Thursday, June 14, 2018

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE LATEST "STAR WARS" FANDOM BULL***T! Yes, the one that made an actress leave Instagram and whatever other stupid thing they did. (Sighs)

(Elongated sigh) 

So, apparently, people have now noticed that a cancerous fanbase, in this instance, the "Star Wars" one, is a cancerous fanbase. (Shrugs, annoyed sigh) I don't know why it took this long, and frankly I'm not happy they finally got around to noticing either, but whatever.... Look, I know some of you are actually expecting me to add something to this, as I have been calling out fans and fandoms, many times over the years, in one way, shape or another.



(Annoyed grumble) man-ny

many times!

There's like twenty other old articles I could've list here too, it's basically my go-to, most common theme for this blog, the same way that say on "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver", they talk about injustices in the U.S. Justice System once every month or so. Frankly, I'm tired of it and I honestly don't like talking about my annoyances with fans and fandoms, and most people, friends of mine included, they don't agree with a lot of my critiques on them, and really don't understand how I can feel this way when what they tend to see many things as positives to being a "Fan", or apart of a fandom culture and why I so passionately fight, oppose and sometimes outright antagonize fans and fandoms in some cases. That I can just discard the thoughts of some because they like something over critical analysis. You know, I do get it and I try again to understand their perspective on how they can see it as a positive, and then, shit like this happens:
This, is an actual post somebody made in a FB group, not one I'm apart of, but nonetheless, I thought I should share this, sure it's shorthand to explain the recent incidents I'm talking about, but more importantly, 'cause fuck the person who created it, and why isn't he arrested, or at least people investigating him, he's admitting to inflicting a virus on Rotten Tomatoes's website and essentially terrorizing stars of a goddamn movie, and even if he's lying, fuck him even more. BTW, it's a movie that, no, I haven't seen yet. I haven't even seen the last "Star Wars" film yet. much less this one, and it doesn't matter anymore. 

I've seen lot of people, even those on the fan side have started to realize that, the "Star Wars" fanbase is a bit toxic. And others are doing thinkpieces about it, about what happens when fans become toxic, or some such bullshit. A lot of them are people within that circle like a Jeremy Jahns, or those who are natural antagonists to it, too. I tried to put up with John Campea's discussions of it and he's been trying to strangle both sides of the fence. I don't think I've ever talked about him much before, but he's a popular guy around some of the fan circles and I think he started Collider or AMC Movie News or something or another...- somebody will correct me, but honestly, I don't get him at all; I know he usually seems reasonable, but every other time I try watching one of his videos it's all about how he "Understands if that's not your opinion," and "We don't have to share the same thought...." and blah, blah, blah, and then talk about some fanboy asshattery the whole time, but it's okay if you're not.... Ye-ah, I think he's a well-connected fan more than anything, and of course, he's got one video out about why Kathleen Kennedy needs to be fired, including one idiotic reason about how she's not coddling to the fanbase, which, personally if I was Bob Iger, I'd immediately give her a contract extension for doing just that..., but then he also has discussed how toxic the fanbase has become, and separate himself from certain parts...- (Sigh) Look, he's not Jeremy Jahns P.O.S. trying to not be a critic while being in place of a critic and therefore taking work and money from actual critics, having it both ways, B.S. nonsense, but I struggle to understand what makes Campea popular. He may be smart and articulate, and be a far more skillful and audience outreach, retention, site-building and branding than I'll ever be, but I can also say that about people who are far more interesting and who I'm not struggling to understand what he adds to the conversation other than being a fan's version of a critic, and there's plenty of those and most of them are better. 

(Frustrated sigh)   

Look, I'm trying to not go dancing on this tightrope here; I feel sorry for Kelly Marie Tran who has been treated horribly, and she's by no means the first woman to get that severe negative reaction and she's probably not gonna be the last, because fans...- And I'm not gonna justify their responses or for that matter give the counter-arguments in the fan community any credence, either. there's already a bunch of think-pieces that I don't give a shit about that you've probably already read, anything most anything I can or would say is just gonna feel like a retread of a retread for me, so I don't see that much of a point in commenting now. 

(Long breathy pause) 

However, there is one thing that needs to be discussed here. One thing that I just cannot seem to beat through people, the thought that, because one fanbase or another, they suddenly realize is, "Toxic", or whatever, that other fanbases or their fanbases, they're not yet. I see pieces about how they potentially could be, but there's this presumption that they aren't already. That not all fans and fanbases are toxic.

(Sigh, stretches hands, pops knuckles, sighs again, with a fake chuckle under his breath) 

Let's for the moment pretend that's a real thing, that their are actual good fanbases out there. They're not, they're all toxic and if you're a part of them, I'm talking to you, but let's pretend that this is true, that this is only a thing with certain fanbases, how do you know that your fanbases, won't get like this? I'm serious, dead serious, I want an answer to this, 'cause, for the most part, you're a fan of a franchise or whatever that, for whatever reason the decisions that have been made about it over the years, have not caused a gigantic drastic shift and introduced a toxic element into the base, again, pretending that's how this works, that's it's not that fans are toxic, it's that there's an element of fandom that's toxic, how do you know that it won't inevitably happen? How can you be so confident that it won't happen to your fandom? 

Or more to, how fandoms actually work, how do you know it hasn't happened already? Why are people confident in that regard? Let's start with that, 'cause toxic elements, they don't suddenly appear of nowhere, they're there already, the dynamite is in the room, it's just that no one's lit it yet; you do realize that right? I see it, whenever I look into a fanbase, "Oh, there's the dynamite, let's see what lights this," and it doesn't matter what it is, it happens, it's always what happens when you take something that's out of your control and you care way too much about it, often to the point of thinking that your appreciation of it defines a part of you, and then, BOOM! Oh, look at that, fifty tons of dynamite just exploded there, how weird? That, is exactly how it always plays out to me. Actually no, that's how it plays to everyone else, to me, it plays like, "What do you mean these are good people to be around and they're just like me,  they keep fifty tons of dynamite right there in the middle of the room, where there really shouldn't be any to begin with!? Who the fuck does that?!"

Look, I don't know why, everything that's triggered "Star Wars" fans in the past triggered them, Jar Jar Binks, Alex Lloyd, George Lucas himself, Disney, Kennedy, Kelly Marie Tran..., I don't know and I don't care. but your telling me that, if something happened like those incidents or whatever you're a fan of that suddenly the fanbase wouldn't go all apeshit just like Marvel, DC, "Star Wars" or any other fanbase? Like, I'm not gonna claim it's going to happen, 'cause that would be foolish not every fanbase is big enough and not every franchise has been around long enough, but if those factors are in play, then it's going to happen, and it might happen anyway, 'cause I hate to tell you guys, but the phone call is from inside the house. In your fandom, right now, whatever it is, is a cancerous element just waiting for a reason and a moment to divide and conquer. It might be you, for all you know. Yes, you, like, I'm pointing at you, like the old man "Reefer Madness", 'cause you don't know how you're gonna react. You don't know what's going to happen in the future, and maybe perhaps everything that you thought were good about the thing you're a fan of will change and everything it meant and represented, it might someday have absolutely nothing to with all that, and how are you gonna feel then?  

What happens if tomorrow they announce Diablo Cody's writing a remake of "Back to the Future" starring Melissa McCarthy as Doc Brown, how do you "BTTF" fans, react to this, and how do you react to it, if it's turns out it's better than the original?! Colin Trevorrow's directing, Lena Dunham's in the Crispin Glover part, Woody Allen directing, whatever your nightmare scenario I will fucking go there, and still it's better than the original. You want to make a video about how you're not gonna see something like that, or what? I've gotten into knockout drag out arguments over who was the better host of "Jeopardy!" Alex Trebek or Art Fleming, don't give me bullshit, that fans and fanbases aren't toxic to begin with. They all are, and it's because they're full of fans who have decided to truly to give a shit about stuff like this. Stuff they don't control and don't have power in. 

Let me try to make it as clear as I can, any separation of peoples in society that is not a necessary evil, is bad, and fandoms, are one of the most unnecessary evils of all. I know, it seems like it isn't, I've fallen for it before too, I get it, it seems like you're finally around people who are like you, and you think it's a good thing but all you're actually doing is separating yourself from everyone else, and if you're willing to separate into little groups like this, especially based on something as trivial as how much other peoples' work has inspired and influenced you, you're begging to be overrun and brainwashed by some maniac assholes like the guy who wrote the post above. He wants to be big fish in a small pond, and he doesn't care above :Star Wars" or whatever, all he cares about is that you're a bunch of guppies he can exploit and control, and maybe if need be, swallow whole. And there's no way you're going to be able to keep that faction out of a fanbase or out of a fandom. And even if you could filter that out, now you're a smaller pond, where another new big fish asshole is gonna make a different kind of bullshit chaos..., and this cycle, it doesn't end. 

You can try, but how do you stop someone from being a fan or something? I don't know either, all I can do is write more pieces like this where I call them out for their bullshit and do everything possible to promote why you shouldn't be one. Explain why I am not-a-fan and never will be, and then go watch my Eagles game and yell "KILL 'EM" three times before every snap when they're on defense, without any facetiousness to the demand, and complain bitch and curse and yell after every offensive possession that doesn't go my way, to the point where I'm complaining at the end of a forty-point win that we should've done better, and too many of the other teams players are still alive! I'm not immune either from spurts of fanaticism, but if you're going to notice or care that suddenly, one fandom is horrible, please step out and realize that is in fact all of them! This is what fandom is. 

I know it's hard, and you can't see it clearly when you're apart of it; I get it, but trust me, from somebody who is an outsider point of view, this is what it always looks like, because it's always what it is. I've yet to see a narrative where the fans of something do something really good? It's always this shit, it's just some form of it. I don't hear stories about Smurfs fans getting together to plant a tree or something- it doesn't happen. Not as a group, not as a collective, not as representatives, this is all you get, bullying people off Instagram 'cause they did their job. It's always what horrible, stupid thing are fans doing now, 'cause it's all they ever do. Nothing different than any other group of people, groups that seek out people who are, "Like Us" and you turn a blind eye or scold anybody who isn't "Like Us", based on whatever-the-hell they determined that "Like us" means. 

Sunday, June 10, 2018


So this has been a weird, rough and otherwise tumultuous last few weeks in the entertainment world. I'll have some thoughts on some of the events later, and believe me, I do have some thoughts, but there's a lot going on. Weinstein's been indicted, Woody Allen, sorta said something weird and dumb in an Argentine interview, apparently; we lost some people very suddenly to suicide. RIP Anthony Bourdain and Kate Spade. "Star Wars", "Roseanne", oh, and in case nobody noticed, it's officially Primetime Emmys season..., yeah, let's get to movies.

Alright, so-eh, first things first, I chose not to review the documentary "Tell Them We Are Rising: The Story of Black Colleges and Universities", mainly because I couldn't tell if this film actually had a theatrical release. According to Google, it did, but when I checked the date they gave me, it was the date of their screening at the Sundance Film Festival, which I don't tend to count necessarily. I also, double-check with last year's Academy Awards list of eligible films, and it didn't make either their Documentary or their Best Picture longlists, so, since I couldn't really determine a theatrical release, I decided to not review it it. That said, it's an okay documentary. probably better suited for PBS where it aired recently than on the big screen....- other than that, it's fine.

Anyway, I watched quite a few films I'm not reviewing this week, let's go through them real quick, "Sembene!" wonderful documentary on the great Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene, I'd seek that out as well as his films, in fact I gotta seek out more of his films. I watched a French horror thriller called "Alleluia", which I didn't particularly liked. It's inspired by the story of the Lonely Hearts Killers, if you know about, eh, it's basically the same just in modern-day France, I think, some differences, it's a bit more sexual and fucked up, but...- (Shrugs) I finally got around to "Angry Video Game Nerd: The Movie", I know, I'm late on that one. I can take it or leave it personally, but it's got it's moments, although admittedly, I'm a little annoyed that they the giant monster didn't destroy the Las Vegas Strip in any logical order. Like, you can't go from destroying Mandalay Bay to destroying the Paris's Eiffel Tower like that, they're miles away, he's be destroying so many other casinos in between! Eh, that's a Vegas thing. (Also, Robert Urich cannot possibly turn right onto Desert Inn like that...- nevermind) I watched this old Pre-Code Golden Age film, "Indiscreet" starring Gloria Swanson, it's interesting as a curiosity and it has a line of interesting lines of dialogue that probably plays weird now, although from I gather it wasn't overly beloved at the time, but it's got a genuinely funny bit at the end where Swanson's character has to sneak onto a cruise ship. The last thing I watched was "Unfinished Song", which-, eh, if you remember the documentary "Young@Heart", which I think everybody loved except me, this is basically a fictionalized variation on that, which a personal narrative or two in the middle that came cut out from the used screenplay factory. I-eh, yeah, I didn't care for that at all. I thought it was boring. I mean the old people music group did a decent version of Motorhead's "Ace of Spades", but...- again, I didn't like the documentary, so....

Alright, that's the rundown of other films I got through, let's get it. Here's the latest edition of our MOVIE REVIEWS, starting off with the Oscar-nominated features, "Victoria & Abdul", "Faces Places" and "Loving Vincent"!

VICTORIA & ABDUL (2017) Director: Stephen Frears


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

Eh, I don't know what to make of this one. I'll say this though, the last dozen or so years of Stephen Frears's movies, about half of them have had a common thread involving older eccentric women as the center star, usually Judi Dench, although Helen Mirren will work if she needs to be younger than her, unless an American is needed, Meryl Streep will do, unless she needs to be sexy, then-eh, Michelle Pfieffer's underused, we'll get her. Seriously, "Mrs. Henderson Presents", "The Queen", "Cheri", "Philomena", "Florence Foster Jenkins" and now "Victoria & Abdul", and sure there's some other things in there, some minor interesting project that, now that I'm looking at them usually have something to either do with sports, politics or both, except for "Tamara Drewe", but for a director most well-known for being the ultimate chameleon who will drift from project-to-project with no previous discernible pattern in his work other than it always being different than before, this is as close as it gets to a true trope or motif for him.

(Shrugs) Um, I don't know what exactly to make of that to be honest, but it's starting to become a trend, and it's noticeable, and that's basically all I got. As to the movie, um...- (Shrugs) I think it's one of his weaker ones? I mean, this should be somewhat interesting and compelling, and it's apparently loosely based on the true account of Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal) who spent a few years as Queen Victoria (the aforementioned Judi Dench) munshi. (A munshi, and I'm looking this up to try to be as accurate as I can, basically it's a Secretary or Assistant, although in this case, one who specifies in languages. See, after a few initial mostly ceremonial meetings, the Queen becomes intrigued by Abdul and hires him to teach him Hindu and Urdu as well as educate her on the country. I mean, she is Empress of India, so she thinks should learn a little bit about the nation she's technically the monarch of. It sounds reasonable, which naturally means it's completely shocking and utterly unreasonable to much of the other Royal and political aristocrats who take great umbrage in his presence and influence over the Queen. There's a long supporting cast of these that are interesting, but the best of these is Bertie, Victoria's son who'd become Edward VII when she passed and is played by Eddie Izzard who's so over-the-top while simultaneously hiding in plain sight so well behind a ridiculous yeah fascinating beard that I thought he was Kenneth Branagh for half the film. It's by far the most fun performance in the film.

I'm half-amazed that Judi Dench is still able to work regularly and so well at her age, and with the recent health scares she's had. She's 84 and still has several projects in some form of development, despite not even able to travel on her own because of general old-ageness on top of Macular Degeneration Syndrome that has eradicated most of her vision. Yes, she's going blind and is still basically able to perform as well as she's always done, which is probably the least surprising revelation ever. Ali Fazal is also quite good, I don't want to discount him. I think this is one of those cases where I wonder if the historical story is actually interesting or compelling enough for a feature film, and I'm not sure this is, not the way it's been told here. Perhaps from a different perspective it would've been more compelling, but as it stands, it's mostly just forgettable.

FACES PLACES (2017) Directors: JR and Agnes Varda


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

I have to be honest about this, I don't have a big knowledge of Agnes Varda. I've certainly heard of her and I did previously watch "Cleo from 5 to 7", a long time ago, and I've seen "The Beaches of Agnes" but that's about it, and I didn't make that much of a impression from "Cleo...", although I probably need another watch. She's not taught as often as most of her male French New Wave counterparts, and it's also somewhat weird to even place her in that group, because her old pals Francois and Jean-Luc, she had a very strange and indirect route to filmmaking. Originally raised in Belgium before moving to Paris, she originally went into still photography with plans to become a museum curator, This was in the late '40s and early '50s so she was considerably older than most of her New Wave contemporaries, and unlike most of them, the majority of her work, especially recent work is based in documentary, she hasn't made a feature-length film that wasn't a documentary since '95's "One Hundred and One Nights".

Now at age 89, she's even more older than the current contemporary that she's hanging out with a 34-year-old muralist named JR. His thing is basically to take pictures, large picture often that they take of people and transposed them on the sides of places. It's actually quite impressive and there's definitely something clever about the little photobooth van that JR and Agnes travel from town to town in, just photographing people and putting up murals of them. Sometimes lifesized one of the locals, like a farmer's picture on his barn, or a really interesting one of dock workers wives on the side of storage crates. Varda's toes got placed on the side of a cement truck at one point, something she appreciates although may be slightly embarrassed by. "Faces, Places" or "Visages, Villages" as it's also known as, is basically just that, JR and Agnes traveling from different places, different villages, and photographing people's faces. Recording, other people. They have their own conversations too, some of them have a slight sense of staginess to them, but I don't mind that too much. JR and Agnes seem quite natural together, and of course there's the nice scene of them running through the Louvre, recreating that scene from "A Band Apart", only this time, Agnes taking a ride in a wheelchair. They do go and try to visit Jean-Luc Godard and without giving too much away, there is something sad yet satisfying with the fact that Jean-Luc even today and now, still seems like a complete asshole, even when he's not on screen. I wish she didn't leave those pastries she bought for him with him.

"Faces, Places" will probably work on you more if you have the affection and appreciation for Agnes Varda that I probably should have by now, but I can't get to everything, but this film makes me want to get to more of her work. And to look up JR's work as well. His part's gonna get overshadowed but more than anything else, the movie is actually a showcase of his art and places it in a powerful and emotional context that makes some of it, not just breathtaking on a visual level, but on an emotional one too. Right now, I'm just gonna starting her films to my Netflix queue and maybe I'll revisit this film after I've seen more of her work then.

LOVING VINCENT (2017) Directors: Dakota Kobeila and Hugh Welchman


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

There's been several attempts over the years to bring Vincent Van Gogh, the man onto film. He certainly seems like he's a compelling enough character for a film, so that makes sense, but there's always been a little something off about all the adaptations so far. The Vincent Minelli film "Lust for Life" with Kirk Douglas is generally fondly remember, but it's far from great; I think Robert Altman's "Vincent & Theo" is underrated as all Hell, but if you ask if it tangibly gets us a sense of Van Gogh, I would be reluctant to say so. Now we get, "Loving Vincent" the first animated film to be entirely animated through painting, the movie was shot first with the actors in front of a green screen and edited together and then the commissioned over 100 classical painters to frame-by-frame paint each scene in Van Gogh oil paintings style and it's visually one of the most cinematically fascinating and enchanting films to sit through. Does it capture the essence of Vincent Van Gogh? Well, I mean it certainly captures his art and makes it comes alive, and that alone is enough to see the movie. It's visually overwhelming, all the scenes and setting and characters are recreated from Van Gogh's own art work and it's really magnificent. As a film, well, it's actually kinda interesting, it does struggle to get a grasp on Van Gogh the person, but the movie is kinda about that.

The main character is Armand (Douglas Booth) a son of Van Gogh's postman, Joseph (Chris O'Dowd) who's made it his reluctant mission, first to send a letter that Van Gogh (Robert Gulaczyk) wrote before his suicide to his brother Theo (Cezary Lukaszewica), which was for some reason sent back as undeliverable. Of course, we know that Theo also killed himself a few months after his brother, but eventually the path leads Armand to the people who knew Van Gogh, and he begins to suspect foul play was afoot in his death the more he struggles to find out about the elusive mad genius. There are some contradictory statements and accounts, but it also seems like Vincent was a man of contradictions. A depressive who was under constant care of a Doctor, Dr. Gachet (Jerome Flynn) most notably and six weeks before his passing was mostly seen in a fairly good mood. Like most attempts to deconstruct Van Gogh the man, Armand eventually gets boggled down. There's a bit of a "Citizen Kane" flashback aspects to the storytelling, although the movie it most reminds me of actually is "Hollywoodland" in terms of plot structure, as we constantly see our protagonists struggle to seek out and search for an answer that's simply unable to be found. That's probably the best approach to trying to understand Van Gogh anyway. He's a mystery to us and that's why he's an utter fascination, along with the hundreds of paintings he left us, it's amazing how they've been recreated here and animated; I think this movie may literally bring us the closest possible into the life of Van Gogh. The character aren't just people from his paintings, they're the people who he spent much of his working life with and around, and there's some great voice work from several of them, John Sessions, Helen McCrory and Saoirse Ronan particularly stand out to me, but the star of the film is the animation, as it should be. The focus of Van Gogh should above all else be focused on the paintings more than anything else and this movie does that.

PERSONAL SHOPPER (2017) Director: Olivier Assayas


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

Olivier Assayas is somebody who I only really now realized I have a difficult time grasping as a filmmaker. I always have, of course, but I'm rarely if ever understood exactly why. He's always made good movie, but I've always had a hard time figuring out a connective thread between them. He's a rare breed today, he was originally a film critic who later made the jump to writer/director and looking back at some of his movies now, there's spiritual in his approach to film. Well, not necessarily spiritual, but otherworldy, I guess is the word. I always got the sense that he was aiming for feeling and tone more than plot and sometimes that worked like with "Clean" or "Summer Hours" sometimes it didn't like it really didn't with "Something in the Air". He's had a few interesting muses over this period of time; he was divorced from his wife Maggie Cheung when they made "Clean" together and him and director Mia Hansen-Love had a child together before their amicable split recently. He seems utterly fascinated by Juliette Binoche, but who the hell isn't, but lately he's moved onto Kristen Stewart and this is the second consecutive film they've made together after her amazing performance in what's probably his best film, "Clouds of Sils Maria" and playing a somewhat similar role on the surface. 

Instead of a personal assistant to a major European actress, she's playing the titular "Personal Shopper" Maureen, to a famous European actress, named Kyra (Nora van Waldstratten). She's even moved to Paris for the gig and Kyra will keep her busy even if they're rarely if ever around together at the same time, and the few times we do see her, see seems like she'd be a pain to work with. Maureen basically says as much to Gary (Ty Olwin) her boyfriend, who are apparently both world traveling globalists as he's working in Oman, of all places. She wants her to join him but she's got a reason to stay. Part of it is the work, but mainly, it's the fact that her twin brother suddenly passed away after a sudden heart abnormality attacked him; a heart condition that she also apparently suffers from, requiring her to keep getting regular check-ups. She's also something of a medium, and while she's caught up a bit with some of her brother's Lewis's friends while in Paris, where he lived and passed on, she believes there's some sort of presence from his old house that, may or may not be calling after him, and that may or may not be Lewis. 

My immediate reaction is to read these parts almost as two differing stories entirely they're so different. That said, I of course have never really bought into the European thriller mentality of the nightmarish and surreal having more relevance than the logistics of plot, or as I call it, "Way too inspired by "Vertigo"", but that said, I'm kinda fascinated with the idea of mediums, and they usually end up making good characters in interesting movies. I think the practice bullshit in reality, so don't go spending your money to be conned by John Edward or someone of that ilk, but I do think those who do have that power probably would try to seek out careers and lifestyles in an attempt to suppress those feelings. I mean, if you're able to contact with the dead, that's gotta be a frustrating life. So, yeah, traveling half-way around the world to work at the exact outskirts of entertainment and fashion, arguably the most trivial of shallowest of industries, hmm, I can kinda see that. Of course, nobody in film or television is ever a medium, without having some inevitable connection to an afterlife, and this one seems to be haunting her. 

At first it's just sounds and noises, just slightly above feeling, but then there's a visual presence and then it starts to be trying to contact her, including some eerie messages on her cell phone. I struggle to figure out what exactly all of this means, if it actually means anything at all. The contrasting setting and narrative keep us unease. There's good performances all around, but this is Kristen Stewart's film and she is in every scene of this movie. Even during the height of the hatred of "Twilight" I had never understood the negative attention towards her and her acting. Sure, like any actor, she's gonna get good parts and bad parts, on a regular basis, and when she gets those good roles, she blows them out of the park like she does here. (It might've helped that I had seen her in great performances beforehand going all the back to working with Jodie Foster in "Panic Room". Note: if Jodie Foster ever works with a young actress in her teens or younger, just presume she's already a star, 'cause she's going to be in a few years. Seriously, Stewart, Lawrence, Breslin, this is a pattern, she's training them on set, 'cause lord knows, she's easily the best person to do so, so....)  Few people can pull of this dressed-down ragamuffin  every-woman type character and yet still seem to naturally switch to enticing ingenue with a simple change of clothes, and I can't imagine this role working for too many other stars. As to the film, I think it's more of a mismatch than some may think, but it's still compelling enough to recommend and lord knows, I've seen far worst ghost stories this year. I wish it had a point, but just because a ghost is trying to contact you the beyond, doesn't mean they have to have a good reason to do it either. 

DAVID LYNCH: THE ART LIFE (2017) Director: Rick Barnes, Olivia Neergaard-Holm and Jon Nguyen


It's a documentary where David Lynch narrates about his life while we watch him paint and sculpt and observe and soak everything else that is the day-to-day world of David Lynch, how many starts did you think I was gonna rate this? 

Alright, lately I have been more critical of Lynch than some, but it's Lynch, I'm ultimately a fan like any good cinephile and even if you aren't a fan; you're still fascinated by him. He is naturally a strange character, an enigmatic cerebral filmmaker who's fascinated by images over narratives, conventional narratives at least, (Most of the time, anyway) and seems to relish in his imploring of dreams. He is one of those filmmakers who makes us wonder, what exactly makes him tick. 

I have no clue, if we ever actually learn that in "David Lynch: The Art Life", and for that matter, forget about him talking about his films, like that was ever gonna actually happen anyway. No, we get the personal Lynch here. Lynch, the artist, and he is an artist. He's dabbled in nearly every genre of art you can imagine, film is by no means his first love, and a love of his best stories are about his apprenticeship as a painter. He grew up mostly in the Philadelphia suburb, where just around the corner as he'd walk down the street, he's hear several violent and even racist slurs around town, shedding his perspective of the perfect image of a small town and as one that seems to always have more dark and lurid corners lurking about it. (As somebody who got's family that grew up in that area, that makes absolutely perfect sense, and I can't believe I never pieced that together before) We get a lot of stories about his formative years growing up, very few of them are actually strange or unusual, although there's one noted incident that some have noted bares a striking resemblance to the infamous scene in "Blue Velvet" of Isabella Rossellini battered, bloody and naked suddenly showing up on an otherwise idyllic front lawn. (That god he didn't grow up in Vegas, 'cause in some parts of town, except for the fact that she emerged out of the woods, that would otherwise just be Thursday.) We do see him playing with his young daughter a lot as well; it's a little weird to think of Lynch having a family, he admits that for most of his life it didn't seem likely. What "The Art Life" I suspect is trying to show, is not so much the myth or legend of Lynch, and it barely gets into his film work at all, with only occasional mentions at the end of how he evolved from painting to shorts and then his AFI grant to make "Eraserhead", but the process of his art. We are seeing the artist at work, creating, thinking, imagining, recalling, he's not giving us his narration because he wants us to focus on in the details of his past, but rather show us what's inspiring and going through his mind as he develops his art. He knows he has to create, as all artists of all kinds, and therefore we must seek out and dwell on those pieces of our life and thoughts, until something comes out. I do it, we all do it, "The Art Life" shows us how Lynch does it, and I don't better or worst than anybody else's process, but it's uniquely his. 

For me, I can put on a 12 hour version of this and just let Lynch soak over me and still be disappointed and annoyed that their isn't enough of it: I don't know how others will react or should react the same way, although I can't imagine why anybody would watch this film without knowing who David Lynch is to begin with. I guess you can call this fan service, but it's more fan indulgence to me, and frankly is must-have must-see for cinephiles of all ilks, so I doubt anybody with a casual awareness of Lynch is gonna react to this, butI can't imagine why'd watch and seek this film out anyway. 

HELL ON EARTH: THE FALL OF SYRIA AND THE RISE OF ISIS (2017) Directors: Sebastian Junger & Nick Questad


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

There's a sequence in this movie, it comes after a particularly gruesome death, that is the result of the Bashar government in Syria, a death that, thankfully, at least in the televised version I saw, was edited out, but I've seen enough movies in recent years on this part of the world, and enough images of the violence...., so...-  anyway, one of the talking heads, goes through the history of civilizations and how public displays of violence, by the governing body, has always been used in cultures to, keep the people in line. Drawn and quartering in England, various forms of slut-shaming in France, not to mention, guillotines, China would run over it's citizens, America of course is where the whole town would come together and have a lovely town picnic to go with their regular-scheduled lynchings. The last image in the montage is of Ancient Romans and one of their more famous methods of public punishment through violence, crucifixion. It is, undeniable bizarre to think of such things as ISIS beheading foreign journalists on the internet as simply a continuation of this tradition a modern form of violence to quash public discord, but of course, I'm sure for them, they don't see it as a complete spit in the eye to the sanctity of life, but a tool for their own preservation. All countries are blindingly unaware of their own violent tendencies. We didn't drop the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to kill 700,000 Japanese, we were stopping and preventing a World War from causing more death and destruction; that's one of the more common and memorable lies we tell ourselves here. Hell, even as I write it, I'm tempted to rebut it with explanations about it prevented more harm and life and ended an already drawn-out and deadly war. 

I'm sick of these documentaries about Syria, but like the last one I wrote about, "Cries from Syria", which doesn't feel like I reviewed two long months ago, "Hell on Earth..." needs to be watched. They all need to be watched, even if this one has some now, in hindsight, unfortunate interviews with Michael Flynn as a talking point in the middle. I'm honestly kinda amazed that this one is as conventional a narrative as it is, directors Junger & Questad aren't exactly against talking heads and whatnot, but their most famous works, the sister documentaries, "Restrepo" and "Korengal" were very much based in documenting the realities of the soldiers in the Afghan War, from the soldiers point of view, very much, cut away from the politics of the situation, but "Hell on Earth..." distinguishes itself by stripping down the story of Syria in the last eight years or so and telling the exclusively political tale of it, from the the Arab Spring to today and while, yes there is still plenty of death and destruction all through the movie and white Helmets and nuclear bombings and all that soul-crushing destruction, it's also the most of succinct of the movies so far that explains how and why we go to this point. How a country on the verge of democracy, was slaughtered by it's own government, backed by Russia, and opened the door for ISIS to come in and thrive and that's not even getting into the several disparate rebel groups in the middle fighting both sides or one side or...- trying to get money or resources from elsewhere, so there's a new alliance or group everyday.... (Sigh)

It's a clusterfuck, that's not new, that's not surprising, but that's what it is, and frankly the more we see of it, the more it's shoved in our face, the...- (Sigh) I don't know, maybe nothing will happen, or we'll continue to do nothing I should say, 'cause stuff's gonna keep happening there whether we want to pretend it is or isn't. I don't blame us for being reluctant, we want our presence in the Middle East to be as diluted than it is even now, and there's a distinct chance that whatever best intentions and plans we could have by being more involved, can just as easily backfire and make things worst. We've fought through two metaphorical Hell's on Earth in the Middle East twice this century already, and frankly neither ended as planned and the after-effects,- well, frankly I get why we wouldn't be particularly keen to march back into a new warzone anymore, although the fact that we're trying our damnedest not to take in refugees, is just outright obscene after seeing the world they're living in.

The movie seems to insinuate that the effects may already have hit our shores as there's been a rise in lone wolf ISIS attacks in the west, including in America. Even after a film like this, in regard to Syria I'm not even sure they're problem number one despite all the destruction they've caused. The movie accurately paints them as basically a bunch of hoods, a street gang that's basically into terrorism for the money they can get for it. Even compared to Al-Queda their ideology seems non-existent.  

According to Junger, all Arab Spring Revolutions and demonstrations were essentially, "Anti-Corruption Demonstrations", and when people like Assad decide not to concede but to fight for his right to continue with his unwavering power and corruption, all it really does is allow for other corrupting influences to come in and try to enforce their own form of corruption and call it a change for the better. That's not entirely true as there's of course legitimate influences trying to stop and save the country from ruin, although food for thought there. "Hell on Earth..." of all the Syrian documentaries is probably the one best suited for say a Sociopolitical classroom history lesson on the area. Personally "Cries from Syria" will probably continue to haunt me the longest, but "Hell on Earth," will certainly do that in a pinch as well. From here on out, whatever happens, God help Syria if no else will, and if anybody actually does try, well, they'll probably need more than help from God, but good luck to whomever takes up that mantle. 

BETTING ON ZERO (2017) Director: Ted Braun


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

So, multi-level marketing businesses are pyramid scheme, plain and simple. This is-, not even remotely subjective or debatable, they're pyramid schemes, with a fancy term. Now, this alone should be enough to knock out most of the brands and companies and arrest most of their CEOs and other top people in their positions, but for some weird reason, there are several prominent MLMs around to this day. I mean, from what I hear, at least Mary Kay cosmetics actually work, which is more than some of these brands have going for them. So, I'm not exactly surprised that William Ackman decided to short Herbalife one of the major MLMs in the world.

Never heard of Herbalife? Or what a short is, or who William Ackman is? Yeah, me neither. Well, I probably heard of Herbalife and what a short is, but...- so, funny thing, I think I actually did go to an Herbalife "Nutrition Store" once. They are, as they were shown in the movie, deceptively hard-to-find, they have a green foreground, either with their door or an awning, little-to-no advertisement on what the place actually is, and once inside, I felt like I was trying to be sold a health lifestyle when I was really just looking for something to drink while I had some other walking around to do. Inside it seemed okay, and I think the drink was fine, although I don't remember much of it other than it being too expensive even for a smoothie and I'm pretty certain I decided that moment there that I was just gonna hit the Circle K across the street from my bus stop with the any size 89cent sodas whenever I needed to from there on out. I doubt it's still there now, and just a quick check on Herbalife distributors and storefront in the Las Vegas area indicates that it isn't. Like most people who become a distributor for them, they probably lost money on a product that frankly shouldn't be hard to find in stores, but they really try to sell you on it. (That should be a weird sign when they're so determined to sell you on investing in an entire company's line of products.)

So, Herbalife in particular is a health-food company that you never find in stores, it's purely sold through direct-selling, and those direct sellers who buy stock in the product through a distributor also are recruiters who aim to recruit others into selling Herbalife. BTW if this happens like, thirteen times over or something, literally everybody in the world would be selling Herbalife. Now, it's original CEO Mark Hughes died of a drug and alcohol overdose in 1999, and the Board of Directors appointed Michael O. Johnson, the former head of Disney International the new CEO and to be fair, unlike the more eccentric and exuberant Hughes, he seems like a fairly reasonable guy, and a decent salesman. He even makes a somewhat decent pitch about how most distributors aren't looking to get rich from selling Herbalife but are only in their minor programs to get a little extra money. If that were true and not say, purposefully targeting lower-income families, particularly immigrant and Spanish-language distributors in recent years with several lies about making huge amounts of money

So, William Ackman is an investor and hedge fund manager. I know what you're thinking, but stick with me, he's one of the good ones. Very good ones in fact. He has stakes in companies like Target, Chipotle and Valeant, but he's also known for doing something that's sorta the opposite of investing, something called "Shorting", which is to put your own money up and bet against a company. Essentially he's attempting to make money by betting on a company's failure. He's famously done this with Municipal Bond Insurance a company that basically went completely under during the 2008 crisis. (So, if this was a game of craps, a short is a bet on the Don't Pass Line", or maybe more accurately, the Don't Come Line, which I've just now realize how dirty that name is). "Betting on Zero" documents his $1Billion, with a B, short on Herbalife. This caused them, to attack.

For one, they brought about cases against Ackman, they brought in one of Ackman's rivals Carl Icahn, who sounds and talks to a stressingly similar degree to Donald Trump, who recently hired him to the laughable position of Economic Advisor on Financial Regulation, especially if you look up his history, even when this movie was screened, a lobbying firm for Herbalife bought out the tickets for the screening so that no one else would show up. Herbalife had to recently settle with the FTC to the tune of $200million dollars, and they basically have to change their practices, which of course they're not doing much of, but it took seven years for Ackman's short to pan out, and Michael O. Johnson, their previous CEO has since resigned and left the company, with an 8-figure payday of course. Ackman won't make money on this short, his hedgefund's guaranteed to donate all profits from it, he did that just to make sure everybody knows he's serious. He's also fought back and refused to back down from Herbalife and come back with several claims of his own.

This is one of those documentaries where it'll be interesting to check in on in a few years time. In the meantime, the most interesting part is how compelling the Wall Street players are at this. Ackman is an arrogant and snobby son of a bitch but he's put his money where his mouth is and several others and those that try to take him down, he doesn't stand down from them. The back and forth over the rise and fall of a stock of a company, a Wall Street con man out of spite, articificially raising the artificial stock price of a company that's a pyramid scheme; it's like a sham on a sham on a sham. This is what the business world has come to, isn't it? I'm glad somebody who gives a damn like Ackman is around to call bullshit, hopefully it doesn't cost. It's the only industry where being a philanthropist makes you a pariah.

THE WEDDING PLAN (2017) Director: Rama Buhrstein


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

I have a feeling that "The Wedding Plan" plays differently in Israel and with the more conservative Hasidic sects of the Jewish community there where it's Director Rama Buhrstein, I presume comes from, or she's at least very familiar with.This is her second feature after "Fill the Void" the claustrophobic drama that was about an eighteen-year-old girl who is pressured into marrying a much older man who was her sister's fiance until she suddenly passed away. She's dealing with marriage here, but instead it's an otherwise fairly-independent young woman Michal (Noa Koler) an Orthodox Jew who runs mobile petting zoo, who's marriage-obsessed and at age 32, is in need of a husband. She's got the wedding planned, mind you, the date's set, the ballroom's booked, but her fiance, Gidi (Erez Drigues) has second thoughts. She's determined that God will find her a husband in time.

I guess, technically this is not a story that I've seen before, exactly, but it's close and similar enough to a lot of other narratives; it frankly just feels like a very old and cliche rom-com narrative. I've even seen some reviews refer to the film as "My Big Fat Jewish Nuptials". I wouldn't go that far, but at some point early on in this film, you go on autopilot as you know there's only about three or four different endings this story can have and you're playing them all out in your head already. This one, involves her, go on several speed dates and matchmaking people, usually the ones with a spiritual or religious bent to them. She does have a somewhat mild connection with a famous pop star, Yos (Oz Behavi) but she's vehemently against that connection because, I think pop singer is a little too outside the acceptable norm of her beliefs, something like that, even though she's a big fan, and he proposes a few times and she rejects him, which makes her logic even more suspect as she seems to be turning into the joke of the Old Man refusing help from the flood because God will save him. It does end happily, admittedly not quite where I would've gone or why it does, but- (Sigh) I was bored.

Like I said, I'm sure I'm missing a lot that makes this play better in it's native Israel, and I know Rama Buhrstein is a good filmmaker, I liked "Fill the Void" quite a bit and that film's about as different as night and day from "The Wedding Plan", I would've never pegged the two films for having the same director. I'm not gonna tell her to stick to more dramatic films that seem to edge to the line of political as that film does, but I just don't think this was a compelling well thought-out film- well, actually that's not entirely fair, I think the character is not well thought-out or compelling. She's not the most grating character of all-time, but I really had a hard time caring about her desire to get married, and yeah, even in a culture such as hers where there's some obligation towards it she seemed fairly independent. She ran a business, a successful one based on the money she could spend on keeping up a wedding without a groom for awhile, alright maybe her family flipped a bit of the bill, but still, she seemed demanding and eccentric in not the best of ways; I'm honestly not surprised her boyfriend gave it a second thought and had trouble finding others. I wasn't able to root for her, and that's biggest factor in whether or not this kind of film works. That might just be me, but I know this director can create compelling characters and I don't think she did it here, so, star rating goes down.

I CALLED HIM MORGAN (2017) Director: Kasper Collin


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

I do admit to finding myself more and more infatuated with jazz the older I get, but I am still very much a nubie who lacks true knowledge of the greats, I'm listening to Lee Morgan's biggest hit, "The Sidewinder" as I write this, partly for inspiration and partly just because I want to gain more of a grasp of him as a musician. Until I saw this documentary, "I Called Him Morgan" about his life and death, much of which is recounted from video tape recording of Helen More, his common-law wife who killed him in a night of anger and passion. The recordings were taken shortly before her death by Lenny Reni Thomas, a North Carolina adult educator who instantly recognized who she was once the subject of jazz and Lee Thomas was brought up, Lenny being a jazz aficionado himself. Director Kasper Collin is a Swedish director who is fascinated with jazz; his previous feature was on the the great saxophonist Albert Ayler, here, he tries to reconstruct both the life and times of Lee Morgan as well as Helen, who left the jazz life after her sentencing was up and returned home to North Carolina.

"I Called Him Morgan" is fascinating, although it will probably have more meaning and effect on those who are fans of Morgan. From what I can tell, he was a very talented trumpeter who worked with John Coltrane, Wayne Shorter and Dizzy Gillespie among others, and was inspired by Clifford Brown. He grew up in Philadelphia but mostly worked the club scenes in New York by the end of his short life. His death in '72 was particularly shocking in the jazz world apparently. From what I do know about jazz, there's quite a history of early jazz greats dying early so I'm not exactly certain why this one, other than the way he died, would be particularly shocking, but I supposed that's enough of a reason. I think the film tries to get us really invested, and teaches enough of the history and importance of Morgan and jazz for us to understand, but I gotta admit, I'm a little disconnected to the film. Maybe it's just a little too cerebral for me as a jazz doc, but maybe I just need a Jazz 101 course. (I knew I shouldn't have taken History of Rock'n'Roll instead for my Music Appreciation credit, but I needed an easy A.) Anyway, yeah, I recommend it. It's an interesting story if nothing else and I suspect jazz people are really gonna be intrigued and fascinated. Mostly this movie just reminds that I wish I still had my Grandpa's old jazz records he used to collect. I guess that's something.

KEEP QUIET (2017) Directors: Sam Blair and Joseph Martins


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

So, I don't know much about Poland's modern political landscape but I do know that for much of Europe in recent years, there's been a prominent Far Right-Wing contingent slowly eeking their way back into modern politics. Something to do with a Representative Government structure in some countries, also there's been several groups that have popped up; most of what I know about them is that they often go to soccer games and boo and throw bananas and bombs onto the field whenever an African player touches the ball. But they've been growing in popularity and one of them is apparently this Poland right-wing collective known for co-opting classic Nazi rhetoric and some of their more famous iconography, called Jobbik. One of their more charismatic and notable leaders was Csanad Szegedi, one of the original founders of the Party. He was about as hardcore you get for a modern Nazi. Unbeknownst to him, it turns out, he's Jewish. 

"Keep Quiet" is a compelling documentary about Szegedi and follows as he slowly begins investigating and realizing that fact that for most of his life was not brought up. His grandmother, on his mother's side, he interviews and she shows the tattoo she got while at Auschwitz, and tells other stories.  He had never investigated her side of the family and after the War, she married outside the faith and otherwise grew up in a Christian Nationalist household, at least that's what he thought, only now kinda thinking back on some moments and realizing that something was amiss, like a story about him repeating an anti-semitic joke he heard from school and his mother not finding it funny. The title "Keep Quiet" is titled after what his Grandmother says that she thought was best to do after the War. Go about your life and there's no need to bring up that you're Jewish, she figured. 

He then leaves the Party and begins investigated and embracing his faith, even going to a Rabbi Oberlander to study the Torah and faith; he even gets circumcised and begins a speaking tour, this time on what's happened to him and in some way to try to convince this new community of his to embrace him. As a liberal, mostly I want to laugh at the guy, and of course I did; I mean, and it's not like he's the only one who's had such realizations lately. There's a trend now among the Far Right to have DNA geneological analyses done to confirm their so-called "Whiteness", and the majority of them were not particularly impressed with the results as it is genuinely rare for people to be entirely un-mixed as a race. It's nice to see it happens elsewhere. As to Szegedi, I have no idea what to make of him. I suspect his change is genuine if quick; I also suspect he's one of those people for whom he's always looked for a particular group to be apart of partially 'cause he want to belong and partially because he wants to make sure others aren't in order to feel special. I don't think that's what happening here so much, as he's probably kicked out of that now that he realizes how few will completely believe he's changed no matter what he does. I have a hard time with sympathy for the guy, but I can appreciate his story being told.   

REMEMBER (2016) Director: Atom Egoyan


Image result for [[["xjs.sav.en_US.lxRHmxI2TrQ.O",5]],[["id","type","created_timestamp","last_modified_timestamp","signed_redirect_url","dominant_color_rgb","tag_info","url","title","comment","snippet","image","thumbnail","num_ratings","avg_rating","page","job"]],[["dt_fav_images"]],10000]

So, some of you may know that I don't write all these reviews the second after I see the movie. I'd like to, but what little of it I have, I do need to enjoy having a life sometimes, and if I were to just watch movie and write reviews all the time, I'd have little time to much else, even time to write other stuff on my blog, I need a break, so occasionally I end up not writing about a film for a week or two after I see it, sometimes long if some unexpected circumstances occur. I always have some notes around, but not a whole. So, when I was thinking back on "Remember", remembering "Remember" I guess, in my head this was an interesting little film from a first time filmmaker who's borrowing from some good sources to make it interesting, but is ultimately making a fairly typical revenge film narrative, with a couple interesting-if-not-unique conceits and for good measure, one eh, somewhat eh...- I don't know, a-eh, questionable, I guess, twist at the end? So, suddenly going back to look it up and seeing Atom Egoyan's name of all people show up as the director is somewhat shocking to say the least. 

Not surprising, I mean, as much as I do admire, he's made a weird, questionable choice before and has since, but I don't remember anything that he previously ever did as coming off so, not-amateurish, per se, but- the story of "Remember" is very much a Beginner's Piece, as they might say in certain circles. It is a first-time screenwriter from Benjamin August's who most notable previous work...- (Checks IMDB, surprised look, long pause.) okay, as the Casting Director for "Fear Factor". Huh. Okay, but wow! that's a weird career transition; I mean, he's got some producing credits in there too, but until this film, as far as I can tell he's never worked with what we would think of as a something in the vain of a traditional film script. (That's not a knock btw, I know people who've had similar positions to him and there's no reason somebody can't jump from one profession in the industry to something completely different naturally, and this is by no means, the worst transition I've seen of something like that.) 

Anyway, so-eh, Egoyan's latest, "Remember" is a revenge story as Holocaust survivor Zev (Christopher Plummer) finds out that the Nazi guard who murdered his son is still alive. It's 70-years-later, his wife has just passed and he's suffering from Dementia, well, movie dementia anyway, and he has a name, Rudy Kurlander and with the help of a fellow patient and survivor in the Old Folks' Home, Max Rosenbaum, (Martin Landau) he has four Rudy Kurlander's he has to seek out and find, sure that one of them is the right one. Structurally, the movie reminds me a bit of Jim Jarmusch's underrated "Broken Flowers" where Bill Murray's character had to travel and seek out four past lovers to try to determine who wrote a letter informing him that they secretly had a child with him. The difference between these two films is that, with "Broken Flowers" you genuinely weren't sure which of the four women, if it was one of those four, actually were the letter of the note and we and Murray were trying to determine based on behavior cues and other such possible indicators, it wasn't so much about finding who wrote it, as it was looking into each others lives. I think that's what they're trying to do with this, but A. SPOILER: It's gonna be the last Rudy Kurlander (Jurgen Prochnow) who turns out to be the one, because if it wasn't then he wouldn't have to go on the four trips and we wouldn't have the movie, but it does kinda show a little sense into the others' lives. There's some good work provided for some extended cameos by the likes of Bruno Ganz and Heinz Leaven, and there's also a memorable scene involving the surviving son of one of the Rudy Kurlander, played by Dean Norris in the kind of role that he basically is born to play, but-eh, I kinda wish he didn't to be honest. He's good, but the scene and character itself, is a bit one-dimensional. I mean, I get why, but when we're already just spinning wheels until the climax, I think I would like a little something more intricate? That might be me though; I can see a good defend of this scene brought up though, considering what happens afterwards. 

So-eh, do I have a recommendation here or not? I'm honestly not sure I can tell. This would certainly be nowhere near the first movie I'd bring up to anybody interested in Atom Egoyan, who genuinely is one of the most interesting filmmakers working today and has made some masterpiece in the past and usually even his failures are at least interesting, and this is a rare instance when he even that isn't crossed. But it's a good leading performance from Christopher Plummer, I can't knock that, but the script and story is sorta, well, beneath the talent involved. I keep going back and forth on this one...- I guess the last standard that I can go to here is the, "Is it worth watching, in order to have an opinion on it?" question. (Sigh) And if that's the case...- (Changes 3 STARS to 2 1/2 STARS), then I guess, eh, no. I'm sorry, it's just not; I wish it were,but I-. No, I can't see a need for that. I hope everybody involved, does better the next time. (Well, those still currently alive and working anyway, RIP Martin Landau) including screenwriter Benjamin August. I know he's got other projects in the pipeline, so hopefully this screenwriting direction of his will pay off as he starts writing more and more. In the meantime; eh, yeah, I know there's like 100 cheesy Gene Shalit jokes I can use here with the title, but eh, but just skip-over, "Remember", go seek out a better Egoyan or Plummer film for now.

Wednesday, June 6, 2018


CARRIE (1976)

Director: Brian De Palma
Screenplay: Lawrence D. Cohen based on the novel by Stephen King

Just reading some trivia on the film, apparently many of the actors including Amy Irving, Nancy Allen, and even Piper Laurie, who along with Spacek earned Oscar nominations for the film, thought that their characters were so over-the-top that they thought the film was a comedy and played their parts that way. I guess back then, before Stephen King was officially crowned our modern master of horror that might've made sense, but boy does that seem weird now, even though, yes, most of the main supporting characters probably did feel they were in a comedy as all they were doing was pull off an elaborate, that, without giving too much away for those who haven't seen it, let's just say it backfires on them, badly.

I've always been reluctant to add "Carrie" to the Canon. It took me awhile to figure out exactly why, I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that I had a very difficult separating the personal aspects of the film for me. "Carrie" was one of those big movies of mine growing up; I imagine it probably was for anybody who grew up really genuinely hating some people in high school. Not everybody of course, but you don't notice or remember most from high school at the time, you're mostly focused in on those who for one reason or another chose to make your life difficult. Some didn't realize they may have done so, others devoted a distressing amount of time to it. I won't dwell onto this too much since, I grew up in the Columbine era of high school, and well, we haven't gotten out of that yet, (Either that or we moved onto something way the hell worst) and frankly, yeah, for some, at certain points, "Carrie" plays more as wish-fulfillment release than maybe it should. 

Of course, if I'm being honest with myself, I didn't read that way the first time I saw it The first Stephen King novel to be translated to the big screen, “Carrie,” is a horror film classic that forty-some odd years later is amazingly still actually scary. Sadistic nature of audience members like me aside, the movie works mostly because, unlike most horrors where we're waiting for the actual scare to invade the hero characters that we're usually identifying with, this is one of the few movies that's distinctly about the perspective of the frightening thing that will inevitably attack others. The fact that it gives us others more than enough reason for their punishments from the fright, a shy and disturbed teenage girl, Carrie White (Oscar-nominee Sissy Spacek) makes it a more enjoyable for us to revel in it than it might otherwise if we didn't have sympathy for her, which is probably the most genius part of the story. 

After a particular frightful and humiliating incident in the girls' locker room, Carrie starts to realize she has some special powers. After some research she realizes that she's telekenetic and can move things with her mind. This would become a common horror villain trope for awhile. Meanwhile, one of the girls who got in trouble for her actions before, Sue (Amy Irving) decides to convince her boyfriend Tommy (William Katt) to ask Carrie out to the Prom instead of her. Meanwhile, another girl, Chris (Nancy Allen) who blames Carrie from getting her banned from the prom, she "talks" a few other students, mainly her boyfriend Billy (John Travolta) into pulling a humiliating prank on Carrie out of revenge. Of course, she doesn't know, what we know and what Carrie's mother is learning. Carrie's mother Margaret (Oscar-nominee Piper Laurie) is simply put, certifiably insane. She locks Carrie in a closet after she learned that she began menstruating for instance, fearing that it was some sign of the devil, or some other religious bullshit that stems from her being a little too loose and easy when she was in school and her boyfriend leaving when Carrie was little. She's the real villain to me, 'cause I think we can insinuate that if she didn't raise Carrie like this that she wouldn't become so insular that she could then start moving inanimate objects with her mind. (BTW Carrie wins all "Which superpower do you want," games.) 

The movie is directed by Brian De Palma, he's a director who I've always been a little back and forth on myself, sometimes he makes some of the best thrillers in modern cinema like "Blow Out" and "Body Double" or the underrated "Femme Fatale" and "Carlito's Way", other times, I tend to think he's somewhat miscast as a director. "Carrie," is a little bit of a mix for me in this regard; of course the famous split screen effect was innovative in it's use back then, and it works here. Other times, like a clothing montage where I wondered if he has any idea where to place the camera at all. He's usually best at style and not-so-much substance, this is true of even some of his most beloved films like "Scarface", or "The Untouchables" much less some of his more notorious later-careers flops. 

"Carrie"'s biggest contribution to cinema and the horror genre, might actually be the last scare scene where Amy Irving's dream sequence is suddenly invaded. When I first saw the movie, that was the legit only scene that actually frightened me and took me aback. I had accepted everything else somehow, but that ending, which caused dozens of copycats, the apparent presence of some awful remnant of what had happened, what the others had done...- that was the biggest fright. That's the lasting impression that keeps people coming back to this one. I might argue that it's still the best Stephen King adaptation out there, and part of that is that it can work on so many different levels for so many different people. As a horror, it's a classic, a revenge fantasy it's one of the best, as a character study this is probably really underrated, most horror films even great ones, don't hinge on the characters themselves being the purveyors of horror but this not only does, but it wouldn't work if it was done any other way. 

Thursday, May 31, 2018



TOP TEN FILMS ABOUT WWII:                                   15



Well, this one should be fun. I mean, this should be difficult, but, you know, not Worst Theme Songs of All-Time painful, thank fucking Christ. God, whose stupid-ass idea was it for me to do that one anyway?

(From "Top Ten Worst TV Show Theme Songs" Post)
And yes, in a runaway, TOP TEN WORST TV SHOW THEME SONGS won by a landslide!. And I'm happy about that, that was one of my suggestions to the list and the one I most wanted to see win.

Oooooh, right, mine.


Well, I guess I've got no one else to blame on that one. Instead the crowd has spoken and based on the suggestion of Alex Willoughby, oh hey, old friend of mine from high school, thanks for the suggestion; I appreciate it, and we're gonna turn the lights down low, and talk about NIGHT.

Yes, yes, we're counting down some Night Movies, oh, I love the night life, as much I love to boogie, as if I don't suffer from any, Night Fever, I can be dancing the night away, in the still of the night, all night long, so let's the spend the night together, twisting the night away- Okay, I'll stop! Although when I think about night, I usually think about songs, and not-so-much, movies. In fact, it's actually a little weird to think about movies that only take place at night. Especially ones that entirely take place at night. And if they do, it's usually, one night. And one long night, I'm actually kinda curious to go through my lists of films I've seen that take place, only at night, or at close to only at night as I can get, (Well, talk the full criteria in a minute) that actually take place over several nights. It's a little hard, usually there's that pesky day in the middle that screws everything up.

Stupid days, I hate them. All that brightness and sunlight and heat, and people waking up, who needs all that crap? (Shrugs) Sorry daywalkers, but what do you expect, I'm a writer; the ultimate night owl. That stereotype's true as Hell and I'm a Las Vegan where half of us sleep in the day and work at night anyway, partly because we lost track of time to begin with and we don't realize it's not night until sometime around nine or ten a.m. when we finally eat dinner and go to bed.

Anyway, night time, it is an interesting suggestion. Hell, it's almost like a challenge; I bet a lot of good movies could be made with the prompt that the entire film has to be set at night. So, how will I determine this?

Well, fair warning, as of my writing this, I haven't made the list yet, so hopefully it won't be subject to too many alterations and changes, there's a chance it might though, but obviously the first priority, we're talking the top films, so we're talking the best films. That's one. Two, obvious, the action in the movie should entirely take place at night, although that is gonna be tricky. Most movies we naturally think of as taking place during the night, usually have at least one scene that takes place during the day, and you know the damnedest thing about that is that it's probably gonna be either the very first scene or the very last scene in the movie! I mean, it makes sense, for several reasons, logically at the end of the night, comes the day, and of course symbolically, and least in Western literary and philosophical metaphor, we often go through darkness in order to come into the light, and there's no better symbolism for that then the transition from night to day, and the vice-versa is true, we often start out pure and then descend into the darkness. Yep, day and night have a hard time separating themselves from each other, they always seemed to be joined.

So, let's say, perhaps, approximately 95% of the movie, minimal, maybe, give-or-take a couple percentages, should take place at night for it to count? Or at least be considered, with movies with higher percentages of the action taking place at night, being given more prominence? I think that's doable, but this also leads into a 3rd, or perhaps 4th criteria, depending on how you're counting, what exactly is, well, night? No seriously, are we talking, complete darkness out side, from sundown to sunrise? From dusk 'till dawn? Or, should we say a particular time, to be more specific? And what about Daylight Savings Time? Or what about movies that take place by the North Pole or down in Antarctica where it's night for half the year? Or can I just say, it's nine o'clock somewhere and get away with it that way? Nah, of course not. When we say night, it's sunset to sunrise and according to Wikipedia, when the sun is below the horizon, and we're also talking, darkness. It has to be dark outside, at least at the time that the story is taking place, in the location that the film is taking place.

Speaking of locations however, for the sake of sanity, I'm gonna disqualify anything that takes place, in outer space, where that's the obvious known location. Yeah, I thought of that, ha, ha, ha. Although that doesn't technically mean, the film has to take place on Earth, or even on any known existing celestial body that exists in the real universe as we know it, but yeah, claiming it's outer space and it's always dark there, eh, no. Scratch that line of thinking out of right away. Sorry, "Alien" fans.

As to night itself, well, just because something takes place at night, that alone doesn't make it enough to make this list to me. There has to be something about the fact that it takes place at night, that matters. It can't just be, that was the time they shot, or it just happens to be when the events of the movie take place. Maybe not as stringent as the only time this story could've possibly taken place is at night, although that'll help, but the setting of night, it should have meaning and value to the film. There's so many different things that night can invoke, you know? Romance, enchantment, shadowy figures, dark corners, frights, loneliness, mystery, etc. Night and day aren't just constructs, they each have a different tone and a different mood from each other, and within those moods and tones, other moods and tones that are also very different from each other. It means something to go out during the day, and it means something very different to go out at night. So that's gonna be the last x-factor, the movie's usage of night. How necessary is it, how does the film use it, how does it improve the story, and a bunch of other naval-gazing questions along those lines as well. Basically, the fact that the movie takes place at night, has to matter, and it has to matter a great deal.

So, I think those are the main qualifications, well also, I had to have seen the movie. There's that caveat, and I suspect that's gonna knock out a few popular ones, so let me know about them in the comments. comment here, comment on Facebook, Twitter,... (Shrugs)  Google Plus, if you want, I forget I have that account, but by all means....


(Long deep breath)

Okay, that wasn't as painful but that was still quite challenging. I had to seek out and rewatch a few things on fast forward just to double-check, some of them were tougher to hit that 95 or so threshold than you'd think. Setting is weird, there's always a possibility that a lot of movie that we think of as being dark or associate with nighttime, probably a lot more of them took place in the daytime. more than you'd realize. There's some examples of the opposite happening as well too. Alright enough chit-chat; I think I'm good; let's do this. We're counting down....!

THE TOP TEN FILMS SET ENTIRELY AT NIGHT! (Well, mostly at night. Basically entirely at night, essentially...- THEY'RE CLOSE ENOUGH!)

Number ten: I know it would be very attracted to put a bunch of films on this list that are essentially just a couple people talking for a couple hours, or having an all-night evening, maybe a date. I've talked about some of the more popular films like that many times before, even some that kinda suck I have some level of attraction too. "Nick & Nora's Infinite Playlist" could've been a helluva lot worst you know? (Although it still annoys me that there's not one self-aware "The Thin Man" reference in that film.) That said, obvious choice is usually obvious, for a reason. When we're going out to have long conversations with possible friends or acquaintances about life, where do you like to go? I like to go to a nice restaurant.

10. "My Dinner with Andre" (1981) Director: Louis Malle

I guess I could've picked something more obscure here, but this is pretty much what I think of when I think of going out at night. Long, deep conversation at a nice restaurant with an old friend, or maybe an old foe who I can catch up with an debate. I mean, I guess in some modern times this movie could take place in the daytime and maybe in a coffee shop or some place more casual, but, I don't know, something about this conversation taking place in some place less, I don't know, sophisticated, feels wrong. Talking long into the night is way more intimate and revealing than catching up during the day does. Anyway, this film's already in the Canon of Film, you can check that out at the link below if you want more details on this one.

Number nine: So, there's definitely a few genres out there that are intimately associated with night,
one of the big ones is horror. Still, what's really scary about night in most of these movies, is the contrast. Night is mysterious, frightening, full or lurid darkness and shadows where threats can hide, so more of them than you think, have a significant portion of the film taking place in day time, even some classic that take place predominantly in daytime just to undercut that calming sense of light and safety that day is supposed to bring. That said, not all the classics of the genre do this.

9. "Night of the Living Dead" (1968) Director: George A. Romero

I actually wrote a review for Romero's original "Night of the Living Dead", way back, back, early, early on, like, maybe a month or two into starting this blog. The link is below, although I don't recommend you click on it unless you really want to see how evolved my writing has gone from the early days.

Yikes. I mean I'm sure ten years down the road, I'll look at my writing style now and be just as embarrassed, but, eh, no-I,- (Sigh) No, no. I'm mostly just embarrassed to read those and think I could've done better even then. And in regards to this film in particular, I do want to take another shot at it at some point in the near future, 'cause I think I underrated this film. It's really difficult to look at "Night of the Living Dead" with fresh eyes now that zombies and zombie movies have become so ingrained into our culture. I've confessed before that I'm not particularly enthralled with zombies as a villain, but I gotta give it up to the original here. Watching the film, there's actually not as many zombies as you'd think and the majority of the film takes place in a house that's quickly trying to stand guard as they await the march of the living dead to swarm in on them. Simply put, that's great tension-building. It's also truth in advertising, the events all take place, at night. That's rarer than you'd think, as I've found out doing this list. It manages to get, or in some cases, all those aspects of horror movies that make them frightening, including the nighttime setting laying an extra undercurrent of fear, unable to see what's out there and how far, or how close the threat may be, and the added level of effect that has on the characters and the situation is played perfectly.

Number eight. John Huston's name came up a lot as I was doing this list. That's not surprising, he basically invented what we now know as film noir with "The Maltese Falcon". That's still his best film, but it was far from his only great one and he did other films that explored night as a part of the setting. He's actually one of the few filmmakers I had a few options of picking from for this list. But I chose the one where night is the time for revelations about one's true emotions get revealed.

8. "The Dead" (1987) Director: John Huston

Huston's final film, "The Dead", based on a James Joyce short story called "Dubliners" is a somber film, ironic, since most of it is a party somebody's throwing. An all-star cast get-together, and it's only at the end of the night, after the party when one character reveals something to their significant other, something personal, something they never knew about that person. There's always that cliche about how the biggest events usually happen in the middle of the night, and yeah, this is one of those movies. It's also the only all-night party movie on this list, (Well, unless you count...- well, we'll get to that one later) I thought about a couple other, again most of those movies usually had a significant portion of the film take place in daytime, although I do wish I had more comedies on this list. That said, "The Dead", is one of those brilliant reflective movies that says more about life and circumstance than many of us would like to admit we have a connection to. It's one of those parties you go to, whether you want to or not and things happen, but from a different time and era.

Number seven. Oh boy, this one.I thought a great deal about this one, and remember I'm judging this, not solely based on film quality, but also the importance and relevance of the films taking place at night, and how night is used to great effect to add to a film. I mean, if I just listed these films solely in terms of quality as films, "My Dinner with Andre" would probably be at the top of the list, so.... That said, um, outside of this qualification of "night", I think this movie is highly overrated. Not bad, by any means but-eh, personally I consider the best movie in the franchise to be the first sequel.

7. "Die Hard" (1988) Director: John McTiernan

Yeah, I'm that one. The one who argues that "Die Hard 2" is the best "Die Hard", and I think it's easily the best in the franchise in fact. I actually think "Die Hard" has periods that are too slow and at some points the tension and action comes to a complete halt, and Paul Gleason's character should've just been written out completely, and while I think it's really good despite all that, to me, the more interesting and most entertaining "Die Hard" film is the second one. That said, "Die Hard 2" takes place at night, almost coincidentally more than anything else. It helps tells the story, sure, and there's some strategic advantages to it, but "Die Hard", undercuts it's otherwise exuberant-yet-benign nighttime setting, (Fine, Christmas night setting, but no, it is not a Christmas movie, screw people on that one.) and allows it to enhance the situation, the danger, the intensity of being trapped in a building that's under a terrorist hostage situation, and a lone man who's out there trying to stealthy save the day while not getting killed himself. I mean, the terrorist prepared for the night, they even prepared in case light was thrust upon them by the LAPD. Sure, it's never been unusual that action films take place at night, but I would have a hard kind coming up with an earlier film that used it's setting of night to it's advantage as much as "Die Hard" did. It's still the standard of it's genre, and for good reason.

Speaking of the strangest most improbable things happening at night, number six:

6. "After Hours" (1985) Director: Martin Scorsese

So, we've had nights out at dinner, nights out at parties, nights out at parties that turn into hostage situations, so nothing unusual so far, but we haven't had a really surreal night of insanity and paranoia, that kind of Kafkaesque nightmare that's both frightening and hilarious. Martin Scorsese has had so many great films that it's easy for one or two to slip through the cracks; that used to be "After Hours", although in recent years, it's gotten a bit of a popularity resurgence. It was overlooked at the time a bit with Scorsese famously splitting the Independent Spirit Awards for Best Director with the Coen Brothers's "Blood Simple", which unfortunately I could not find a spot for on this list. That said, "After Hours" takes this horrific scenario of everything going completely wrong for a main character and turns what would normally be a wronged man narrative of empathy and fright, into a sadistically twisted joke. It's too ridiculous to explain what happens, you just have to experience it to believe it. There's a long list of movie about bad nights out where everything goes wrong, so few of them use the night as more than just setting, "After Hours" is one of the few that really, genuinely feels like "Don't Go Out at Night" is genuinely good advice that would've prevented everything from happening if the main protagonist had followed it.

Number five: (Sigh) I debated this one for awhile, and I decided to go with it, but this is gonna be a really controversial pick.

5. "Daybreak (aka Le Jour se Leve)" (1939) Director: Marcel Carne

So, one really common theme I discovered while doing this list, is that, well there are a lot of movies that are technically set at night, but the actual story that's being told, might be in a world that's not so full of night. Usually these are flashbacks, or in some cases, dreams. If you think about it, technically, a movie like "The Wizard of Oz" takes place primarily at night, even though most of that night is spent with the main character in an unconscious slumber dreaming about a Technicolor world. There's several others that fit into this category, "Double Indemnity" for instance arguably, and I was trying to figure out whether or not to include a movie with this kind of storytelling conceit or not. I certainly think putting a list together of a bunch of them would just be cheating, but it does make sense in some cases, and it happens enough that I think it should be represented, so I picked the one that I think most used the night setting of it being the time where our main character is confessing the story for our experience the best and to me that's Marcel Carne's "Daybreak" or it might be better known to some as "Le Jour se Leve". It's the only foreign film I put on the list, (Well, one is half-foreign, but we'll get to that) which is a bit surprising considering some of the German Expressionism uses of light and dark, but again, they're not all mostly set at night. In "Daybreak" the main character has killed a man and is holding up in tall building overnight while Police are surrounding him and as they are actively trying to force their way in, we see in flashback what happened to Francois (Jean Gabin) that led him to this point.

I must confess, it's been awhile since I've seen this film, and I do need a rewatch, and to be honest I've never really been as enthralled with Carne as others have, (Why exactly does "Children of Paradise" need to be three fucking hours long!?) but that said, if there's one movie where it matters and effects the films that the narrator is reflecting on other events in the middle of the night, I think it's definitely "Daybreak".

Number four. You know, going out to dinner, going out to a party, you know what's really a night thing, where all the shit really hits the fan? The after-the-party, (finger quotes) "party."

4. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966) Director: Mike Nichols

Yeah, I suspect that this might've been an easy call for most. I actually have a lot of affection for this film and the play, it's one of my personal favorites. In fact, I've even done some scene work with it in some basic acting classes; I think I made a pretty good George if I say so myself. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" takes place on an Ivy League campus after one of those cliched but totally realistic faculty soiree that go into the night and everybody gets sloshed, and follow the exchanges of two couples, one new to campus and the other who's done this routine so many different times, they've developed a little game of it. A game that, can get a bit out of hand, especially in the middle of a long, drunken night. The movie and original play by Edward Albee were both controversial, in fact the modern MPAA ratings were basically created for this movie. I'm probably ranking it a little high, 'cause most of the movie is basically inside a house, or a restaurant, so the night aspect is sorta mostly just a detail than a feature, although I can't imagine any believable scenario where this story happens in daytime. That's what really saves this one for me and makes me consider it a legitimate night film, not just one that takes place in night.

Number three: So, you know one of the funny things about being a Las Vegan is that there's a great deal of people who work at night here. There's people that work primarily at night most everywhere sure, but you definitely make more connections with people who worked at night here than most towns, and there's a lot of different jobs that happens in. Bartenders is a big one, waiters and waitresses, hoteliers is a bit unusual, convenient store clerks, sure, hookers and dancers in certain parts of town and times of night. One profession that this is really common, so common in Vegas in fact that there was actually a long-running reality show based on those late-night connections, is cab drivers.

3. "Night on Earth" (1991) Director Jim Jarmusch

"Night on Earth" is an anthology or compilation movie of sorts; it's five stories taking place at five different times at night and in five different world cities, each story centered around a cab ride. Writer/Director Jim Jarmusch has made some other films like this before, most notably "Coffee and Cigarettes" and his inspirations have usually been related in some way to his original inspiration, poetry. He's one of the premiere vanguards of the American Independent Film Movement of the '80s, and you can basically think of "Night on Earth" as five short stories of his, and they're all pretty good and each one is very different from the others. (The one in Rome is particularly unique, fair warning Roberto Benigni is involved. I know some don't think of that as a good thing, I tend to be okay with it.) You can debate which stories are your favorite or are the best, I prefer the Paris one myself, but you can also read the movie as a journey through the night itself. The movie celebrates each part of it from sundown to sunrise and tell each tale at a different time of night and the tones of each little hour are just as different as the characters and the cities themselves. Night of course, always walks in beauty in Jarmusch's films and in a way "Night on Earth" is his way of celebrating all the ways the night is beautiful. I'm honestly surprised this one never caught on more and that there aren't more imitations or pseudo-remakes or re-imaginings of this film; it's one of his most universal films, especially early Jarmusch, but, well, I hope, like all these choices if you haven't seen them, you'll seek them out.

Number two: Yeah, yeah, I didn't forget the obvious. Which one did I pick?

(Clears throat, gets into characters, Transylvanian accent)

Ca-rea-tures, of the night; what muuu-sic they make."

2. "Dracula" (1931) Director: Tod Browning

Ye-up. Vampires, I didn't overlook this obvious trope of night films, but again, not as many as you'd immediately think take place primarily at night. Mainly because, you need the day to contrast with the world of vampires at night, or to reveal the sun coming up and kill them. (You know, I never really think about it, but that is weird.) I guess there might've been one or two other vampires movies I could put here. I would've considered; "Interview with the Vampire" more if, you know, it didn't suck. (Look, I'm sorry, I've tried, she sounds like a nice and interesting person, sure, but in terms of her work, I don't get Anne Rice at all.) but when it does come to vampires, I usually end up back at the classic "Dracula". And you know, yeah, there's a little opening in daytime, but actually, this is one of the rare instances where I re-checked a film and it actually had less day scenes than I remembered. Everything else, takes place at night, and not just because it's convenient for Dracula, it's convenient for everybody else to talk and eventually investigate and capture him, once they realize he's the one, well, murdering and raping essentially. (Sighs) I do tend to like more romantic versions of vampire stories, outside of this film. (That reminds me, I'm like five seasons behind on "True Blood," still, I should really catch up on that.) Tod Browning is one of the great forgotten names of early cinema and it's a shame he gets overlooked as a director. He retired quite young and many of his films are considered lost, but we still have the original and best.

Alright, before I reveal my number one, I'm gonna throw out some honorable mentions in no particular order that didn't make the list, but for one reason or another I seriously considered, and what the hell, why stop recommending films at ten now.


"The Fireman's Ball"-This is the satirical comedy that put Milos Forman on the map, and damn-near got him thrown out of Czechoslovakia. It's a great movie, I don't know how important it is that it takes place at night though.

"Blade Runner"-You know, I didn't even realize that this movie takes place entirely at night until I started looking things up. That said, if you know my position on it, than you probably shouldn't be too surprised that I left it off. By the way, while we're on the subject of overrated, same goes for both versions of "Evil Dead".

"American Graffiti"- Eh, there's too many memorable scenes that do take place in daytime, including the climax.

"Die Hard 2"-Yeah, I just want to elaborate again that "Die Hard 2" is the best of the franchise. I stand by it; he blows up a plane in mid-air, with a lighter!

"Blood Simple"-I don't know how well this holds up now that we have three decades of Coen Brothers works to compare, but I probably need a rewatch; I honestly have trouble remembering how much of this film takes place in daytime.

"Night and the City"-It's weird, I genuinely couldn't find a spot for a film noir movie on this list, too many of them, including this underrated Jules Dassin one, just spends a little too much time in the daytime, which is weird considering it's title; "Night and the City" are the basically the two biggest ingredients you need for a film noir.

"The Sweet Smell of Success"-Oh, there was this classic noir as well. This I seriously thought about including for a little while, and it's one of the few movies that takes place primarily at night, that doesn't take place in just one night. Still, great movie though.

"Key Largo"-One other film noir that just missed. This was the other John Huston movie I seriously considered, and I'm definitely tempted especially since it has both Humphrey Bogart and Edward G. Robinson, possibly my two all-time favorite actors in it. It's a great tense hostage movie in of itself.

"Dick Tracy"-Did you ever notice that very little of this film takes place specifically in the daytime? Granted, it's unusually forgettable and it's not particularly among Warren Beatty's best directing pursuits but I do tend to be an apologist for it. As an adaptation, it's actually closer to the comic than it probably should be.

"Hard Eight (aka Sydney)"-I just happened to rewatch this recently, it's really underrated. Just one-two many daytime scenes, but it's more of a night film than people might realize.

"Get on the Bus"-This one gets forgotten among Spike Lee's work, but I think it's underrated. Might be difficult to explain the context these days, The Million Man March in '95 has kinda become more forgotten than even this film.

"Collateral"-I know some rank this as Michael Mann's best; I tend to put "Heat" in that position, but "Collateral" really is very good.

"Nocturnal Animals"-This is another one I debated over, because of the "Daybreak" thing, but ultimately no matter how I sliced it, there were too many scenes during the day and if I'm wrong about that, it's so Pinteresque in it's structure, who can tell?

"Victoria"-I don't know how many have seen this German film from Sebastian Schipper, but it's really impressive. The whole thing is shot in one take and takes place from like 4:00am to a little after 6:00am. It's an amazing feat, and it's entertaining with that trick, unlike say, "Russian Ark" which is just boring as Hell. Ugh.

"Edmond"-Another lesser known film, this is a Stuart Gordon film based on the David Mamet play, and has one of William H. Macy's very best leading roles in it. Despite that, the movie just barely escaped being a straight-to-DVD release. (Shrugs) I personally think I would've tried for a wider release, but that's me.

"Only Lovers Left Alive"-This Jim Jarmusch love story was the closest I came to putting a second vampire film on the list. I know some people who really love it, but I'm just in the "It's okay" camp on it, myself.

"Irreversible"-Yeah, that scene... that said, as a film, it's honestly not as interesting as people think it is.

"Rope"-As much as I love this film, I don't think this movie needed to necessarily be set at night, if it didn't want to be. For most of it anyway.

"Dinner Rush"-I really wanted to put this on the list; I consider it one of the most underrated and underseen films of all-time, but I would've had to get rid of "My Dinner with Andre" and I can't take out one great restaurant film for another. That said, still seek this film out if you haven't already.

"Still the Drums"-You've probably never heard of this movie, but interesting fact, it's in the "Guiness Book of World Records" for most wins by a single person in a film festival, for their work on the same film. Talbot Perry Simons won for Directing, Writing, Acting, Producing, and Best Song at the New York International Independent Film & Video Festival. It's also actually, a pretty good film, and I think it takes place mostly at night. I think.

"Radioland Murders"- Nah, I'm kidding, I didn't seriously consider this one at all, but this should be a better movie than it actually is. That said, we really should make fun of George Lucas for this a lot more often than we do.

Alright, number one. What's the best films set, entirely (Almost) at night? Well, like I said, there were a few setbacks in making this. Night, usually ran into day a little too much. Clarifying night specifically can be tricky, how important is the setting of night in the movie, and I couldn't cheat with "Outer Space", but I did say it didn't have to take place on Earth though. And if something doesn't take place on Earth, or any known place, than maybe we can create a world that doesn't necessarily follow the day and night pattern, and perhaps see what happens....? Yeah, I probably gave too much away with that hint.

1. "Dark City" (1998) Director: Alex Proyas

Alright, first of all, I never saw "The Crow", so that's why that's not here. I know, I've been told it's all night as well, but...- anyway, Alex Proyas's "Dark City", it's a great movie, it takes place over multiple nights, the only scene of day is at the very end, it makes sense why there are no day scenes between the night scenes, it's called "Dark City" and it's very dark in all the best literal and figurative ways, it's makes sense in the universe that's created.... If I wanted to, I could even argue that it basically covers my missing film noir requisite...., and it even has some German expressionism stuff there too. It's a great movie that lives and bathes itself in night, so much so that for the characters it's hard to even remember what day looks like. I've written on this film before, in fact my Canon of Film post on it was republished on Age of the Nerd recently at the link below:

and I think this is a solid number one choice that's difficult to argue against. I can't think of too many other great movies where the setting of night matters this much and is this intricately important to the film and story itself.

Hope you enjoyed this list, let me know if you have thoughts on my choices or others that I should've considered, or recommendations for others. Well, that's all for now; I got about half a dozen documentaries to write movie reviews about.

Oh, good night, everyone. Good night.