The Movie Jar Series: Week 9

 Bringing Up Baby:

“Bringing Up Baby” is a 1930s classic that’s been on my watch list for years. Believe it or not, but this is the first movie I’ve seen with Katharine Hepburn in it! It is a screwball comedy directed by Howard Hawks. He also directed “His Girl Friday” which is one of my all-time favorite films, so I was excited to see “Bringing Up Baby”. 

This movie stars Carey Grant as David Huxley, a straight-laced paleontologist who cares very much what others think of him. Katharine Hepburn plays Susan Vance, an heiress who lives her life for herself, without another care in the world. I loved the juxtaposition of these two leads. On the eve of his wedding to another woman, David meets Susan, and quickly gets drawn into her shenanigans. Susan has a pet leopard, named Baby, whom much of the film is centered around. The story takes place over the course of 24 hours, and more twists and turns occur in this time frame than have likely ever occurred throughout David’s life. This series of comedic mix-ups leads to a romantic relationship between the two leads. 

“Bringing Up Baby” is chock-full of one-liners and physical comedy. I feel as if the plot is a little lacking and predictable by modern standards, but the comedic script makes up for this. The plot was fast-paced, yet still managed to drag due to its predictability. Hepburn and Grant delivered in their respective roles. David and Susan had palpable chemistry throughout the film as their two characters bickered over the course of the story. “Bringing Up Baby” is definitely worth viewing if you haven’t seen it yet. While certainly feeling dated, it is fun and quippy.  

Bessie: 

“Bessie” is a biopic based on the life of Bessie Smith. She was a black blues singer during the Jazz Age. I knew very little about her going into watching this film. In college, I read “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” by August Wilson, in which Bessie Smith was a character, but that was the extent of my knowledge on her. This film was a 2015 HBO production starring Queen Latifah as Bessie. 

“Bessie” is not a perfect movie, but it tells a compelling and educational story about the life of Bessie Smith. We see the story of her life unfold in her search for fame as a blues singer. Bessie Smith is a very fascinating character. She is bisexual, and consistently subverts gender norms, which was exceptionally bold to do in the 1920s. She dresses as a man to be permitted into gentlemen’s clubs, preferring to smoke and play poker with men. Her character constantly defies authority, staying true to her own identity regardless of the flak she faces. Bessie refuses to back down and conform to anything or anyone. She rises to fame, eventually touring the country on her own tour train. She faces her own demons, however, on her rise to the top. 

Queen Latifah always shines in her roles, but I have never seen her act as well as she did in “Bessie”. She is the saving grace of this film. She adds so much soul to every musical performance. I don’t have to explain the power of Queen Latifah’s voice to anyone- we all know how gifted she is as a performer! On top of that, she simultaneously adds vulnerability and boldness to Bessie. She was perfectly cast for this role. 

The plot is certainly a little color-by-numbers, and while production quality is high, it ultimately still has the feel of a made-for-television movie. The costumes and set are fantastic, and really transport viewers to the 1920s. We have seen the rise to fall to redemption storyline so many times, particularly in biopics. “Bessie” was not original in this sense. “Bessie” serves to tell the story of an under-appreciated blues icon, emphasizing the impact of her music and the boldness of her personal story. While it is not the most groundbreaking or unique films ever created, I certainly enjoyed it and learned more about Bessie Smith. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 8

EdTV:

“EdTV” is a completely random, nonsensical film that happened to make it into the movie jar. It’s outlandish and campy, yet just so fun. It is about a reality television show centered entirely around the life of Ed, a complete nobody who works as a clerk in a video store. The show was created to boost the network’s ratings, and Ed was chosen as the lead due to his charisma and relatability. It is fascinating that this comedy was released the same year as “The Truman Show”. Each film has an entirely different approach, but are centered around the concept of creating a reality show solely depicting the daily routine of an average Joe. I truly did not know what to expect from watching “EdTV” but it turned out to be a light and delightful comedy! 

Ed is played by Matthew McConaughey, and the casting could not be more spot on. While McConaughey has spent the better part of the last decade in more serious roles, back in the nineties he was the king of comedy.  He is the perfect pick to play this Texas-born basic dude, who spends his free time lounging around his dilapidated apartment. Sounds like a terrible TV show, right? Much to the television executive’s surprise, Ed’s television show takes off. As a romance ensues between Ed and his older brother’s girlfriend, Shari, the American public becomes entranced with Ed's life, constantly tuning in all hours of the day. The plot of the film is fairly straight-forward from there, and essentially shifts to a romantic comedy about Ed and Shari’s relationship. . 

If you’re looking for a super high-quality, critically acclaimed film, definitely look elsewhere. “EdTV” is strictly here for some silly entertainment. The plot is super predictable, and there are positively no surprises. That being said, the one-liners completely make this film worth the watch. Between the funny script and McConaughey’s exceptional delivery, you’re certain to crack up throughout the movie. If you want something light-hearted and fun, “EdTV” is certainly a good choice! 

The Peanut Butter Falcon: 

This is the kind of movie I really hoped to discover from this project! Not only is “The Peanut Butter Falcon” my favorite movie jar selection thus far, but it is now one of my all-time favorite movies. This indie 2019 film is a story of an unlikely friendship. Shia LeBeouf stars as Tyler, a man down on his luck, living in the Outer Banks of North Carolina. In this “Huckleberry Finn” inspired story, he ends up befriending Zak (played by Zack Gottsagen), a young man with Down’s syndrome who dreams of becoming a professional wrestler.  

When the movie begins, we meet Zak, desperate to break out of his assisted living and become a wrestler. His cheeky roommate, played by Bruce Dern, assists Zak with his great escape. Wearing nothing but his underwear, Zak runs into Tyler, who is on the run from some crab fisherman who took over his turf. The pair embark on a grand adventure as Tyler heads to Florida seeking out a new life, and promises to drop Zak off at his dream wrestling school on the way. Meanwhile, Zak’s social worker, Eleanor (Dakota Johnson) works tirelessly to track Zak down and return him to his care facility. Eventually their paths intersect and the adventure continues! 

“The Peanut Butter Falcon” is a hopeful and heartwarming story. It is the kind of story that could be saccharine and unbelievable. However, it is done in such a brilliant way that you fully believe in and support these characters every step of the way. Throughout the story, a beautiful friendship blossoms between Tyler and Zak. Tyler is the first person not to patronize Zak, treating him as an equal. We see tremendous growth in both characters throughout the film, and it is a joy to root for their successes along the way. They have a great rapport, and Tyler is always finding creative ways to include Zak in various shenanigans. Zak comes into his own as he feels open to be himself around Tyler. His confidence and gusto to follow his dream is awe-inspiring. Tyler and Zak definitely bring out the best in each other. It is so clear that these characters were well-developed by the writers and brought to life by Zack Gottsagen and Shia LeBeouf. 

While in my eyes almost every aspect of this film was perfect, it was Shia LeBeouf’s performance that really set “The Peanut Butter Falcon” apart. He was positively exceptional in his role as Tyler. He nails his southern accent, and looks perfectly unpolished in his dirty clothes and tattered baseball cap. The emotion he displays in this role took me by surprise. Tyler undergoes a lot of character development throughout the film, learning from his companion along the way. His character has undergone heartbreak and tragedy, and as a viewer you can feel the weight that Tyler carries with him. His performance is raw and captivating. It is one of the best emotionally charged performances I’ve seen in a long time. 

This is a movie where the setting serves as a major component of the film. The cinematography depicting the Outer Banks is unbelievably gorgeous, and truly transports viewers, the way swampland is an integral part of “Beasts of the Southern Wild”. The lighting is absolutely gorgeous, showcasing the exceptional beauty of this land. Another great element of “The Peanut Butter Falcon” was the soundtrack. Throughout the film, terrific bluegrass and folk music accompanies the characters. This added to the atmosphere, fully immersing the audience in The Outer Banks. 

“The Peanut Butter Falcon” is the perfect blend of humor, heartbreak, and charm. As cliche as it is, you will laugh and you will cry. It is the ultimate feel-good film about found family and the beauty of friendship. It is laugh-out-loud funny and I guarantee it will make you smile. I would watch it every day if I could! Of all the movies I’ve seen, I can wholeheartedly recommend this film to everyone. I cannot think of a single soul who wouldn’t love this film! It is absolutely fantastic through and through. Go watch it and spend the rest of your evening with a grin on your face! “The Peanut Butter Falcon” is emotional, heartwarming (I cannot stress this enough!) and just outstanding!! 

Vox Lux: 

Now, let me preface this post by acknowledging that I honestly don’t know how or why “Vox Lux” made it into my movie jar. I think when this film first came out I wanted to see it and never got around to it. Anyway! “Vox Lux” is a film like no other. It is about Celeste, a pop singer who was launched to fame after a tragic incident in her childhood. As you may be able to tell by my tone up until this point, I was absolutely not a fan of this movie. It seems like a movie that desperately wanted to be unique and artsy, and its message was muddied in the odd artistic choices and hair-brained plot. 

The movie opens with a horrific school shooting scene, depicted as a rather casual and routine occurrence. The way in which this scene was crafted disgusted me. There was no indication in the trailer that this would happen in the film, and I feel it is the kind of subject matter that has to be disclosed first. It just was done in very poor taste, as it was exceptionally graphic and had no emotional gravity. Essentially, I was skeptical about this film from the get-go but somehow powered through. Spoiler alert- it was not worth it. I think the point of this opening scene was to capture the newfound normalcy of school shootings, but it just struck me as offensive and disrespectful. 

Celeste performs at a church service after the school shooting, and this performance launches her career as a pop star. The rest of the film tells the story of her life in the spotlight, emphasizing the corruption in the entertainment industry. The adult version of Celeste (played by Natalie Portman) is entirely different from how she was as a child. She is short-tempered, selfish, and volatile. This represents how the cruel environment she grew up in, under the scrutiny of the public eye and shuffled between her manager and publicist, warped her sense of self. Frankly, I found this very annoying to watch. The plot leaps from tragedy to tragedy, with dialogue between awful self-involved characters in between. The plot is not cohesive and I don’t think the artistic decisions (such as recasting the actress playing young Celeste as adult Celete’s daughter) add anything of value to the film. This one just didn’t work for me! I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, even those with a proclivity for artistic and unique movies. There are simply so many other avant garde films that would serve you better! Until next week- happy movie watching to you all! 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 7

Rebecca:

Earlier this year, I read Daphne De Maurier’s famous novel “Rebecca”. I’ve had the film adaptation DVD for years, but didn’t want to see it until I’ve read the book first. Now that I’ve read the book, it was time to watch the movie! As you may know, there is also a remake of this classic coming to Netflix later this month. This 1940 film won best picture. I am generally not a huge fan of gothic stories, but was still excited to watch this movie, as it has such a reputation as a tried and true classic. “Rebecca” is a romantic suspense thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It tells the story of a young woman who marries a widower, only to find herself in the shadow of his deceased wife, Rebecca. She becomes the new mistress of Manderley, the estate of her husband Max de Winter. This mysterious manor is full of secrets and deceit. 

I certainly appreciated that the movie stayed true to the plot line presented in the book. To dive a little deeper in the plot, the story begins in Monte Carlo, where a young woman (played by Joan Fontaine) is working as a companion of a curmudgeonly middle aged socialite. While away, she gets swooped up in a whirlwind romance with Maxim de Winter (played by Laurence Olivier), a brooding and mysterious man. She leaves her post with this woman to marry Mr. de Winter, and finds herself running his estate. As previously mentioned, Mr. de Winter had a previous wife, named Rebecca, who died in a boating accident. The unnamed protagonist has trouble fitting into her new home, as she is constantly reminded of Rebecca’s former presence in the house, particularly by the head maid Mrs. Danvers. The young bride becomes more frightened and agitated by the ghostly presence of Rebecca. 

While this is a suspense film, the suspense throughout the movie is quite subtle. That being said, this subtle suspense is consistent, providing a gloomy, eerie effect on the film as a whole. Considering this movie was produced 60 years ago, I’m very impressed by how well it has held up. It certainly feels like an old movie, but it was still very effective as a gothic thriller. Some people would find it slow, as few thrillers today have, well, so few actual thrills. It is a slow burn, but I think the performances and the set design allow it to live up to its title as a classic film over half a century later. Olivier delivers a tremendous performance as the suave (actually, creepy, by modern standards, but times were different), untrustworthy leading man. I could sense his character’s pain and the way he is haunted by his deceased wife throughout “Rebecca”. Fontaine gave a great performance as the lead, staying true to the new Mrs. De Winters’ naive and mousy tendencies depicted in the book. Judith Anderson played Mrs. Danvers, the true villain of the film. Her eerie presence on screen was a major contributor to the spooky tone of Manderly. The setting also aided the somber tone of the film. Manderly appeared exactly as I pictured it while reading “Rebecca”. It is grand, intimidating, beautiful, and certainly ghostly. 

Overall, while a 1940s suspense film will never be my first pick, “Rebecca” was definitely worth a watch. It held up very well over time. This classic story would be extra fun this time of year, so if you haven’t seen it yet, you may want to check it out! 

Divorce, Italian Style: 

This week I continued my foray into 1960s classic Italian cinema. I watched the 1961 comedy, “Divorce, Italian Style”. It certainly had a very different tone from the Fellini picks from the last few weeks! This movie is about a man named Ferdinando (played by Marcello Mastroianni - the lead of the last two Italian films as well), a Sicilian who is married to Rosalia. He is unhappy in his marriage. Rosalia is a very devoted and loyal wife, however Ferdinando deems her ugly (she has a moustache and unibrow) and is secretly in love with his cousin, Angela. Talk about a dysfunctional family! He wishes to leave Rosalia in order to be with his cousin, however divorce is illegal at this point in time in Italy. Ferdinando hatches a plan to get out of his marriage, and mischief and madness ensues. 

Ferdinando constantly finds himself in trouble as he thinks up scenarios in which he can legally leave his wife. He often is caught in a daydream of his own wife’s demise. For example, while away at the beach for the afternoon, Ferdinando pictures Rosalia being pulled under by quicksand. Meanwhile, in town, a trial is taking place for a woman who killed her husband in a jealous rage. Ferdinando becomes even more inspired, even imagining her attorney narrating his schemes throughout the movie. His new plan is to catch Rosalia in an affair, therefore getting a lighter sentence for murdering her. Funnily enough, the climax of the movie revolves around the characters racing into town to catch the premiere of “La Dolce Vita”. This seems like an odd plot for a comedic film, but it is presented in a flippant and lighthearted manner. This story is a little ridiculous, but ultimately makes for great fun. 

“Divorce, Italian Style” may be a little hokey, but I definitely appreciated the comedic efforts throughout. It is a satire through and through, making fun of the moral high ground that was the norm in Italian culture at the time. This is displayed through the vast difference between Ferdinando’s fantasy of quiet school girl Angela, and his boisterous needy wife, Rosalia. This sort of disparity is commonly found in satires. Ferdinando realizes in the eyes of Italian moral authority, it is simply more acceptable to kill your wife than to divorce her. “Divorce, Italian Style” takes this idea and runs with it. 

Mastroianni seems to be Italy’s answer to James Dean. In all three of the films I’ve seen him star in, he is relentlessly slick, always wearing sunglasses and smoking a cigarette. His suave, ladies-man schtick works once again in “Divorce, Italian Style”. As an audience member, you clearly see what a morally corrupt and overall icky guy Ferdinando is, yet you are still rooting for him! He truly makes this goofy comedy worthwhile. 

“Divorce, Italian Style” was a great pick to further educate myself on Italian cinema, as it was much lighter and tongue-in-cheek than the epic Fellini movies of weeks prior. It makes fun of the Italian culture while still embracing it. It is fast paced and the script is sharp and witty. It is certainly worth a watch if you care to take on a classic Italian comedy!  

Blade Runner:

My next selection of the week was “Blade Runner”. For years, I’ve resisted watching this movie. I had it in my head that I would simply hate it, as science fiction is not my preferred movie genre. I was glad, however, that I pulled this title and finally had to sit down and see what I thought of it for myself. Let me say, I was entirely wrong about “Blade Runner”. Not only did I thoroughly enjoy it, but I’ve found myself thinking about it from time to time since seeing it. No one could be more surprised by this than me. 

For those of you unfamiliar, “Blade Runner” is a 1982 science fiction movie starring Harrison Ford and directed by Ridley Scott. “Blade Runner” is a dystopian film set in 2019 Los Angeles. In this world, humans have created replicants -humanoid androids-  to be used in off-world colonies. Ford plays Deckard, a cop who is tasked with hunting down replicants that have escaped to Earth, also known as a Blade Runner. Deckard is forced out of retirement when his former boss learns of 4 replicants who have illegally entered Earth to find their creator. As I am writing this, I am still so surprised I liked this movie!! Sorry, back to business. Essentially, the entire premise of the film centers around Deckard’s mission to eliminate the 4 replicants. He is also romantically involved with Rachel, an assistant who may or may not be a replicant. 

Another element of the film that I really enjoyed is that it was simultaneously film noir and science fiction. Many components of “Blade Runner” fall in line with a classic film noir style movie. For starters, this dystopian version of Earth is grungy, smoggy, and run down. The setting sets the mood of the film, as it is bleak and uncompromising. This dark setting lends itself perfectly to film noir. The lighting itself is heavy in chiaroscuro, or a strong contrast between light and dark in the same shot. This is a classic element of film noir. It also depicts a lonesome detective, conducting an assignment in a dark and gloomy setting. As in many film noir films, there is a femme fatale, in this case, Rachel. She is mysterious and attractive, luring the detective as he tries to accomplish his task. These elements really worked in favor of “Blade Runner’’, allowing it to be much more than a run-of-the-mill sci-fi flick. It had a lot of dimension, which I greatly appreciated. 

While the plot is fast-paced and compelling, the visuals are what truly took this film to the next level. It is hard to believe that this movie is nearly 4 decades old! I was stunned by the world Ridley Scott created. The setting is an essential part of the film, as it is completely immersive, dark, and drab. To me, “Blade Runner” is basically a perfect science fiction film. It is philosophical and is not overly reliant on action sequences. It goes far and beyond what is typically found in a science fiction movie. I was so pleasantly surprised, and strongly recommend this film. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 6

My dearest readers, I am so terribly sorry my weekly blogs have become… not exactly weekly as of late. As many of our favorite movies remind us, life moves pretty fast sometimes (Ferris Bueller, you are forever an icon). Life has gotten busier recently, and sadly, that means less time for movies. That being said, the weekly posts are  back, don’t you worry! This week we have Fellini AND Tarantino, so you know I mean business. 

La Dolce Vita: 

In a happy coincidence, I pulled “La Dolce Vita” from my jar, yet another Federico Fellini classic following last weeks’ viewing of “8 ½”. This is another classic that is endlessly referenced and talked about. This movie has such a massive reputation that I insisted on watching it with my whole family one night. In comparison to “8 ½”, “La Dolce Vita” is definitely the more commercial and conventional of the two. It is about the life of an Italian reporter, Marcello Rubini, who traipses around Italy whilst writing a gossip column.  We see a series of stories from a week of his life as he seeks happiness in a world of fortune and decadence. This episodic-style movie revolves around this central plot line, however different unique scenes are woven together to create this grand film. 

“La Dolce Vita” is a mighty long movie (three hours!) but is certainly worth the watch. This epic film is a classic for a reason. It is stylish, has truly mesmerizing cinematography, and is great fun. When one thinks of this film, most likely a scene in which Marcello and a beautiful American actress named Sylvia splash around in the Trevi fountain will come to mind. The entire movie is studded with iconic and beautifully visual scenes such as this one. It has an episodic structure to it, which makes it very watchable, considering its length. As with many Fellini films, it is grand, over-the-top, and deals with themes such as religion, fame, narcissism, the role of women, and the male gaze. Leave it to Fellini to take a widely accessible film and inject it with countless classic signature tropes of his. 

“La Dolce Vita” serves as a commentary on wealth and fame. It shows the highs and lows of the life of the rich and famous. Marcello has a front row seat to the lives of these people, as his job is to observe the lives of members of high society. He tags up with a photographer, Paparazzo (yes, this character has led to the creation of the word ‘paparazzi), and the duo grossly fling themselves into the uninviting world of the elite. This continuing storyline critiques the assertive and entitled nature of paparazzi. Throughout Marcello’s journey, it becomes clear that fortune isn’t a shortcut to happiness. The glitz and glamour found in “La Dolce Vita” is reminiscent of “The Great Gatsby,” which also shows us that all the money in the world cannot buy genuine fulfillment and happiness. I believe it is the melancholy overtone of this film that allows it to withstand the test of time. There is something universally relatable about an unhappy upper class, and how those excluded still somehow look to break in. Between the epic scale of this film, the beautiful cinematography, and the tremendous performances, I can definitely understand how “La Dolce Vita” continues to find great success decades after its release. I’m sure this is the kind of movie I will rewatch over the years, and always walk away with something new. 

Kill Bill: Vol. 1

Over the years, I’ve always enjoyed a Tarantino movie from time to time. I’ve never been particularly drawn to “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” so I never got around to watching it until I pulled it from my movie jar! For those unfamiliar with the premise, “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” is about a former assassin seeking revenge on a team of assassins who previously betrayed her. Essentially, it is a martial arts film, a genre that does not pique my interest. It stars the ever-cool Uma Thurman, who is absolutely flawless in her role as “the Bride”. After awakening from a four-year-long coma, “the Bride” exacts revenge on her once-fellow assassins, who wreaked havoc on her wedding day. 

“Kill Bill: Vol. 1” is exactly the kind of film that I recognize as very well done, just does not align with my personal taste. In classic Tarantino fashion, the violence is abundant and gnarly. I am more of a violence-sprinkled-here-and-there kind of gal. I believe it loses its effectiveness when overdone. As this film is stylized to resemble a comic book, I completely understand why there is such gratuitous violence- yet it is simply not for me. I’ve always said that I am most drawn to films that seem as if they’re depicting a real person’s life, and this movie certainly is far from that. 

The art direction of this film is exquisite. The production design is very stylish. “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” is known for a particular long-sequence action scene, which is stylistically very impressive. In this scene, “the Bride” single-handedly battles dozens of opponents. For several minutes, we see Thurman obliterate everyone in sight. It is exceptionally well choreographed. At one point, we see “the Bride” perched above her victims in this massacre, observing her job well done. If you’re ever wondering how many people can fall victim to one woman’s sword, look no further than this scene. 

There are many things this film does right. That being said, there are many things this film lacks, that certainly would have raised it a few marks in my book. For example, there is very minimal emotional character development. “The Bride” is angry and cold from beginning to end -rightly so, it just makes for a less emotionally compelling movie. It is essentially solely a martial arts movie to its core. Something I love about many Tarantino films is the clever dialogue and the witty conversations between characters. There is little room in this movie for anything beyond violence. I can see how this movie would be an entirely different experience in a movie theater. It is visually well-done, but that doesn’t necessarily translate to an overall well-rounded movie. 

I think one’s enjoyment of “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” relies solely on personal taste. It is the epitome of a polarizing movie. A comic-book-style-martial-arts-revenge flick could be perfectly executed, and would still not draw me in from start to finish. Maybe one day I’ll get around to “Kill Bill: Vol. 2” but I wouldn’t hold your breath… 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 5

The Fly:

I love Jeff Goldblum. I love Geena Davis. (I’m still sad that these two very tall, very beautiful people’s marriage didn’t work out). Yet for some reason beyond me, I had not seen the 1986 version of “The Fly”. It is truly against my character not to see an original film before seeing the remake, but alas, here we are. I’ve definitely heard more positive buzz (no pun intended) for the eighties version than the fifties original. There is something about eighties horror movies that just can’t be beat. They’re campy, and somehow much more effective with the relatively limited special effects of the time. I was certainly looking forward to seeing Jeff Goldblum in this very unique role.

For those of you unfamiliar with the premise of this iconic horror flick, it is essentially the story of a man who turns into a fly. It’s such a simple setup, yet this movie is thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. Jeff Goldblum stars as Seth Brundle, a research scientist. Geena Davis plays Veronica Quaife, a reporter for a science magazine. She meets Seth at a work event, and he convinces her to take a look at his latest project, a “telepod”. This contraption is designed to transport objects through space. Veronica and Seth spend more time together, and eventually develop a romantic relationship. One day, in a drunken state, Seth decides to transport himself in his telepod. At the time, he did not realize that a fly entered the pod with him. Chaos ensues throughout the rest of the film, as Seth slowly but surely transforms from man to fly. One of the standout elements of this film are the performances of the leads. While Geena and Jeff never disappoint in my book, they are particularly effective in these roles. Geena Davis is well known for being a strong woman, frequently playing female empowering characters. Her portrayal as Ronnie in “The Fly” is no exception. We see her deal with a tumultuous relationship with her boss while simultaneously helping her boyfriend through a most peculiar crisis. The two leads have amazing chemistry in this movie, which is no surprise, and the actors were dating in real life at this time. While this movie is a horror film, it is also a romance. This very human element of the movie makes it all the more scary, as you’re able to emotionally connect to these characters. This makes Grundle’s transformation all the more frightening to watch. Davis’ emotional vulnerability towards the end of this film is positively heartbreaking. She makes incredible facial expressions - you can always tell what her character is feeling based on her facial expressions. Jeff Goldblum was the absolute ideal casting for Seth Grundle. I think anyone who’s seen the film would agree that no one else would do more justice for the role than Goldblum. He brings his unique eccentricity and zane to the role, interjecting a sense of humor throughout the film. The horror of this movie is extremely effective, as Seth’s transition into a fly is very gradual. It is also very disgusting. The body horror is not for the faint of heart! There were several times that I literally shrieked at the television because I was so horrified by the body horror. The physical transformation of Seth Grundle will capture your attention. It is hard to believe that this film is from the eighties, as the makeup is very advanced. If you’re not willing to see a few body parts fall off, you might want to skip this one. I, on the other hand, was very impressed with the absolute grotesque scenes of this film. After all, it is a horror movie! It was the most fun I’ve had being scared in ages. The magic of “The Fly” will make you simultaneously sad and scared, in the absolute best way possible. Cabaret:

A few years ago, I saw the Broadway production of “Cabaret” in New York starring Michelle Williams. She is hands down one of my all-time favorite actresses, so it was an absolute pleasure seeing her grace the stage with Alan Cumming. I really enjoyed the production, and just knew I had to see the movie version one day. Flash forward a few years later, and I finally saw this classic 1972 film, starring Liza Minnelli. As one could imagine, Michelle Williams and Liza Minnelli had very different approaches to the main character, Sally Bowles. While I did love Williams in this role, after watching the movie, it became clear that Liza Minnelli was born for the role of Sally Bowles. It was such a joy watching this film! Over the years, I’d forgotten so much of the plot, which made the film that much more fun to watch. “Cabaret” won eight Academy Awards in 1972, and after watching it, I am not at all surprised. It is set in 1931 Berlin, and follows performer Sally Bowles and writer Brian Roberts. Sally is a boisterous singer at the Kit Kat Klub, known for her outgoing personality and signature long emerald green fingernails. Her character is in juxtaposition with Brian, a quiet, stoic writer. When Brian arrives in Berlin, he is intrigued and soon entranced by Sally’s bohemian lifestyle. Sally tries to seduce Brian, but then Brian reveals he is homosexual. A love triangle takes place between Brian, Sally, and millionaire Maximillian. Drama ensues between the three throughout the remainder of the film. Meanwhile, the rise of fascism is evident at the Kit Kat Klub. The film centers around themes of sexual ambiguity, the politics of Nazi Germany, and survival, themes not generally touched upon in musicals. This film is known for many things- its sense of humor, its dance numbers, its untouchable songs- but nothing compares to the acting. Liza Minnelli is an absolute star in her role. Her Sally Bowles is full of life. She adds so much energy and humor to her role. Minnelli’s closing performance of “Maybe This Time,” the movie’s signature song, will send goosebumps down my arms every time. Minnelli brings so much personality to her character, while still making her believable. Sally Bowles is spirited, self-impressed, charming, and immensely talented. Minnelli is sheer perfection in “Cabaret”. The other noteworthy performance is Joel Grey as the emcee. This unnamed emcee runs the show at the Kit Kat Klub. At this time, cabaret shows were commonly used to make fun of the political climate, and this emcee takes that to the extreme. Grey dazzled in his role, committing himself as the emcee that works to keep the mood light in his cabaret regardless of any hiccups along the way. The performances really allow “Cabaret” to shine to its fullest potential. “Cabaret” is actually a really great film to watch in this unsettling political climate we find ourselves in in 2020. It is chock full of political satire, and almost serves as an anti-musical, delivering more somber messages about the dark tendencies of life. The character of Sally Bowles represents people who try to ignore the larger social issues surrounding them, living a life entirely to cater to oneself. “Cabaret” can truly be seen as a groundbreaking film, demonstrating just how powerful and inquisitive musicals can be. While, yes, “Cabaret” tackles many larger and important societal and political issues, it is also a downright comical musical full of magnificent performances and a compelling storyline. It is no wonder that “Cabaret” is noted as a classic film. I am immensely delighted that I had the pleasure of watching such a movie. 8 ½ :

It is exactly because of films like “8 ½” that I started my movie jar project. This is one of the most noteworthy classic movies of all time. This 1963 Fellini film is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. Fellini’s partially autobiographical film depicts a man’s creativity becoming stifled as he is haunted by the demons of his past. It is a surrealist Italian drama, centered around a film director, Guido Anselmi, who is lacking creativity for his next project. Trying to regain creative ideas, he spends time at a high-end spa and consults with a film critic, who reinforced that his ideas are derivative. Guido’s infidelities weigh on him as he works toward making his film and mending his soured relationship with his wife. In Guido’s lost state of being, he begins to have visions of the women from throughout his life. This film reflects some of the frustrations Fellini had in his own life in regards to filmmaking. “8 ½” constantly switches between scenes of fantasy and scenes of reality. The fantasy scenes show Guido how the relationships from his past have sculpted his life, leading him to be the man he is presently. There is one fantasy scene in particular that excels at this. Guido finds himself in a house ruled by the women in his life. His wife, mistress, and many former lovers are now in charge. This allows Guido to reflect on how he’s wronged the women in his life over the years. Guido is forced to confront his past, just as he is forced to move forward with his project. “8 ½” humanizes the filmmaking experience, which in many other movies is depicted as pretentious and self-involved. It is a rare film that is simultaneously humble and an art piece. At its core, “8 ½” is about creativity - how pain and guilt can either result in art (in Guido’s case, film), or be the direct cause of creative procrastination. This style of film is certainly not for everyone. It is an avant-garde movie about movie making. It is a visually stunning film, and each fantasy scene is dreamlike. It is an unusual blend of darkness, comedy, self-reflection, and serenity. Fellini has an entirely unique approach to filmmaking, and “8 ½” is the greatest example of his genius. To some, it will come across as self-indulgent, but to those who understand the message of the film, in reality it is an exceptionally humbling movie.

The Movie Jar Series: Week 4

Casino: 

It is no secret that Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. While I’ve seen many of his films, I didn’t watch “Casino” until I pulled it from my movie jar! I am so glad I selected it, because now “Casino” ranks in my top three favorite Scorsese films. This 1995 film stars the one the only, Mr. Robert DeNiro, alongside Sharon Stone and Joe Pesci. It is about the inner operations of corrupt casinos in 1970s Las Vegas. DeNiro stars as Sam “Ace” Rothstein, a bookie running the mob-owned Tangiers casino. Ace’s best friend, Nicky Santoro (Pesci), joins his side, hired by the mob to look out for him. Ace proves to be dynamite at running the casino, benefitting the mobsters who are skimming money off of the successes of the operation. Nicky is a loose cannon, which puts Ace’s position in constant jeopardy. Sharon Stone plays Ginger McKenna, a Las Vegas hustler and social climber who conditionally marries Sam for his money. Tensions rise as Sam grows deeper in love with his unattainable wife, and as Nicky seeks higher gains across town in the mafia world.

In true Scorsese fashion, this movie is over-the-top, gritty, and intense. Many of this iconic director’s trademarks are evident in this film. We see violence, greed, corruption, glamor, betrayal, and more. De Niro and Scorsese’s partnership proves to be highly effective yet again. De Niro narrates the entire film as well- in many of Scorsese’s films, the protagonist of the film also narrates to the audience. Excessive profanity, another signature trademark, is also evident in “Casino”.  Another quintessentially Scorsese feature is fantastic old-school music. Scorsese favors classic rock, namely the Rolling Stones. “Casino” is full of great songs that certainly add to the ambience of the film. From “Nights in White Satin” by the Moody Blues, “Go Your Own Way” by Fleetwood Mac, and “Gimme Shelter” by the Rolling Stones, there is no shortage of classic seventies tunes in this film. 

“Casino” may be a three-hour feature, but let me tell you- those three hours will fly by. Between the fully-fleshed character development and the compelling plotline, you’ll never wish this movie was any shorter. I felt truly immersed in the glitz and glam of a 1970s high-end casino. The set design is flawless. Scorsese is known for pulling out the stops when it comes to set design. His films are designed to completely immerse viewers into the universes he’s created. Las Vegas is as much of a character in “Casino” as any other. The color scheme is full of hues of deep red, shiny gold, forest greens, and fluorescent yellows. I can assure you could freeze any frame in the film and a passerby could guess that this was 1970s Vegas. Perhaps my favorite component of the entire film is the costumes. Namely, the costumes worn by Sharon Stone throughout the film. Her character, Ginger, represents just how wealthy Ace is. She trapses around Las Vegas in lavish furs and head-to-toe jewels slipping lofty tips into people’s pockets. Ginger’s outfits are also reflective of her state of being throughout the film. When we meet her, she’s the woman on top, tossing poker chips in a gorgeous sequin dress. By the end of the film, her appearance is noticeably more disheveled, trading her gowns for more sporty, beige attire. The attention to detail of this film is transportive. 

De Niro and Pesci always give incredible performances. But in my opinion, Sharon Stone really stole the show in “Casino”. Her performance as Ginger is absolutely captivating. She effortlessly depicts Ginger and her vastly dimensional persona. We meet Ginger as an uber-confident hustler. She utilizes her sexuality to get what she wants in life. Once she gets involved with Ace, we get a glimpse into the complexities of her life. This gorgeous, materialistic woman breaks down throughout the film, unraveling to reveal her true nature as a damaged woman. She is initially content with the extravagant gifts from her husband. Ginger receives more furs, jewelry, and clothing than any one woman could ever use. As her relationship with Ace becomes more fragmented, she becomes more dependent on pills and alcohol, sending her in a downward spiral. Sharon Stone brought such depth to this character. Ginger can be utterly glamorous and in complete control of everyone around her. She can also be on the verge of a mental breakdown, throwing tantrums and jeopardizing her familys’  happiness. 

Over all, “Casino” has quickly become one of my favorite films of all time. I find myself constantly thinking about it. From the set design and costumes, and score, to the insane plot and fascinating characters, I’m hooked. I will always recommend “Casino”, whether you’re looking for a glimpse into the life of the wealthy or into the underbelly of a corrupt organization. There’s no shortage of entertainment in this Scorsese hit. 

Shadow of a Doubt: 

“Shadow of a Doubt” is a 1943 noir psychological thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock. I was excited to pull this title from my jar and expand my Hitchcock viewings. It is about a teenage girl named Charlie, who’s living with her family in Santa Rosa, California. She lives a completely average life (which in her mind is quite dull). This all changes when her uncle, also named Charlie, comes to pay the family a visit one day. No one has heard from enigmatic Uncle Charlie in years. Young Charlie quickly comes to idolize her Uncle Charlie, seeking his approval and company. As time passes, however, his behaviors become more suspicious, and young Charlie questions his motives. His niece slowly notices that Charlie is wanted for murder. She takes it upon herself to get to the bottom of this mystery. 

Uncle Charlie is a classic psychopath. He is charming, good-looking, and knows just what to say to win over someone’s trust. Young Charlie is up against quite a villain. However, she is a very observant young woman and is just the right person to take down Uncle Charlie. “Shadow of a Doubt” is a satisfying thriller, giving the audience hints here and there, while still keeping them guessing. It definitely felt like a classic noir film. The conflicting relationship between young Charlie and her uncle is what really draws the audience into this movie. It is an understated film, which serves to its advantage. There is something far more sinister about an eerie estranged relative than there would be about a classic horror movie. Joseph Cotton, who played uncle Charlie, did not over-act his character, which was key. His understated performance as the villain allows the audience to be shocked at every twist and turn, no matter how subtle. “Shadow of a Doubt” may not give you nightmares, but its eerie premise is enough to keep you on your toes. I would certainly recommend this film to anyone looking to dip a toe into the Hitchcock pool. 

Chariots of Fire: 

1981 Best Picture winner, “Chariots of Fire” is known for its iconic score. Quite frankly, I was entirely unfamiliar with this movie aside from its theme. “Chariots of Fire” is based on a true story. It is about two runners training for the Olympics in the United Kingdom in the 1920s. Moreso, however, It serves as commentary on the class and religion-based divides prominent during that time. Eric Liddell (Ian Charleson) is a devout Scottish Christian competing against Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), a Jewish man facing severe prejudices. Eric is desperate to win the race to serve as a testament to his committed faith, and Harold is driven to win to prove that Jews are not inferior. Even though I generally find films touching on these subjects quite compelling, “Chariots of Fire” didn’t draw me in. It doesn’t help that I’m not super keen on the subject of running. Honestly, the fact that this movie was made forty years ago was pretty evident. It simply felt dated! While I can see that this is technically an important and quality film, I was bored. 

This is the kind of movie that I can envision enjoying the year it came out, but it didn’t hold up in 2020. It felt quite stuffy, with forced dialogue and a slow-paced, anticlimactic plot. I’m glad I got around to watching “Chariots of Fire” but I won’t be likely to rewatch or strongly recommend this film. I can certainly see how this film was successful in the eighties. It is an uplifting story about patriotism and overcoming prejudices. It is fairly understated, with no major actors cast and minimal effects. Over all, I think if the themes of this movie interest you, and you’re willing to watch a movie that is clearly decades old, you just might enjoy “Chariots of Fire”. Just not for me! Stay tuned to see what I think of my next selections next week. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 3

 Silkwood: 

“Silkwood” is a 1983 movie starring Meryl Streep, Kurt Russell, and Cher. It is based on a true story about Karen Silkwood, a woman who worked in a nuclear power plant and ultimately became a union labor activist. Nora Ephron was the screenwriter of this film, launching her ever-successful collaborative relationship with Meryl Streep. "Silkwood" paints the picture of corporate greed, a concept that is far too familiar to many to this day. 

Karen works in a plant that makes fuel rods for nuclear reactors, and this job threatens her with exposure to radiation. She becomes aware of the lack of safety precautions implemented by upper management. Employees are asked to work overtime, falsify reports, and brush off incidences of potential exposure to radiation. Karen joins a union and works tirelessly, lobbying for protection of herself and her coworkers. Complications arise throughout the remainder of the film, painting Karen's life as a portrait of someone suffering due to the selfishness of others. 

Stylistically, the film certainly felt dated. That being said, the storyline is very important, drawing light to issues prominent in modern society as well. I personally enjoyed watching "Silkwood". Like always, Meryl Streep's performance was transformative. This was also Cher's first serious acting role, playing Dolly, Karen's roommate. They are truly a dynamic duo. Kurt Russell, who was known for his action roles leading up to this point, also delivered in his performance as Karen's boyfriend. The performances of these three actors really added to the emotional weight of the story. "Silkwood" is an important film, telling the story of many Middle America blue collar workers. The fact that it is based on a true story makes the film all the more compelling and emotional. It is a fascinating glance into the early years of Meryl Streep's untouchable acting career. Although I think some may potentially be bored by this film, due to its datedness and its not-so-cheery subject matter, it is an important film nonetheless. 

 Sleeper:

I know what you're thinking- is she really still watching Woody Allen movies? I can write a whole separate post about Woody Allen's career, discussing whether or not his films should still even be watched based on the highly questionable nature of his personal life, but I will save that for another time. While Allen is a highly controversial figure in Hollywood, to say the least, no one can deny that his movies have had a significant impact on the movie landscape. When I was younger, I received DVDs of many of his movies as a gift. I still have some of them tucked away, and as I was flipping through my books analyzing the greatest movies ever made, I couldn't help but notice there were several noteworthy films of his that I've never seen. Therefore, a handful of his titles ended up in my movie jar, thus will be mentioned in my posts. Feel free to skip over my commentary if you've chosen to hop off the Woody Allen bandwagon. 

"Sleeper" is the fourth film written and directed by Woody Allen. It also launched the start of his partnership with the illustrious Diane Keaton (ah, we have a theme this week- the origins of iconic film duos). In "Sleeper"Allen stars as Miles, a man who has been frozen for the past 200 years. He finds himself in a society in which the government keeps a close eye on the public. Previously, Miles was a carefree Greenwich Village progressive who owned a health food shop. He has trouble accepting his new fate into a society with a big-brother government. This film serves as a social commentary on the government in the year 1973, when the film came out. This is the first Woody Allen movie to have a plot with a true beginning, middle, and end as opposed to a string of sketches. After Miles wakes up 200 years in the future, he is forced to flee when the police are on the hunt for him. He ends up joining a revolution, working to combat the oppressive government. 

It was fascinating watching this film four decades after its release. While many of the references are outdated and very questionable by today's standards, it is interesting to see how the year 2173 was crafted through a 1973 lens. The early 70s visions of futuristic architecture were very clever, and people sure do wear a lot of white. 

"Sleeper" is chock-full of one liners and slapstick comedy, making it in my opinion one of Allen's funniest films. It is highly quotable and most of the jokes pack a punch. Keaton and Allen really have great comedic chemistry, and there was no shortage of it in this film. It was a short, inventive, and entertaining film that is very intriguing to watch decades after its release. "Sleeper" is great if you're in the mood for a quick film with a little bit of science fiction and a whole lot of laughs. 

The Kid: 

Believe it or not, "The Kid" is the first Charlie Chaplin film I've ever seen. I don't know why it's taken me 24 years on this planet to finally get to a Chaplin film, but I finally did it! "The Kid" is a 1921 silent film starring the one, the only, Charlie Chaplin. This was his first full-length picture. It tells the story of his famous character, the Tramp, who finds an abandoned baby in the street and decides to raise him on his own. This movie really took me by surprise. Considering it is nearly 100 years old, I expected it to be a little dull with age. I suppose it's unfair, but I did expect to find it boring for some reason. I was so pleasantly surprised! "The Kid" should be mandatory viewing. It was equal parts hysterical and heartfelt. Being that this movie is just over an hour long, I don't want to give away too many plot points. It explores the trials and tribulations of the Tramp raising his adorable little boy. The two are a hilarious pair and will steal your heart. After viewing, it is clear how "The Kid" is a fundamental building block for both comedic and dramatic films to come. This movie is so short that I would highly encourage everyone to give this classic a whirl. 

The Movie Jar Series: Week 2

In A Valley of Violence: 

Starting off week two, I watched “In A Valley of Violence”. This is an indie-western movie starring Ethan Hawke. I have quite honestly never heard of this film nor ever heard a soul speak of it. However, it was on HBO and had pretty stellar reviews, so into the jar it went. This film, released in 2016 by the popular independent production company, A24, tells the story of a drifter and his beloved dog traveling through the old west. It essentially takes a comedic approach to a classic telling of a new cowboys’ unwanted arrival in an old western town. The protagonist, Paul (Hawke), and his dog Abbie find themselves passing through the small town of Denton en route to Mexico. The motives of their journey are kept relatively vague, though it is revealed that Paul is escaping his past, which includes a wife and child. This nearly abandoned town is run by a father and son duo. The son, Gilly, seems to call the shots of everyone in town. His father is the sheriff, who strives to keep the peace of Denton (played masterfully by John Travolta). Paul and Gilly quickly become enemies, raising tension between Paul and the citizens of Denton. 

I was most impressed by Hawke and Travolta’s performances in this film. Ethan Hawke is a very gifted actor, and does a tremendous job in this role. Paul is a fairly closed-off character, but Hawke’s mannerisms allow viewers to get to know him just ever so slightly more than his dialogue lets on. Also, the dynamic between Hawke and the dog in this film is remarkable. You’ll be rooting for the savvy dog, Abbie, throughout the movie. She is astoundingly attentive and loyal, and is sure to steal viewers’ hearts. 

Perhaps the greatest surprise in this film is John Travolta’s performance as the town sheriff. In recent years, Travolta has taken an intentional step out of the spotlight that shone upon him many decades earlier. I don’t know about you, but ever since he played the mother in “Hairspray” I haven’t been able to think of him in the same regard as I once did as an actor. I was shocked to find that his performance as the sheriff absolutely blew me away. His character is portrayed as the true leader of the town, a man who proudly defends Denton’s honor. The character ultimately doesn’t take himself too seriously, and as the violence heats up, so does the comedy. This strange phenomenon, the link between comedy and violence, is difficult to summarize. Basically, “In A Valley of Violence” pokes fun at the classic tropes of a spaghetti western. As the tropes present themselves, witty dialogue counteracting the action is quick to follow. 

If you think you’d appreciate an original mix of violence and comedy amidst a western backdrop, you’re sure to enjoy “In A Valley of Violence”. More than anything, it is reminiscent of a Cohen brothers movie, namely “O Brother Where Art Thou?” (another true modern classic). This movie was very unique, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. 

Yanks: 

“Yanks” is a classic example of a movie that’s been sitting on my shelf for years, unwatched- and now I know that’s with good reason. It is the definition of an exactly okay movie. This 1979 film is a war romance, starring Richard Gere. We follow multiple characters as they fall in love during World War II in England. As the title would suggest, Gere plays an American soldier, Matt, stationed in a small town in England. In the leading storyline, he falls for Jean, an engaged daughter of a shopkeeper. We also follow the story of an affair between a commanding officer and a married Englishwoman (played by Vanessa Redgrave). This storyline was secondary, and was given such little attention that it was nearly impossible to get invested in their relationship. 

This film explores the trials and tribulations of relationships during the war. I appreciated the fact that it shined light to the impact of war beyond the battlefield. It reminds audiences of the effects of war on civilians on the homefront in addition to soldiers. I can imagine this storyline would draw in an appreciative audience, but to me it felt a little color-by-numbers. Okay, I thought it was a bit of a snooze-fest. It was a schmaltzy romance, and I can get on board with that from time to time. But this 70s movie felt quite dated, not holding up in modern day. I found the storylines derivative and painfully predictable. Of course, a young Richard Gere makes for a more pleasant viewing experience. He may be a 1970s heartthrob, but he did not shine in this role, making a dull character even duller. Over all, if you’re in the mood for a sappy WWII melodrama and a young Richard Gere, you probably won’t hate this movie. I just believe there are so many better films out there, that this one isn’t particularly worth two hours of your time. 

Oldboy:

Next up, I watched “Oldboy”, a South Korean film from 2003. It is a neo-noir action film centered around the theme of revenge. It is about Oh Dae-su, a man who was imprisoned in a room for 15 years without knowing why. Once he is released, he embarks on a revenge mission towards his captor. This sounds like the plot of any old action film, but “Oldboy” is truly one of a kind. While it can surely be classified as an action film, it also encompasses mystery and romance. Everything is kicked up a notch in this gory, fast-paced action flick. It is reminiscent of a Tarantino movie, as it is very violent, has a humorous twist, and revolves around a revenge mission. It is not for the faint of heart, as it certainly pushes the envelope in terms of gore and graphic scenes. 

In addition to dialing up the brutality, “Oldboy” also dives deeper into human psychology than many action films generally do. From the get-go, I developed a sense of what it would be like to be trapped in a small room for a decade and a half. The viewer follows Oh-Dae-su’s descent into madness. His time spent in captivity has clearly taken a toll. This sense of a characters’ state of mind is maintained throughout the film. 

“Oldboy” is full of continuous twists and is sure to keep viewers on their toes.. Every time I thought I had a sense of where the film was going, it would take a turn.  As for my personal opinion on the film, I was certainly glad to watch this after years of intending to. It is highly entertaining and unlike anything I’ve seen before. That being said, it is so outlandish and gruesome that it will likely be many years before I have any sort of urge to rewatch “Oldboy”. I’d recommend it to fans of films such as “Inglorious Basterds” and “Parasite”. If you’re not one for intense violence, I would steer clear from “Oldboy”. 

Out of Sight:  

“Out of Sight” is a crime/romance film from 1998 starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. As a longtime fan of both JLo and Mr. Clooney, I was intrigued by this concept. Clooney plays Jack Foley, a seasoned bank robber who finds himself in prison after a failed robbery. Jennifer Lopez plays Karen Sisco, a deputy federal marshal who catches Jack attempting to break free from prison. These two develop quite the complicated relationship. Although Jack is a felon on the run, and Karen is a cop trying to get him back in jail, the two are attracted towards one another. 

This movie has “blockbuster” written all over it. I can see it now- the year is 1998, and a trailer pops up on your TV for “Out of Sight”. It has Jennifer Lopez. It has George Clooney. There’s a romance, there’s action, there’s crime. What more is there to want? I bet theaters were packed.  It definitely felt dated over 20 years later, but it is certainly still an entertaining movie. Honestly, this is not the kind of movie I get particularly invested in. The plot was fairly predictable. It was a fun watch, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to recommend it.

Introducing the Movie Jar Series

I’ve had this little problem over the past fews years, where whenever I peruse through movies, I find myself saying “seen it, seen it, seen it”. Don’t get me wrong, I love rewatching movies. But I also know that there are so many good movies out there that I just haven’t seen yet, for one reason or another. I thought up a fun new way to get myself outside of my movie comfort zone. I decided to create a “movie jar”. Essentially, I filled a mason jar with tons of movie titles that I haven’t yet seen. Whenever I feel I am in a movie rut, I will select a movie from my jar. I consulted some of my books on great classic movies I haven’t yet seen, and also included titles of some movies I’ve had in my collection for years that just haven’t gotten around to watching yet! I’ll be writing weekly accounts of my viewings! Please enjoy my commentary on the first weeks' lineup:

Die Hard:

“Die Hard” is one of those films I’ve heard about over and over and over for as long as I can remember. Yet, I’d never seen it up until this point and had no interest in doing so. I didn’t know much about the movie going into it. I knew it was an action movie starring Bruce Willis, but that’s about it. I expected to watch it, not like it, and move on. But let me tell ya- “Die Hard” has become a modern classic for a reason! I had so much fun watching this movie. It’s action-packed, has smart dialogue, and is genuinely funny.

Essentially this film revolves around our main character, John McClane (Willis), a New York cop visiting his estranged wife in Los Angeles for Christmas. He heads to her work headquarters to join her at a holiday party, only to find out the CEO of the company is being held hostage by terrorists. McClane tasks himself with saving the day, attempting to single-handedly take down these criminals.  “Die Hard” feels like a high-stakes game of cat and mouse, pitting a New York cop against a European super villain. Throughout the entirety of the film, the banter between these two characters is so entertaining. I am generally not one for action movies, but the constant motion of “Die Hard” captured my attention throughout its entirety. I felt I truly got a sense of the characters beyond their immediate motivations. This allowed me as a viewer to become more invested in what happens to the characters, which I find can be hard to come by in an action flick. 

Considering this film was made in the eighties, it held up surprisingly well. While some of the dialogue is certainly dated, the action sequences are pretty top-notch. It is the perfect blend of humor and high-intensity. “Die Hard” craftily flips between violent action sequences in elevator shafts and characters attempting to out-wit one another. Despite being decades-old, this movie still felt like a fresh take on an action movie. Even if you’re not an action movie junkie, “Die Hard” is definitely worth a watch. As McClane would say, yippee-kay-yay. 

Top Hat: 

“Top Hat” is the type of movie that I was so excited to select from my movie jar. It is a musical from the 1930s starring Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire. Believe it or not, I’d never watched a movie starring these two highly popular dancing movie stars before. Rogers and Astaire dominated the silver screen in the days of Old Hollywood. I think a lot of people assume that old movies don’t hold up, that they would feel incredibly old-fashioned and practically unwatchable. In fact, I can’t think of many people my age who would watch a movie made before the year 1980. I am guilty of having seen very few films dated quite this far back, but I’ve certainly been looking to expand my viewings. I was so excited to immerse myself in an old black-and-white musical film full of dance sequences and elaborate costumes. 

The plot of “Top Hat” essentially revolves around countless mix-ups and misunderstandings. It is reminiscent of a Shakespeare play, revolving around the consequences of misunderstandings, mistaken identities, and foiled plans. “Top Hat” pioneers many romantic comedy tropes used in films to this day. The plot centers around Jerry Travers (Astaire), a musical star who falls head-over-heels for Dale Tremont (Rogers). He tirelessly tries to win her over, and many mix-ups occur along the way. Dance numbers are sprinkled throughout the entirety of the film, enhancing its charm. It is a very sweet movie. The storyline may be deemed a little predictable by modern standards, but it is clear to me that “Top Hat” holds its own as a remarkable screwball comedy. This movie lives on as a classic more so for its stunning dance numbers than clever storyline, but the plot is nevertheless amusing. This is the type of film that initially drew me to the movie jar project, pushing me to watch older classic films that have withstood the test of time. Hats off to you, Fred and Ginger.

Clouds of Sils Maria: 

My next pick was the film “Clouds of Sils Maria”. I’d heard positive things about this film since it came out in 2014, and finally it was my turn to form an opinion. This is a classic arthouse-indie type movie, starring Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart. The plot centers around an aging actress, Maria Enders (Binoche), who agrees to reprise the role that launched her career decades earlier. In the original film, Maria plays Sigrid, a woman who seduces her older boss, Helena. Seeing as many years have passed, she is now preparing to play Helena, the older woman. Maria has difficulties accepting herself as the elder character, longing to remain young and uninhibited like Sigrid. It explores the “art-imitating-life” trope as Enders experiences an eerily similar situation with her assistant, Valentine (Stewart). The two run lines together, and the lines between fiction and reality begin to blur. 

My overall consensus of this movie, off the bat, was that it was a well-done movie that I simply wasn’t a big fan of. I personally simply found “Clouds of Sils Maria” too pretentious. “Clouds of Sils Maria” is largely dialogue-based, and relies heavily on its script. In my opinion, this only revved up the already pretentious undertones of this film.  I thought Binoche and Stewart excelled in their roles (though I do think Stewart should branch out from her ever-brooding characters). The most striking part of the film was the cinematography. The setting greatly helped, as it was filmed in the Swiss Alps, which made for an absolute gorgeous backdrop. The script was clever and fairly original. However, about midway through the film, the parallels between the leads and the characters they run lines for are too obviously spelled out for viewers. It was fascinating enough to watch the events unfold, but I doubt this will be a movie I long to rewatch. If you’re a huge Kristen Stewart fan who loves a plot-within-a-plot type storyline, I’m sure you’d love this film. Just go into it prepared to roll your eyes if you aren’t one for actors dramatically talking about acting. I’m glad I crossed it off my list, but will not be revisiting “Clouds of Sils Maria”. 

Never Let Me Go:

“Never Let Me Go” is a sci-fi romance film based on the book by Kazuo Ishiguro. Now, I am not generally one to watch movies based on books without having read the book first. However, I tried to read this book and just could not get into it. That should have been a red flag towards how I’d feel about the movie! I desperately wanted to like this movie. It has a stellar cast, starring Carey Mulligan (who is in my opinion the most underrated actress), Kiera Knightley (who can do no wrong), and Andrew Garfield (adorable, and talented). The three play Cathy (Mulligan), Ruth (Knightley), and Tommy (Garfield), three adults reflecting back on their time together in Hailsham, their boarding school. It quickly becomes evident that this is no ordinary boarding school. Some sinister secrets lurk among the three, and we slowly figure out what was really going on at this school. Now, knowing how immensely beloved this film and book are, I do not want to spoil the mysteries of “Never Let Me Go”. Just prepare yourself for some truly out-of-this-world twists. 

Even as I’m writing this review, I am thinking to myself, “Now this sounds like a great movie! Sign me up!”. For some reason, I just did not connect to this movie. I think ultimately it tried to be too many things at once. It was spooky, it was dystopian, it was a romance, it was tragic. To me, this made it hard to fully like the film. It’s like the kid who plays on every sports team in high school- it’s hard to be the football captain when you have 12 other practices to attend. I think the film ultimately tried to serve as a commentary on the foolishness of societal hierarchy, but the message becomes muddled in the ever-twisty plotline. If you’re a fan of dystopian storylines, I think you’d get on with “Never Let Me Go” just fine. It’s certainly a movie like no other, making it highly favorable or disfavorable depending on your own personal preference. It is another film I’m glad I selected from the jar, as it brought me out of my comfort zone, but it simply wasn’t for me. If Keira, Carey, and Andrew ever want to collaborate again, however, count me in.