Rita Hayworth. The Hollywood press coined the term "The Love Goddess" to describe Hayworth after she had become the most glamorous screen idol of the 1940s. Camilla in real life is the shining example of the casting couch actress. She will do whatever it takes to stay on top, whether it's leading on Dianne and faking a love with her or sleeping with the famous film director Adam Kesher (Justin Theroux), kind of like the real Rita Hayworth who is also famous for being married to 5 film directors including the great Orson Wells. In the real world, after being infuriated seeing Camilla with Adam, Dianne orders a hit to kill Chamila and we follow Dianne's dream after the night she ordered the hit for most of the film. So of course in Dianne's dream, "Rita" is the helpless woman in trouble, so Dianne can swoop in and be the hero and as Dianne starts waking up to reality her dream begins to crack until Camilla is just as she appears in the real world.
Dianne also imagines Camilla Rhodes' new lover Adam Kesher as the pathetic Hollywood director who's life is falling apart and only really cares about money. But, this couldn't be further from the truth as seen at the end of the film. Adam is living the life, he's at the top of the Hollywood Hills with the Cowboy (Monty Montgomery) and Camilla. He's making films and living the real Hollywood dream. Contrastly, Dianne is, if not more, broken than Adam's dream counterpart. She's struggling with lovers, she can't get work unless she sucks up to the system and she believes she is most definitely past her prime, she will be forgotten and like Adam's dream counterpart, she's terrified of that. So Dianne has embued the things she hates most about herself into the man she hates the most.
Mulholland Drive has incredibly similar elements to Lynch's other works, particularly Twin Peaks and it's follow-up film Fire Walk With Me and the third season of Twin Peaks (Twin Peaks: The Return) has several creative similarities with Mulholland Drive. The main similarity between these two pieces of media is that both have an incredibly dream-like persona over them both. I think the line that is most fitting to describe Mulholland Drive is actually found in a Log Lady intro for Twin Peaks Season 2 Episode 1 'May The Giant Be With You'.
"Why are some things kept from our vision? Is life a puzzle? I am filled with questions. Sometimes my questions are answered. In my heart, I can tell if the answer is correct. I am my own judge. In a dream, are all the characters really you? Different aspects of you? Do answers come in dreams?"
With that quote, I am going to end this review. Mulholland Drive is one of my favourite films of all time and the more I think about it the more I absolutely adore its many little nuances and ideas. David Lynch is indeed an artist and the rumours of a future Lynch project in the future better be true because I want the luxury of seeing a David Lynch film in a theatre for the first time.
Dolor y gloria (2019)
Salvador Is Me, Salvador Is You, Salvador Is Almodovar
I don't like to say that any film is a masterpiece but there is really no other way to describe Pedro Almodóvar's 2019 film Pain and Glory other than as a masterpiece. Pain and Glory follows Salvador Mallo, a director that is forced to confront his past when he is asked to present his film alongside an old rival. Pain and Glory is one of the most powerful and thought-provoking films you will ever see. Through its richly detailed and immaculate story, it delivers its messages about life and regret in an authentic manner that doesn't seem pretentious or overly 'intellectual' in any way. It's simply telling a human story about a man and his difficult past.
The direction and writing are superb. Of course, it's almost impossible for a filmmaker to make a film about a filmmaker for it not to be autobiographical in any way. Almodóvar injects himself, his unique personality and his many thoughts ingeniously into Salvador Mallo. This film takes you on a gripping and highly personal journey. When you make a film this personal, it shows that you really respect your audience, something that's lost in today's filmmaking world. Almodóvar doesn't question your intellect, he puts big ideas and big themes in front of you and allows you to interpret the messages as you wish. He doesn't put answers in your face, he sprinkles them throughout the runtime and lets you put the story together. Subsequent viewings of this film will only make you appreciate the hidden gems and small foreshadowing in this film more, that is something that has been overused in today's filmmaking world, but Almodóvar uses it to perfection.
The thing that has been discussed most about the picture is Antonio Banderas who plays the titular character and Almodóvar's film counterpart, Salvador Mallo. Banderas gives one of the most genuine and reflective performances you will ever see. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen throughout the duration of the movie. What I think is so phenomenal about the performance by Banderas is how he plays his little moments, whether he was delivering a monologue, having a conversation or even just sleeping, he was gripping. The way he postures himself, the tone in which he delivers lines, the way he reads, the way he walks, it's just so human. Salvador is no doubt a quiet and reflective character, this film could have been extremely boring if in the hands of a less qualified filmmaker. Banderas manages to make this role more than an immersive experience and turns it into a respectful one. While watching Banderas in these quiet scenes you can't help but think like him and connect with him.
I personally see myself so much in Salvador Mallo, there are so many small elements about my personality, style and taste that I see inside of him. His character almost seemed like a terrifying reminder of the man I could turn into in the future and genuinely made me reflect on my life and my choices. I have never in my life connected with a film character that much, I'm a person who doesn't really like or feel comfortable to share my personal problems with the world. The part of myself I project to the world is my creative and artistic side, the part of my life I wish to be associated with and remembered by, much like Salvador. Pain and Glory taught me how to incorporate my life into my art, and while it may not be public, I've written and made numerous projects detailing my struggles into artistic pieces of literature, films and poetry.
In finality, Pain and Glory is one of the most brilliant and memorable films I've ever seen. Antonio Banderas delivers one of the greatest and most human performances I've ever and probably will ever see and the direction by Pedro Almodóvar is some of the best and most personal this decade. All of these factors contribute to one of the calmest, most reflective, upbeat and inspiring films, which will be remembered for years to come and a film which I can honestly say is a modern-day masterpiece which many will appreciate.
Batman: The Long Halloween, Part Two (2021)
I'm of two minds about this film...
"I believe in Harvey Dent" - Batman The Long Halloween written by Jeph Loeb
I was waiting till I could watch parts one and two together to get the best experience and to judge them as a piece.
This first part of my review I'll leave with no spoilers and I'll explain my history with The Long Halloween.
In year 5 when I was 11, I first remember reading The Long Halloween in my school library. I remember distinctly that it was during year 5 because I chose to do my book report on The Long Haloween.
Obviously, being 11, what really drew me into the graphic novel was its artwork. I can still clearly remember drooling over Poison Ivy's thin black and green leaves covering a corrupted Bruce Wayne, The Joker's devilishly curved smile, The Riddler's skinny green suit, Batman's bulging muscles and Two Face's purple scars.
I'm sure I re-read The Long Halloween again when I was older but the only part of the book I seemed to remember was its ending and all the Joker scenes.
The biggest drawback I have of this set of films is its animation. With such gorgeous artistry as your source, it seems odd to me how cheap and flat both films look. The animation isn't terrible by all means but it could've been much better. My biggest complaint would be not taking Joker's incredible design from the graphic novel and instead, watering it down and subsequently making him look much less scary. Also, like Joker, Catwoman's design is pretty bad too, she isn't wearing her purple suit with the super-wide cat ears from the comic which is a shame because it's pretty memorable and would've made this Catwoman stand out from the many others we've seen in other Batman animated films.
As for telling a compelling story both films succeeded. I was really engaged throughout the entire story and the character arcs felt very complete. The changes made to the film aren't terrible since they give the story more closure, but, it is missing the ambiguous, dark, iconic ending that even I still remembered from a young age.
Harvey Dent's arc and natural transformation into Two-Face is handled with care and with patience a critique I had of Nolan's The Dark Knight where his transformation felt way too forced. The Long Halloween is most famous for being the best Two-Face origin story which I was reminded of watching these movies. I really loved what they did here and while Two-Face was already one of my favourite Batman villains these movies reminded me a lot of how great this character is.
With him being my favourite Batman rogue, I was disappointed to see The Riddler be completely cut from the films, but, he's just a tool in the greater picture of things so cutting him didn't really change the story I guess.
I also love how they depicted Bruce Wayne here, Bruce's inner turmoil, his longings, his pain, it all felt incredibly genuine. Bruce's discomfort with his father's decisions is my favourite aspect of the story.
Before I get into my thoughts on the changed ending, which includes spoilers, I want to say that to everyone reading this who hasn't seen the films, I do recommend you give them a watch, they're flawed sure, but especially if you haven't read the source material it's one of Batman's greatest stories brought to the screen with care and respect.
Alright now into my thoughts on the ending.
SPOILERS
DC Animation loves to do the old bait and switch ending where they change the classic comic twist so the audience whos familiar with the source material won't see it coming. They did it in Batman Gotham By Gaslight, Batman Hush and they did it here too.
Well... actually... they technically didn't. See, the holiday murderer is still revealed to be Gilda Dent but she commits the murders for a completely different reason.
In the comic, she did it to help her husband because she believes that Harvey needed the help and here she did it because she was still in love with the son of Carmine Falcone, Alberto.
Unlike the other two examples I mentioned earlier, I don't think this change hurt the story at all. It makes sense and gives the story much more closure.
However, the comic ending to me is still far superior because of its loose ends. Batman and Gordon think they solved the mystery but the real perpetrator gets away scot-free, because it doesn't matter. It's a perfect and thematic ending that works so well.
Here, Batman solves the mystery and goes to talk to Gilda and the famous narration at the end of the comic is directed at the listening Batman instead of being a soliloquy.
Batman lets her go free which works great as an ending to his character arc and friendship with Harvey but, personally, I think it's more effective if Bruce truly believes that another of his friends is long gone and revealing that Gilda is the holiday killer gives a slim hope that we all can still believe in Harvey Dent.
Anyway, that's my thoughts on these two films. I personally enjoyed the first part a little more than the second, but yeah, thank you so much for reading guys. Take care everyone!
Léon Morin, prêtre (1961)
An Unorthodox Melville Masterpiece
"I will convert the nations..."
Picture me, feeling paralysed, unable to move as the lights came back on in the theatre.
The cold, bleak, all too real ending hit way too deep.
Léon Morin, Priest was my most anticipated film to watch during the Melville retrospective as I had purposefully held off on watching it for months to save watching it for the first time in theatres.
To be completely honest, I had zero idea what this film was about, from the title, I came with the preconception that it was about Léon. But really, we are guided through Melville's unconditional world through the eyes of Barny, played beautifully by Emmanuelle Riva.
We are greeted to Barny as she attempts to hide her child, half-Jewish, during the Italian occupation of France. With a few mothers, she goes to baptise her daughter at the church.
Shortly after, we learn of Barny's atheist beliefs. Trying to playfully mock the church, she ends up in a confession with Father Léon Morin (Jean-Paul Belmondo), after assuming from his name that he grew up poor and would be an easier target than a highly educated higher-class priest.
But there's something about Léon that's just so different than any other depiction of a priest I've ever seen in a film. Barny becomes drawn into Léon and set along the backdrop of WWII they become friends. Barny comes up to his dorm after finishing a lent book and they bicker and debate about atheism, religion, homosexuality and the war.
Barny starts to draw sexual affection towards a woman in her office, but as she talks with Morin it seems as if her affection toward this woman depreciates.
She opens up to Morin about her homosexuality asking what to do. He is quick to denounce it stating how there are no men around due to the war and Barny simply obsessed over a woman to fill her crippling loneliness.
During one of their conversations after a doorbell rings, Léon leaves to provide shelter in the church for some, presumably Jewish, fugitives. This is such unorthodox behaviour for, let alone a man, but a priest at the time.
It feels as if Léon doesn't even view himself as a person sometimes, he's merely a vessel for God's will, but then at the same time, he can be so handsy and strangely emotional.
When one of her friends comments that Léon is very "handsome" Barny thinks to herself and realises... yeah, he is handsome. Léon is an objectively beautiful man and it made me as an audience member wonder if Barny truly converts to Christianity because she wants to or out of some way to validate herself in the eyes of Léon.
After the war is over, Barny fantasies about Léon coming into her home and making love to her. Melville clearly shows Barny begin to undress him in the dream, proving to me that Barny is infatuated by the body that is under all of those black robes.
But Léon is strictly married to God and in the eyes of her newfound God, loving Léon is a sin, just like her homosexual feelings toward her coworker.
So Barny is left in this void of emptiness and loneliness. Everything she does or chooses to love is a sin, her husband is dead and the only people she wants to love she cant love.
They'll meet again but in the next world. In this world, they're unfit for one another.
This film is so remarkably different from any of the 9 other films I've seen from Melville.
The first remarkable difference is the lack of any explicit violence (aside from a slap) in such a violent setting. While Le Silence De La Mer is also set during WWII, the lack of violence in that film makes sense because it is all set in a comforting countryside home.
The second being that this film has a female protagonist. Barny is the emotional core and centre of the story. She is an incredibly complex woman with an arc that any of Melville's other female characters simply lack. Not to mention the fact that she's bi-sexual. This spotlight on a woman's struggle feels so wonderfully new for Melville and honest. We are really able to empathise with this beautiful woman in the best possible way. I really wish if Melville lived longer he would've made another film that feels this female-centric.
The third and most central departure is that this film is missing the distinct rhythm and controlled nature that his other films possessed. As I mentioned in my review of Le Cercle Rouge "every piece of (the film) works like perfectly constructed clockwork, each part meticulously crafted from beginning to end." All of Melville's other films feel like a perfectly choreographed and constructed stageplay, in the best possible way. There's this almost theatric side to them all that makes the films stand out and feel, well... so 'Melville'. But that quality seems to be entirely missing from Léon Morin, Priest. While its setting isn't large in scope at all, quite the contrary, the film feels so uncontrolled, so devastatingly real. Melville describes his films as being first and foremost a dream, but the only sense of escapism I got from this film was the actual dream sequence. Léon Morin is a gorgeous film that feels like its own complete thing. If it didn't say it was a film by Jean-Pierre Melville at the beginning, I honest to god would never guess that it was directed by him. This film proves to me how absolutely incredible Melville truly is, not just as a filmmaker, but as a visionary and an artist. This might be his best-directed film in competition with maybe Army Of Shadows.
After the lights came on and the film ended I sunk into my seat, unable to move. The crippling realism of the ending seconds completely broke me emotionally. As I stepped into my car about to drive home, I began to sob insensibly. I can't really explain why, the film isn't really super 'sad' by any means. I just felt so broken, so defeated, so crushed.
This review is my plea for everyone to see this masterpiece. Léon Morin, Priest is but another work of art constructed by "The French Master" Melville.
Watch this piece of pure, unfiltered, rich, beautiful cinema.
Le cercle rouge (1970)
Another Melville Masterpiece
Le Cercle Rouge is the second last film by the brilliant French filmmaker (God) Jean Pierre Melville and was released in 1970. In the film, we follow French criminal Corey (Alain Delon) after he gets released from prison and has an intention to never again return. However, Corey is quickly pulled back into the underworld after an encounter with escaped murderer Vogel (Gian Maria Volonté) who he befriends. Along the way, Corey and Vogel meet up with a former policeman and a current alcoholic Jansen (Yves Montand), and together they plot an intricate jewel heist, one last score to get out of the crime world for good. All the while, Police Commissioner Mattei (Bourvil), who was the one to lose custody of Vogel, is determined to find him and imprison him.
I've spent a lot of time researching Melville as a person watching numerous interviews and reading tons of articles. The quote that I think stuck in my mind the most was Melville's response to what he thinks about gangsters. Melville called them "pathetic losers". That quote gave me a whole new perspective on the entity of Melville's filmography and gave me clarity on what
Melville is really saying with his many gangster flicks.
Because in Le Cercle Rouge we don't see characters. We see placeholders. Throughout the runtime, the slick, stylised coolness of the main cast gets contradicted on numerous occasions, making them come off as foolish and stupid, injecting Melville's stance on the patheticness of those who chose to engrain themselves in the crime world.
The film's title The Red Circle apparently refers to a saying of the Buddha that men who are destined to meet will eventually meet, no matter what.
What does the red circle have to symbolise. Ultimately to me, what Melville is trying to say here is that all evil will eventually meet. It's fate brings all of these pathetic characters together and it is that same fate that destroys them later in the film, in the red circle of life and death. It's a never ending spectrum of death and meaninglessness. Life, death, everything between occurs inside the red circle.
Le Cercle Rouge is just as stylish as Le Samouraï, if not more so. The film also includes one of my favourite frames in cinematic history, this shot, of our three leads driving and having a conversation. I find it absolutely incredible that in all of Melville's gangster films, the country of France looks different. Obviously because they aren't all set in the same town, but these gangster worlds surely can't be so different from one another. The police in Le Samouraï operate completely different to the police here. The underworld in Bob Le Flambeur looks completely different to what it looks like here. The nightclubs in Le Doulos feel different to here. I think personally, it's this film's incredible use of blue that really separates it from Melville's filmography. Le Samouraï is covered in grey to view Jef Costello's view on the world, but Le Cercle Rouge is covered in this blue tint. I think this ultimately not just represents Le Cercle Rouge as a much different film than Melville's other films but also goes further into showing the lifelessness found inside this gangster world.
With exception to arguably Melville's two war films (Le Silence De La Mer and Army Of Shadows), I'd argue that Le Cercle Rouge is Melville's best directed film. Not a single moment is missing tension, not a frame doesn't feel damp, not a scene doesn't feel like it's missing significance and not earned. Melville doesn't feel the need to cut away from conversations, to awkward, unnecessary, shots, I think this creates such an amazing sense of flow in these talks and make them feel incredibly intimate.
Le Cercle Rouge is a triumph. The ones who say this film is missing meaning are ether ignoring it or choosing not to look into it. It's an expertly written, brilliantly acted, tightly directed and wonderfully shot masterpiece, another from the long list from Melville.
Peeping Tom (1960)
Peeping Tom Review & A Discussion Of Critics
Peeping Tom is a film that released in 1960 and celebrated its 60th-anniversary last year. Peeping Tom follows a loner Mark Lewis who works at a film studio during the day and at night, takes risqué photographs of women, while working on a documentary that features the murder of innocent women.
Upon its original release in 1960, the film was slandered by film critics calling it "the sickest and filthiest film", "wholly evil" and even "masochistic". These horrific reviews ultimately resulted in the studio pulling Peeping Tom from theatres and in the unfortunate demise of Michael Powell's mainstream career, who was before seen as an almost national treasure. It wasn't until Martin Scorsese came out in his support of the film did it get re-released and people, including the great film critic Roger Ebert, fell in love with this dark tale.
The question that was in my head most while watching the film was why it set off and disturbed critics so much. For its time Peeping Tom showed viewers something they'd really never seen before to the fullest extent, the day to day life of a murderous psychopath. Sure they'd seen films like M that follows a killers perspective, but there really wasn't a film yet made that featured a character as disturbed as the film's protagonist, Mark, at the time.
I was reminded of how critics responded to the Joker (2019) film, saying that it would inspire mass shootings. It really made me realise that film critics have not changed in the slightest since 1960. Sure they may be more diverse, but they're still, just looking to label films and stir up unwarranted controversy. How many times does it have to be proven that films and video games do not cause violence for it to finally set into the head of the media? What they're trying to do is create hysteria, which helps them financially but does a disservice to the film. Joker did incredibly well financially but Peeping Tom did not. Films like Peeping Tom had to walk so films like Le Samourai, Joker, Taxi Driver, Psycho etc could run.
Peeping Tom is very similar thematically to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, except this released earlier in that same year of 1960. In fact, after Hitchcock saw the response to Peeping Tom he decided not to screen the film for critics, letting audiences see the film the same day as critics. Peeping Tom, quite literally, walked so Psycho could run.
It's fascinating to me that Peeping Tom and Psycho were made and released in the same year and really, to me, proves how filmmakers wanted and felt the need to show audiences more dark tales and this was proven with Psycho's huge financial success.
Peeping Tom, I feel, is the film deserving of all of Psycho's praise.
As for the film itself, Peeping Tom is a fast-paced slasher/thriller that brilliantly uses colour and camera techniques to its advantage to heighten its story. Unlike Psycho, there is actually zero explicit violence in the film, all of it is implied and left to interpretation. It's this implied terror that makes Peeping Tom so terrifying. As many people have told me across my life it's a lot scarier to not know the answers to some questions. All we know is how Mark murders and visual is terrifying enough.
Karlheinz Böhm gives an outstanding performance as Mark. But it's not just Böhm that makes Mark such a terrifying character, the camera work, especially the handheld POV perspective scenes in which we see through the lense of his camera that adds so much character to this nervous wreck of a human being.
Unlike more modern characters of this nature such as Travis Bickle or Arthur Fleck, Mark doesn't really grow in confidence or have a huge freakout, he stays throughout the film a shy, calm, yet dangerous, loner. If I had to compare him to any character, he's more on the lines of Alain Delon's Jef Costello aside from the inherent coolness and handsomeness attached to Delon, the similarities between Costello and Mark begin and end in their lack of understanding of the world and their eventual fondness for a female character.
The main thing you can tell about Peeping Tom is that the man behind the camera, Michael Powell, not just wanted to make it, but was desperate to do so. For a subject matter so dark and disgusting, the presentation of the film feels incredibly perfected and profound, it doesn't look cheap or dull at all. It's strange to see a film like this play with colour so much and play with it so eloquently. Perhaps my favourite aspect of Peeping Tom is its cinematography. The way the film uses red reflecting on Mark and his victims face is such a haunting image that stuck into my brain. I haven't seen Powell's other well-known film The Red Shoes yet, however, it's clear from the visuals I've seen Powell knows how to use the colour red. The handheld POV murder scenes not just add character and darkness to Mark as said earlier, but also serve as a brutal example of the pain that he is causing others for his own self-interest. Mark's screening room, which used to be his father's lab, is always shown in the dark with minimalistic lighting usually coming from studio lights or his 16mm projector. These dark and empty shadows are used beautifully to illustrate that same darkness and emptiness within Marks soul and are used again during the street scenes to really reflect the dark underbelly of the nights.
As for the film's philosophy, I find it incredibly fascinating. When looking at the film, you could take the tone of the film as sympathetic towards its central killer. And it is, what this film did, that was so before its time, was show that some of the most disturbed people have some of the most disturbing upbringings. Mark is an evil man, no doubt about it, he's absolutely insane and demented, but there's an underlying humanity to him. His character growth from showing no fear whatsoever to discovering it in the face of death is remarkably human for such an inhumane man. This is found through his connection with Helen, a neighbour he befriends. Their conversations together are intentionally almost infuriating to watch. Helen isn't really a character, she's remarkably dumb and doesn't have much character other than she's kind and has a mother. But it's not Helen's character that matters, it's what she represents in Mark's story. She's a representation of virtue, not found in any of his other 'victims'. It's this goodness, that sets a spark within Mark. And to whether I feel like the film redeems him... it doesn't, not one bit. His actions and his fate make it very clear.
In closing, Peeping Tom is a knockout picture. Its genius blending of shadows and colour make its visuals and its characters stick in your head, mixed with Powell's twisted brilliant vision and Böhm's sublime performance, prove that it stood the test of time.
In conclusion your honour, don't listen to critics, they're dumb lol.
This film is free to watch on Tubi, so please, if you haven't already, give it a chance. I.
Mank (2020)
The Parable Of The Organ Grinders Monkey
"You cannot capture a man's entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one."
Mank is a cinephiles wet dream, a poignant, incredibly sophisticated look at Herman Mankiewicz's career, social life and relationship with Orson Wells with a career-best performance from Gary Oldman and a screenplay so good it's practically guaranteed to win at this years academy awards.
The thing that surprised me most about Mank is it's incredibly dense look at the Hollywood system and chokehold over creative freedom and political bias. What I believe to be the absolute best aspect of Mank is the incredible and fitting use of flashbacks to key elements in Mank's life as he is dealing with new struggles brought to him by Orson Wells. As for the film's depiction of Wells, yes, I do believe he has definitely been vilified a tad, however, neither Wells nor Mankiewicz are alive to defend who really wrote Citizen Kane, so we will never know the validity of the events of the film. As for if the film gave me any new thoughts to the meaning of Citizen Kane, yes, it did give me a whole new potential perspective on what the film is really saying and who Mankiewicz is trying to portray with his characters. I think most fascinating of which is what Mankiewicz says about William Randolph Hearst in the film and there incredibly telling conversation in the third-act.
The performances here are top-notch. Gary Oldman's portrayal of Herman Mankiewicz is absolutely unbelievable. I believe he's in every scene of this film and he kept my eyes completely glued to the screen throughout the entire runtime. Oldman's performance here might be a career-best and he should get some serious oscar attention; I honestly think a second oscar might be in Oldman's future and I wouldn't be opposed to that at all. I know that Amanda Seyfried's performance has been getting a lot of discussion, I think with her small screentime she is indeed fantastic. Her charisma and charm here are unmatched with the rest of the cast and she's a definite scene-stealer, however, I do not know if she will be getting the best actress oscar that many people seem to think is a guarantee. However, I must give a huge shout out to Tom Burke who not only sounds freakishly like Orson Wells but has an incredibly similar likeness to him, it was uncanny. As for the rest of the supporting cast, they were all truly great there was no weak link within the cast, everyone should be incredibly proud of what they've done here.
No matter your thoughts about the film itself, what everyone will undeniably agree with is that the film looks fantastic, the cinematography here is my favourite so far this year. The black and white and 40's aspect to the feel of the film add so much to the atmosphere of the film and Mankiewicz's mental state. There is a scene in particular on election night were Herman and crew go to a nightclub and Herman goes in and out of an altered state of consciousness, the way it was portrayed was seriously incredible.
As for the screenplay written by the late Jack Fincher, (the father of the film's director David Fincher), it was by far the standout element of this entire film. What Fincher is saying here is very interesting stuff, however, if you are not knowledgeable about the film industry or the film Citizen Kane, you will have a really hard time getting the most out of this film. Thankfully, I like to think I'm pretty knowledgeable about both subjects so I really got a lot out of the film. The dialogue here especially is so smooth and sharp, some of the comebacks here are truly hilarious.
In finality, Mank did not disappoint. What David Fincher and crew were able to make here is really astounding, I recommend you all go watch Citizen Kane again and have a quick read about the state of the film industry during the great depression, then go watch Mank and get the absolute most out of this incredible film.
Le samouraï (1967)
The Psyche Of A Sociopath
Jean-Pierre Melville's 1967 masterpiece Le Samouraï is a groundbreaking and brilliant film about the psychology and motto of a french assassin named Jef Costello and his struggle living in France, not understanding how to adapt to modern civilization. Melville's film is a prime example of the brilliance of the cinema produced within the French new wave and how to portray the psyche of a sociopath.
Instead of exploring a more modern traditional assassin commonly explored in more modern cinema, Melville decides to examine a man born out of his time and into a world he doesn't fully understand. The film's protagonist Jef Costello played brilliantly by Alain Delon lives by the ancient forgotten code of the samurai. Costello is a stone-cold killer, he shows no remorse for his victims, no regret for his crimes and shows not an ounce of emotion throughout the film's runtime. Usually, a character like this would make for a fairly uninteresting protagonist, more classically trained filmmakers usually give characters an emotional arc, Melville still decides to do this but twists it. Through a layered performance, Delon portrays a man unable to connect with modern culture and incapable of connecting to the people around him, so much so Costello's only friend is a caged bird forced to be with him throughout the film's runtime.
The first introduction we have of Costello is him laying on his bed smoking a cigarette observing his birds actions and listening to the sounds of France. The scene is shot in complete darkness, with Costello's body barley visible to the blind eye, the only thing somewhat visible is the smoke coming from his cigarette. This is a fascinating and unique way to introduce a character. The scene is remarkably empty of colour and visually uninspired and bland, more modern filmmakers usually give their protagonists grand, bright and flamboyant introductions, but Melville decides to introduce his character in the dark. What better way of introducing a man out of his time and without emotion than by showing him alone, confined in his home, in complete darkness, in his home, a room he uses to confine himself inside, imprisoning his thoughts and desires with him in complete darkness, in the one place he feels comfortable enough to smoke in peace.
The way Melville decides to helm the film is what is most commendable about the picture. His direction and clear vision are conveyed throughout the runtime of the film. What Melville does understand is how to connect an audience member to a protagonist who in most cases they could never understand. Melville takes time to let the viewer watch Costello's private time alone in his home, his interactions with the general public and people, the way he completes daily tasks and the way he decides to murder people. It's a fascinating and unique portrayal of a man that general audiences wouldn't truly understand. Melville understands that while Costello's actions are wrong he isn't entirely evil.
Costello's remaining humanity is explored with his relationship with Jane Lagrange played by Nathalie Delon, the former wife of the film's lead star. Melville uses Janes complex relationship with Jef as a way of exploring Costello's fleeting care for humanity. Jane is a prostitute, the lowest low in France. A woman the general public would view as scum, a woman who would be tossed over, used and forgotten. Like Jef, Jane has trouble connecting to the inhabitants of France and while Jef and Jane's relationship is mostly sexual, they share a bond in the fact that they both have a lack of understanding of how the world works.
While made 53 years ago, Le Samouraï is a potent, powerful and meaningful piece of cinema created due to the vision of director Jean-Pierre Melville. Le Samouraï is a film that will stand the test of time and remain relevant forever.
The Mandalorian: Chapter 10: The Passenger (2020)
As Pointless And Boring As Can Be
I'm sick of people defending this show simply because it's Star Wars and little kids like it. Alright, good for you, but at least entertain me. After last weeks rather mediocre episode I was at least interested in where the Boba Fett storyline would go and what do you know, it isn't even mentioned in this episode. Instead, we follow the Mandalorion as he goes to an ice planet to help a woman lay her eggs, get his ship destroyed, get chased by a bunch of spiders and then go back into space not even achieving what he came there to do. It's a pointless episode that serves absolutely no purpose other than to fill time. The characters did not grow, the story was not escalated, all that happened was filler.
And "filler" episodes can be great, examples that come to mind are 'Fly' from Breaking Bad and Part 12 of Twin Peaks: The Return, because while they don't really escalate the story, they teach you more about the characters and by doing such, get you invested in the world. This did not do that, it was simply a series of annoyingly load events.
It explains a lot that the same person who directed this episode also directed the painfully boring filler Marvel movie Ant-Man and the "it hurts" phasing woman.
Would not recommend this episode, this season has been a real disappointment so far and I hope it will have some redeeming quality later on.
The Devil All the Time (2020)
Some People Were Born Just So They Could Be Buried
It felt like yesterday when I found out that my favourite book was being turned into a movie and this film became my most anticipated of 2020.
But today, I finally was able to see the film and I can't help but feel somewhat happy but also somewhat letdown.
I'll say that every performance is excellent. Bill Skarsgard and Tom Holland were most likely my two favourites. When I was reading the pages of Donald Ray Pollocks writing, it almost seems like he was writing about Skarsgard and Holland. They embody the characters of Willard and Arvin perfectly and I will continue to imagine them as the father and son. Holland shows some real acting chops here and I truly hope he gets some awards attention for his great performance here. I hope that he takes more roles like this in the future and doesn't just stick to big budget lifeless Spider-Man movies, I'm excited to see him in Cherry, if that still releases this year.
The cinematography was great and the 35mm feel to it all worked seamlessly to set the old Southern tone of the story. I really respect the choice to shoot on film and when you watch the film the grain covering the screen almost comes across as dirt or dust and adds so much to the style of the film.
The main issue I have with the film is the use of a narrorator. This films use of narrotation is the laziest choice I have seen in a film in recent memory. I honest to god would've given this film a much higher rating if they just removed the absolutely pointless narroration. You can tell what the actor is feeling, I don't need it explained to me that Arvin is feeling sad, I KNOW HE'S SAD! I'm also well aware that the novel had a narrorator as well, but there's a huge diffrence between writing a novel and writing a film. You can't see a character walk into a building in a book it's not a visual medium, in a film you can see an actor weep or show the emotion the narrorator is telling the audience they're feeling. There's a classic rule to storytelling which is to show, not to tell. This film attempts to do both and drags the excellent quality of the rest of the film down substantially.
I'm also torn on the changes to many elements of Arvin's motivations here. In the book there was a real sense that Arvin not just had a sisterly love for Lenora but also a sexual one and I didn't really get that impression here. I know it's weird, but I felt the film cheated a bit not including that element. Also, the changed circumstances behind the films final act and the character of Roy are strange to see be changed, but I do not hate the differences here as they do progress the story a lot faster than the book.
In conclusion, The Devil All The Time has some wonderful performances, ideas, cinematography and directing, however unfortunately the film doesn't entirely live up to the incredibly high standards of Donald Ray Pollack's masterpiece novel and the inclusion of narroration to dumb down the story is a very bad decision.
Honestly, someone needs to make a cut of this film without the narroration and it would honestly be a substantially better film.
Da 5 Bloods (2020)
The Best New Release This Year So Far
Da 5 Bloods is one of the best and most powerful films I've seen in a while. It's not a perfect film but it's really close to being one.
It tells a story relevant to everyone today, it has some of the best performances of the last three years. It's got a tremendous screenplay and brilliant cinematography.
I got to talk about the performances first because they are sublime. Delroy Lindo gives a career-best performance as Paul. Lindo steals every scene he is in with his ferocious and sometimes vicious performance which will stay in the front of your mind for weeks after the film is over. There's something so haunting, yet beautiful about this performance and this character. I seriously doubt there will be a better performance this year, the academy better get this blood his oscar. In his limited screentime, Chadwick Boseman is terrific. His performance is empowering and it wouldn't surprise me if his character grows to the iconicity of Radio Raheem in the future. Some of the supporting cast, unfortunately, isn't great, especially some of the Vietnamese and French characters. They don't deliver their dialogue with the slickness that other characters do and it makes them stand out in a film full of great performances.
The screenplay is a haunting and somewhat upbeat statement about war and love. The film reminded me of Radio Raheem's iconic speech about love and hate in Lee's most well-known and praised picture, Do The Right Thing. The screenplay is brilliant if not a bit messy, but I can forgive the messiness for the bigger picture that the film is trying to convey.
The cinematography is bleak and disturbing. I'll say off the bat, there is a lot of bloodshed in Da 5 Bloods, all of it is terrifying. I've never seen a film where death is shown in such a real, graphic and terrifying way. It almost makes you feel like you're back in the war, like our main characters. When entering a flashback the film changes its aspect ratio to one commonly seen in the '60s. I am a huge fan of this choice and it adds to the style of the film.
In finality, Da 5 Bloods is a really great film. Aside from its flaws, it is a truly great film that will spark a shit-ton of conversation.
Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
A Modern Day Cinematic Masterpiece
I understand this movie has its haters but this is my opinion and as much as it might anger you I won't change it. Bad Times at the El Royale was not only the best film of 2018 but one of the greatest movies ever made, and their is one reason why, the characters. Goddard demonstrates that he is one of the best directors working today by making a plot that relies on the wonderful seven characters he created. From Darlene Sweet to Billy Lee Goddard creates characters that you not only care about, but that seem real. I feel like if I was unlucky enough I could end up at the El Royale. Thats a feeling most movies can't make you feel. As someone who has watched over five hundred movies I can say that while Bad Times at the El Royale takes homage from other movies but with that it finds its own voice and is completely original and a breath of fresh air for modern movie audiences. If you haven't seen this movie I recommend you check it out, you'll have a great time. Thanks for reading my review!