Change Your Image
leftistcritic
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Free Enterprise (1998)
A male-centered Rom Com
Recently I watched a few films about fans of popular shows, like Galaxy Quest (A parody of Star Trek) and Fanboys, about a wild adventure of Star Wars fans across the country. This film is a bit different. It focuses on two White men in their 30s who are having a bit of a life crisis. One is more successful than the other but fears being alone, the other is basically a deadbeat who has little money and is financially unstable, meaning he has to borrow money from his other friend. What unites them both is a love for Star Trek, a little like what unites the characters in Fanboys.
Of course as a Rom Com both have romantic relationships of some kind. The deadbeat character meets a geeky/nerdy girl who he really likes but later she leaves him because he is unstable. The other character, more successful as a producer or editor I think, has no relationships or doesn't really see them as necessary so he has a bit more of a crisis even as he is a general jerk. All the while, William "Bill" Shatner is trying to do a one-man musical of Julius Caesar.
It all comes to a head when the deadbeat character organizes a surprise party for his friend, the more successful one. People are geeking out about Star Trek everywhere, he is happy and the deadbeat character gets back with the geeky girl. Even Bill Shatner gets with a woman he met who runs a nightclub. He even participates in a rap song about Julius Caesar with the help of his Black friends. Of course, this shows that the film is obviously male-centered, although none of the characters are horridly sexist even if one is a jerk.
This isn't a very intellectual movie or one that makes you think much but it is a fun movie so I'll give it a 7 out of 10.
Hell's Highway (1932)
A film that blows you away
After being unable to find a good copy of the 1932 film, The Crash, I decided on this film, in part because of its short length. The film is, on the surface, a criticism of the brutality of chain gangs and prison horrors. But there is much more there, in this Pre-Code classic. Not only are there Black actors signing spirituals about what has happened, but there is a presumably homosexual cook, a person who has three wives and is in prison to avoid them (the religious one), and the wife of a guard is having an affair, who is later killed for it! There are also the themes like greed and working people to death, with the prison warden (played by C. Henry Gordon) working the convicts, who have literal targets on their backs which has multiple meanings, to the breaking point while the contractor wants to finish the road and get the work done. At the same time, the fact that the legal system is unfair is also highlighted as well. Even so, the warden who mistreated the men is, at the end of the film, arrested for his misdeeds as the way the prison camp is operating, the conditions they are under is illegal.
In this film, Richard Dix plays the protagonist, Duke Ellis, a repeat offender, and has to choose between escape and helping his brother, Johnny, played by Tom Brown. The prisoners are not passive, despite what one of them wants to do, engaging in a food fight against the cook when they aren't given food and refusing to work until they are given food. Later on, they stage a mass riot, which burns the whole place down, and they escape. But Johnny still sets the guards free for whatever reason, perhaps because he is selfish, thinking of his own welfare and not that of others.
One preeminent film critic adds on his website that the film, at the end, reaffirms Duke's "prison life as a formality for now" is a different treatment than the film, I Was a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, as it is a more conventional drama "built around honor and family." This same critic adds that this fiom artfully contrasts "the humanness of its characters with their degrading situation," with the awfulness the convicts experience "learned and taught through degradation and fear." This critic ends by saying that the film's real villain is the "way capitalists abuse labor and treat people worse than the dirt they're shoveling" and that people can endure. The arguments of this critic are undoubtedly valid and add to my review up to this point.
With this, this film definitely deserves a 10 out of 10 and, without a question, blows you away!
Veiled Aristocrats (1932)
An ok film with an interesting theme
In line with the other reviews of this film on here, I thought this was only ok. It was not great and the plot was only passable. But it focuses on a interesting social issue: black people whose skin is white enough that they "pass" as White, which they use to their advantage. Both had, in some ways, left their Black heritage behind. This was as much the case as the brother, John (played by Walter Fleming), who is "white-passing" like his sister, Rena (played by Lucille Lewis) was a successful lawyer who dropped his previous name and tried to get his sister to embrace a White man to marry.
Rena refused this, drawn to a mild-mannered Black man, Frank (played by Carl Mahon), and wanting to stay with him. Ultimately she won over her brother through argument and Frank and her go away happily ever after. This film is interesting in that it focuses on the Black community. In that sense, the love between Rena and Frank is not interracial.
The film has deeper themes than what I have noted before, with the place I watched it describing it as a 1932 Oscar Micheaux dramatic film "dealing with skin color, class struggles and identity in the black community." Unfortunately the movie is a bit jumbled because a full print of the film has not been found, including musical numbers performed by house servants of Rena, who are people of color themselves. While Micheaux's silent film adaptation has not been found, this film was also based on Charles W. Crestnutt's The House Behind the Cedars. And with that, this film gets a rating of a 6 out of 10.
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997)
A comedic and crude movie
I've watched this movie many times but decided to watch it again tonight. Sometimes it is like a typical Hollyweird love story like between British spy Austin Powers (played by Mike Myers) and his spy partner Vanessa (played by Elizabeth Hurley). At others it is a funny mockery of spy thrillers, especially James Bond films, over the years with inept Dr. Evil (also played by Mike Myers), business executive-type No. 2 (played by Robert Wagner), Dr. Evil's son, Scott (played by Seth Green), and Frau Farbissina of the "militant wing of the Salvation Army" (played by Mindy Sterling), Mustafa (played by Will Ferrell),
Random Task (played by Joe Son), and "ex-Irish assassin" Patty O'Brien (played by Paul Dillon). In contrast, the British colleagues of Austin and Vanessa are displayed more straight like Basil Exposition (played by Michael York) and Mrs. Kensington (played by Mimi Rogers), along with U$ Commander Gilmour (played by Charles Napier), Russian General Borschevsky (played by Elya Baskin). In some ways you could say this film is a pro-British film in that it displays England positively and without any social commentary at all!
In other ways, the film is crude with jokes like one character named "Johnson" and another as "Alotta Fagina." There are also more sex jokes than you can count, but that is common throughout all the movies. In another way, while Austin is basically a transplant from the 1960s who has arrived in the 1990s and is a bit out of place, the 1960s is showed relatively positively, almost in some ways glorifying it. This stands in contrast with films like The Omega Man (a bit), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and Inherent Vice. The contrast between Austin's "shagging"/swinging ideals, where is seemingly a bit sexist, and the present is a common theme, so much so that the villains create fembots (all played by Cindy Margolis) to try and "best" Austin, although this doesn't work. This also comes up in a scene between Dr. Evil and Austin, with Dr. Evil saying that "freedom failed" and Austin claiming there is now "freedom with responsibility" which Dr. Evil calls the attitude of an "aging hipster." Additionally, Vanessa challenges Austin after he admits he "shagged" Alotta Fagina and without protection (he says that condoms are only for sailors), pressuring him to become a "one-woman man" in Austin's words.
There is one scene at the beginning which has always caught my interest. Austin has gone through the unfreezing process and when he is introduced to the U.S. and Russian general, he says the Russian general working with them is "mad" (an anti-communist belief), then Basil explains that the Cold War is over. He says that he hopes the capitalists paid for their crimes and lost, an interesting sentiment, while Basil tells him that "we" (meaning the West) won. Then nothing more is said about this, with the movie discarding this thinking as he re-integrates into capitalist society as a "star." I'm not sure if this is a stereotype of the countercultural movement or what, but it is actually one of my favorite scenes of the movie.
With that, I feel this movie deserves a rating of 8 out of 10, although it is firmly a 1990s film.
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Apes dominate over humans and much more
After watching The Omega Man (which was paid tribute to in a Simpsons Treehouse of Horror), I watched this film and there was Charleton Heston (Taylor) who quickly becomes the star of the show. I already knew some contours of the story from here and there, perhaps from places like The Simpsons with a musical on Dr. Zayas or even Futurama with Dr. Banjo a parallel to this character. The story starts simple with Taylor recording what has happened on their journey so far, then soon their ship crashes in the water, with their female companion dead. With the men venturing out to the "new planet," everything seems swell until they come upon a group of humans who are quickly captured by apes riding horses and with guns. In this society, apes are at the top and humans are oppressed and at the bottom.
All of the crew are captured, except the black guy who is killed (why, he was such a good character) but we never really learn of what happens to Taylor's uber-patriotic compatriot (who literally plants a U$ flag) until much later. All focus goes on Taylor and his ape captors who want to learn about him. He is temporarily mute, but not for long, before he begins speaking and demanding his rights. As it turns out Dr. Zayas is a sort of religious figure who is equivalent to those who believe in creationism while the ape doctors primarily treating Taylor favor evolution. A bit like the perverted nature of Anakin's release by Qui-Gonn Jinn in The Phantom Menace while other humans on Tatooine remain enslaved, Taylor and Nina, a mute girl he met, are basically allowed to go free at the end while the rest of the humans go free.
I'm not sure what the ultimate takeaway is from this film, with the final scene paid homage to in the Futurama episode where Fry, Prof. Farnsworth or parodied in Mel Brooks's film, Spaceballs, and Bender travel in the forward time machine, but perhaps it is talking about the brute nature of humans. In another, I could see the argument it is racist in that the humans who are caged are white while the apes are effectively black and are portrayed negatively, with Taylor crying about the "dirty" apes. There are many possible interpretations, some calling it inventive for imagining the world upside down, with questions about our culture, with themes about the clash of science, reason, and religion. But it is still a film worth giving a rating of 8 out of 10, especially since Rod Serling was one of the screenwriters.
The Omega Man (1971)
From a plague to social clash
This afternoon I watched this film about an army doctor, Robert Neville (played by Charlton Heston), who struggles to find a cure for a plague that killed most humans. Anthony Zerbe as Mathias leads a group of mutated humans ("The Family") which act basically as a cult while Rosland Cash or "Lisa" is a strong Black woman Neville meets. Later they kiss and have sex, which was unprecedented at the time. At first the film seems to be a typical action film with Neville shooting whoever he sees, but this changes when you get to know more of his backstory. The mutated humans blame him for being one of those that killed millions, and have been on a two-year quest to kill Neville, who lives in a barricaded apartment, a "pillbox."
Neville wants to survive. When the kid he cured, Lisa's son, asks him why he doesn't kill the mutated humans (which he calls "vermin"), he answers that they are "half-dead" already. Lisa's son tries to reason with them and is killed in the process, which Neville later calls a "stupid waste." In a surprising twist, Lisa turns on Neville, leading to grevious consequences. Even so, by the end, he has given hope to the human survivors to persevere onward.
One of the major themes of the film is the clash between "primativism" and technology. The mutated humans see the modern world and technology as the enemy or "evil," with Nevile representing this, while Neville holds onto the past. This is smashed and destroyed at the end when the mutated humans engage in their destructive rage, with Matthias declaring to Neville in his house that none of what he had was real, that "it was a dream," with his art and science a nightmare which is now "done" and "finished." Later, when Neville's house burns, Matthias says that the "bad dream is over." This actually resonates with the belief that the past needs to be discarded and to start anew, a rebirth, an idea grounded in the 1960s. So, in that way, the film is a bit of a social commentary, even if wasn't completely intended.
Some may give the film negative reviews and say it is phony, or call the mutants ridiculous, as Roger Ebert described them, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible film. With that, I believe this film deserves a rating of 8 out of 10.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
A strange, bizarre film
Last night I watched this film but needed until now to write about it, to let it sink in. The whole film is basically like a drug trip, hence the negative reviews on here about it having a weak plot and being pointless...but that is the nature of the movie itself! Its probably the most strange and bizarre of all of Terry Gilliam's films I've seen so far, more than Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), Jabberwocky (1977), Time Bandits (1981, which was so bad I couldn't even watch the whole thing), Brazil (1985), The Fisher King (1991) or 12 Monkeys (1995). The two main characters, Hunter S. Thompson (played by Johnny Depp) and his lawyer Dr. Gonzo (played by Benicio del Toro) basically just go around Las Vagas and do whatever they want. It is, to take from vincent-27's review of the film in July 2003 on here, a "magical ride" which not only talks of the "horrors of excessive drug use" but the failed 60s generation. In this way, it actually shares some similarities with Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice (2014), which also showed the failures of those in the 1960s. Apart from the scenes where Hunter and Dr. Gonzo wave off invisible bats they think are attacking them, one of the more bizarre scenes includes Hunter and Dr. Gonzo going to a convention of cops talking about "evil" drug use while they high out of their minds!
Neither of the main characters are really likable and are jerks to everyone, abusive to women and all around horrible people. But, the film does show you the depravity and greed of Amerika itself, looking at "sickening excesses of consumption" with the failure of the "American Dream," with Malcolm X terming it an "American Nightmare," which the two protagonists claim they are "finding" when going to the carnival, for instance. Many parts of the film involve not only a strange daze, with strange colors and shapes, but not knowing what is really happening, questions about the meaning of existence and feeling threatened out of their lives, with Depp's narration pulling the film together. Perhaps this makes it no surprise that Hunter Thompson liked the film when shown it in a screening.
For the consensus on Rotten Tomatoes to say that the film is "visually creative, but also aimless, repetitive, and devoid of character development" is not incorrect. But this does not mean that the film is worthless, like those like Roger Ebert like to say, with critics evenly split on this film. As one critic noted, "some people will see a godawful mess...Others will see a freewheeling comedy, a thinking person's Cheech and Chong film." I would say the film is a mix of both., as watching it is an adventure in and of itself. That's why I give this film a rating of 7 out of 10.
Incredibles 2 (2018)
A 1960s throwback film with conservative undertones
This animated film, which is clearly a 1960s throwback, loosely based in 1963, carries with it the similar conservative undertones to the first movie. After failing to stop the Undertaker who steals money from the bank, Elastigirl (Helen), Mr. Incredible (Bob), and Frozone (Lucius) are approached by a male capitalist, Winston, a sort of Madison Avenue type, who wants to rebrand superheroes ("supers") and make them legal. He tells the tale of his father, who kinda looks like Andrew Carnegie, who he says "loved" superheroes, whom we find later he avoided going to the safe room because he thought that "supers" would save him, and he was killed by robbers. They are helped by his tech-savvy sister, Evelyn, and the family is moved to one of Winston's mansions he is "not using." Elastgirl is basically paid to break laws, since "supers" are still illegal, to raise the profile of superheroes. In the meantime, Bob becomes the stay-at-home dad, which clearly threatens his "manhood" as he watches his teenage daughter Violet and ten-year-old troublemaker son, Dash, and the infant, Jack-Jack. In the process, he shows himself as incompetent parent, while Edna, the fashion designer for "supers," watches Jack-Jack for a short time.
Ultimately, the villain of this film is Evelyn, who wants to make "supers" illegal forever as she believes, not wrongly, that they shouldn't be trusted. She believes she is doing the "right thing" with her hypnosis technology (which allows people to be controlled through special glasses they where), more than her brother, Winston, seeing him, whom she once call "Mr. Free Enterprise," as deluded and living in the past. It should be no surprise that she is ultimately foiled her plan, depending on media attention and having an ability to spread her message. Funnily, her plan is unnecessarily complex and she could have accomplished the same with fewer "supers." Even so, she is a bit more compelling than villains in other films, like the one in the first film in 2004.
It is with this, we get into the conservative undertones. Not only does Bob work to save his wife, Helen, who falls into the damsel in distress stereotype, but the capitalist, Winston, ends up living and is painted positively in this film. Instead, Evelyn is a more devious superhero than Syndrome in the first film (who was also a murderous psychopath), who wants to make "supers" illegal is painted as terrible. As all the adult "supers" are under the hypnosis of Evelyn, it ends up being the "kids" who save the day, and then they work together to prevent the ship from crashing into the city. It reminds me of what the character, Carmen, says in the 2001 film, Spy Kids (and a common theme throughout the films in that series), "never send an adult to do a kid's job." Some could say that like the first film, this film "celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement," which are inherently conservative values. Additionally, when Violet points out that Evelyn will get a slap on the wrist because she is rich, Winston chuckles at this and says that we do not know what "the future will bring," while the other "supers" seeming to not completely trust him anymore. Again, like in the first film, Bob is not totally faithful with his wife in that she does not tell her everything, like that Jack-Jack has superpowers. What does that say about him?
While I have my problems with this film, as I note in the above review, I still rate it as a 6 out of 10, because it is an effective drama and a relatively simple storyline. It ends with the whole family of "supers" (Jack-Jack, Violet, Dash, Bob, and Helen) speeding away to catch a set of criminals with machine guns, while Tony Rydinger, who Violet was going on a date with, since the first date was ruined by his mind being wiped of all memory of Violet by the shadowy government agent Rick.
The Incredibles (2004)
A funny movie with conservative undertones?
Tonight I watched this film once again. It's not the best film but it has its positives. The superheroes are in hiding after lawsuits were brought against them for their damages. One, Bob (also known as Mr. Incredible), wants to relieve his glory days, and does so, a bit, with his friend, Lucius (Frozone), a Black man. Bob is married to Helen (Elastagirl) and they have three children: Violet (who can turn invisible), Dash (who can run very fast), and Jack Jack (a baby said to not have powers). Also, the designer, Edna, is a fun character who adds character to the film.
A messenger, Mirage, gives Mr. Incredible a message which Bob takes in stride to relieve his glory days, after he was fired from his dead end job as a bureaucrat who helps people go around the system, to benefit them. He goes to a secluded island and finds that a man with blown back and colored hair (white) named Syndrome, confronts him. This man was once a superfan of Mr. Incredible but he was turned away, saying that he liked to work alone, so he set out to get venegance once and for all. Soon, Mr. Incredible is captured, after finding out that Syndrome murdered superheroes, and the whole "super" family comes to save him. The movie, in that sense, becomes a bit of a family movie, which is why it was clearly a success, while also fitting into the superhero genre.
The villain, Syndrome, despite the fact he is a murderous and power-hungry psychopath has a plan to make technology that would make everyone superheroes available to all. But, perversely he wants to become a superhero himself and save the day. Not surprisingly, the elitist message of superheroes wins out, with people respecting these "god-like" figures by the end, like the "old days." Perhaps this is no surprise as the film itself is not set in the present but rather in the 1960s, with the "glory days" in the 1940s. This is interesting because Brad Bird, admitted to Michael Barrier in 2005 that he was "not a big comic-book reader" and argued that he tried to "base the powers on family archetypes" of the father, mother, teenage girls, ten-year boys, and babies.
While you could say this film is positive, it falls into the typical Hollyweird qualities you would expect, like the prominence of male superheroes (three of the five on screen) and possible sexist attitudes by some, like Lucius, or even Bob, who lies to his wife about his activities for MONTHS! While the writer and director of the film, Brad Bird, after noting he had the idea for the film for 12 years and that the film feels realistic even though it is animated, he told IGN in 2005 that people who said that the film had undercurrents of Ayn Rand or Nietzsche are wrong, as are those that said there was "sort of a right-wing feeling," arguing that he is "a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd." This brings us to how Frederica Mathewes-Green of National Review describes the film, in 2009, summarizing from other social conservatives, as skipping pop culture references and "gross jokes in favor of a story that celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement." It goes onto say that the film shows a "family of superheroes...living an anonymous life in the suburbs, thanks to a society that doesn't appreciate their unique talents," but the society then "comes to need them."
In a large way, this is not wrong, and I would argue they are correct. After all,
the film is in some ways a criticism of the superhero genre, in that the superheroes have fit into society, a petty bourgeois "middle class" life to be exact, avoiding the spotlight. But other films, like Watchman, or the Deadpool films, are a bit stronger on this point. You could say that this film also is conservative in its criticism of bureaucracy and government as the enemy of the heroes, in some ways. So, I would argue that the film has conservative undertones, although it is not necessarily along the lines of Atlas Shrugged or something like that. Even so,it is still a funny movie that should have a rating of 5 out of 10.
Medicine for Melancholy (2008)
A profound & melancholy anti-racist film
I just watched this first major film of Barry Jenkins, which was very different from his other films, Moonlight (2016) and If Beale Street Could Talk (2018). The color tones of this film were muted so it wasn't completely in black-and-white which fit with the overall tenor of the movie which made it interesting. The plot is simple: it chronicles the short romance of Micah (played by Wyatt Cenac) and Jo (played by Tracey Heggins), two Black people in their 20s in San Fransisco, taking place across one day apparently but it seems like 2-3 days. Not only do they both discuss relationship of Black people (7% of San Fransisco) to White people in the city, specifically "hipster" people, but differences in class. Micah works to install aquariums while Jo has no job but only makes shirts with female artists emblazoned on them, depending on her White boyfriend, a curator in London, whom is always distant.
There are some other important elements of this film. For one there is very little dialogue and Jenkins attempts to make it look like you are right there with the actors. The colors seem to raise and deepen when Micah and Jo are happy, ending with full color at the end. According to the director certain scenes in the film have more color when characters are not thinking about housing or race issues, which is interesting. In some way both characters are relatively intellectual, going to varying museums, one for MLK and another for Black art. I also liked the elements that look dated now such as the cell phones of a certain type and Micah literally searching for Jo on Myspace, when people would now just search on Facebook for instance. Some elements of the film could seem out of place, like the 5-10 minute scene of a community meeting about gentrification in San Francisco but it completely fits and is important to have in the film.
In a profound way, the film is melancholy but that is the point. Jo is pulled to the White world by her boyfriend, museums, and their curators but then to the Black world by her fling with Micah. It reminds me a bit of the division of Starr between the White and Black world in The Hate U Give, which came out last year. Micah and Jo were both strong-willed characters, each in their own way. It is a sweet and intimate with Micah as pushy as she thinks that the division between the White and Black world is not as hard and fast as Micah makes it. This is also interesting because Jenkins is somewhat at the top the Hollyweird heap now but wasn't then. This film really throws you into the culture of San Francisco more than Sorry to Bother You does for Oakland I'd argue. This film also covers the idea of identity with Micah seeing himself as Black more than a man while Jo doesn't want to be so limiting, refusing to do the same, in a sense assimilating into White culture you could say.
With that I'm ending this review by saying this film is powerful and unlike other films I have seen, fully deserving of a rating of 10 out of 10.
The Phantom President (1932)
From musical comedy to political satire
If I was to rely on the two summaries of this film, the first by Sin Jack and the second by Rod Crawford, saying that a presidential candidate is said to have a dull personality with a charismatic medicine salesman and huckster whom looks alike is hired to take his place to win the election, even fooling the girlfriend of this man, and that this hucksters has difficult decisions of his own on the eve of the election, I would think that is all the movie is about. Similarly, if I was to rely on Wikipedia I'd think this film is fictional political satire, based on George F. Worts' novel, where a stiff and colorless presidential candidate is replaced in public appearances by a charismatic and energetic pitchman for a medicine show. While those descriptions aren't wrong, there is a lot more going on. Theodore K. Blair is the stiff candidate whom doesn't have political gravitas, disliked by political bosses like Jim Ronkton (played by George Barbier), Prof. Aikenhead (played by Sidney Toller), and Senator Melrose (played by Julius McVicker), especially after Felicia Hammond (played by Claudette Colbert) rejects his marriage proposal. But when Peeter J. 'Doc' Varney, assisted by Curly Cooney (played by Jimmy Durante) the political bosses are the resemblance between Varney and Blair, whom are hilariously played by the same actor, George M. Cohan. Not surprisingly this temporarily fools Jerrido (played by Jameson Thomas) Blair's butler and Felicia. As the film goes on, Varney gets all the glory as he plays as Blair while the actual Blair eventually becomes tired of this charade and takes action. After Felicia makes a bold move to disrupt Blair's plans, Varney has a crisis of confidence and says he is a huckster on air, but is still elected regardless. As the film ends, Varney becomes president with Curly as his right-hand man while Blair is somewhere in the Arctic circle eating blubber.
There is much more to this film however. As anyone should I grimaced at the blackface worn by Cohen in this film, just as I grimaced at the yellowface worn by Nils Asther, playing General Yen in Frank Capra's The Bitter Tea of General Yen, which came out one year later. While that undoubtedly marks the film down and I thought the part with the singing presidents, like Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln (played by Charles Middleton), and George Washington (played by Alan Mowbray), along with other "founders," was a bit silly, the film was still a strong drama. At one point Barney admits they are selling musical comedy to the masses which is funny because the film is a musical comedy. I also enjoyed the comic relief coming from Curly and the name of Prof. Aikenhead obviously being reminiscent of "egghead."
The film was also, obviously, a political satire. Perhaps it is saying the people of the U$ can be sold on anything for president which is troubling. It is hard to discern what political party Varney/Blair is part of, as I would say it is Republican because of the invocation of Lincoln but they also sound a bit like the view of the Democratic Party. Looking at the party platforms for each respective party in 1932 does not clear this up at all. In this plotline, what does the election of Varney mean? Is he really honest or will be be like a snake-oil-salesman? It's hard to say, to be honest.
At the end of the film, other than what I have previously outlined, I'm not sure what the full takeaway is. However I would say that Cohan (one of the few films he acted in) and Colbert engage in commendable performances. While I only know Colbert from It Happened One Night (1934), she did a wonderful job here too. I liked Durante's performance as well. Taking this all into account I think it is only right to rate this film as an 8 out of 10, with this review being the 13th one on IMDB of this film.
Frankenstein (1931)
A "marauding" monster and the "madness" of science
Last night, the lightning of the thunderstorm struck outside, "madness" overtook me as my creation came alive on the table, its hand twitching, and I declared, in front of my fiancé-to-be, father, and fellow scientist, that "I know what it feels like to BE God!," which would be considered blasphemy by some. I am describing the pivotal scene in this film, which boards in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York objected to, even censoring the scene when the monster kills a girl of the village of the Bavarian Alps, where the film is set, Maria (played by Marilyn Harris), by accidentally drowning her, a scene which was only rediscovered in the 1980s in a collection of the British National Film Archive and then re-incorporated into the film itself. This was a film that pulled in enough popularity, although it only earned $12 million at the box office, that Hollyweird decided to make a string of sequels like the Bride of Frankenstein (1935), Son of Frankenstein (1939), The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), and Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943).
While there are 544 reviews of this film on IMDB currently, I will chart my own path with this review. As the film began I felt like I was watching the first Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons where Marge appears in front of a curtain to warn the audience of the horrors that will unfold. As the film went on, the storyline was abundantly clear. Henry Frankenstein (played by Colin Clive) is a "mad scientist" whom is working with a hunchback named Fritz (played by Dwight Frye) feels that he can bring "life" to something that was once dead, creating a creature by harnessing the lightning of a storm. Henry's fiancé-to-be, Elizabeth Lavenza (played by Mae Clark), her friend Victor Moritz (played by John Boles), and Dr. Waldman (played by Edward Van Sloan), visit him in his castle atop the hill, watch as the creature is brought to life, a creation which has one problem: it has an abnormal brain. Soon, as the creature/monster awakes, it is tortured in a sense by Henry and Fritz, who, along with Victor and Dr. Waldman, try to control it. This is a failure, as after Henry leaves with his fiancé-to-be, proving that Henry's father, Baron Frankenstein (played by Frederick Kerr) is wrong to think that Henry has found another woman, Dr. Waldman is overpowered by the monster (played by Boris Karloff), which kills him and proceeds to leave what is, in effect, its prison, to go out to the town below. It is there that the monster accidentally kills Maria, whom is alone after her father, Ludwig (played by Michael Mark), leaves to go to town. Soon after Ludwig comes into town during the celebrations for the wedding of Henry and Elizabeth, with his drowned daughter in his arms, the men of the town are searching for the monster (with the women strangely left behind, showing a clear gender divide here). Eventually they track the monster down and it brings an unconscious Henry, whom it had attacked earlier, to the windmill, which is soon burned to the ground, with the monster trapped outside but not before Henry is thrown off the windmill by the monster, whom is only injured by the fall, with the wedding soon celebrated by Baron Frankenstein in the film's last moments.
There's a lot more to take in from this film. For one, unlike films like Contact where science is seen as engaging in wasteful endeavors which only benefit, directly or indirectly, capitalists, this film highlights the danger of science and the danger of creation. Maybe it is a lesson that those whom created the atomic bomb should have had in mind before creating such an abomination. Perhaps this is saying we shouldn't accept everything for science, but also allow for discovery to occur, with Henry only going to the depths of his creation because the university he was part of rejected his ideas as "too radical," putting him literally on the margins. Secondly, this film also seems to be about the power of creation, including of life and death itself, and has been influential enough to be effectively spoofed in Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein (1974) and partially so in the animated Frankenthumb. I also think that the search scene in The Truman Show (1998) is a homage to the search scene in this film. Perhaps even the scene where the townspeople confront The Simpsons with torches is also an homage to this film as well. It should also be no surprise that in various Treehouse of Horror episodes of the Simpsons (specifically III, XIV, XVIII, XX, and XXI) the film is referenced, for the 2015 film Ex Machina to retell the Frankenstein story with a feminine android in the 21st century, or for famed science fiction author, Isaac Asimov to coin the term "Frankenstein complex" to describe the fear of robots. In the end, this film has a very powerful effect on the viewer and is not as much of a horror or thriller film but rather a thoughtful and effective drama.
With that, it seems only right to rate this film as a 10 out of 10, which I tend to not give many films these days anymore.
Safe in Hell (1931)
A riveting pre-code drama
This morning to take a break from my usual routine, I watched this pre-code film, which has a paltry 35 reviews here on IMDB. I had already planned on watching it based on the fact that the protagonist, Gilda Karlson (played by Dorothy Mackaill) is often "provocatively dressed" and a prostitute whom won't let men push her around. Its funny that at the time, some publications like Time magazine called it "trite" and sporadically exciting," the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
saw the film as amusing and praised the performance of Leonie (played by Nina Mae McKinney) as the "best thing in the picture" while Variety grumbled about the film's "sad and unsatisfactory finish" and the "constantly depressing air of evil which prevails throughout the picture," even though they felt the movie's Black actors, specifically McKinney and Clarence Muse (playing the porter, Newcastle) were "comedy relief." Perhaps it is the low ratings in the reviews, by gbill-74877 in March 2018, MartinHafer in December 2007, writers_reign in July 2008, and moonspinner55 in March 2008, on IMDB of this film reflect that sentiment. Unlike those reviewers, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. For one, it was good to see the female protagonist in a combative, if not stronger role that is not submissive. The fact that she defends herself and seems to kill Piet Van Saal (played by Ralf Harolde), a man whom led her into prostitution, in a fire in New Orleans shows she won't put up with those whom try to mess around with her. You could say that, sure, she is married to a sailor and a former boyfriend, Carl Erickson (played by Donald Cook) that she is tied down, but most of the movie takes place on the Caribbean island of Tortuga (an island of Haiti), where the laws are said to be strict but there is no extradition laws, making the island a den for criminals wanting to escape the clutches of the law.
In many ways the film has play-like elements, which is no surprise as it was adapted from a play by well-known screenwriter Houston Branch. Some of the scenes, like when the main cast of characters, Eagan (played by John Wray),
Crunch (played by Ivan Simpson), General Gomez (played by Victor Varconi),
a lawyer named Jones (played by Charles Middleton), Larson (played by
Gustav von Seyffertitz), where all of them lean back on chairs, relaxing, pining for Gilda, whom refuses their offers, reminds me of similar play-like scenes of people sitting around at a table in Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing (1990). They also act like a bit of comedy troupe at times. While Gilda originally just stays in her room as she doesn't want to get involved with the criminals in the hotel she is staying, she does interact with them a bit by having a late night drink with them. But that's kind of a one night off as she is tired of being cooped up in her hotel room, understandably. She faces off with the villain of the film, effectively, the hangman and jailer, Mr. Bruno (played by Morgan Wallace) who is the face of law on the island itself. Eventually he tries to frame her for a crime of having a deadly weapon (which he gave her to "defend herself"), which she uses to kill Piet, whom tries to rape her, but for some reason she incriminates herself to save herself for Carl, which logically makes no sense. That is a point I'll agree with when it comes to the more critical reviews on here of the film. But there's still something more I'd like to say.
For one, it is deeply disturbing to me that the hotel and what we see of the island seems literally built upon serving the needs of White people. No natives of Tortuga seem to run the show, with the face of the law (the policeman) and the judge as White men, but the two policeman are seemingly people of Tortuga, as are the main hotel staff, Leonie and Newcastle. This is even worse than the servitude of Annie (played by Lillian Randolph), maid of the Bailey family in It's a Wonderful Life (1946). I'm not sure if the actual island of Tortuga functioned this way, but if so, than this strongly depicts in a matter-of-fact way the exploitation of the native people of Tortuga by White people at the time. So in that way, this film has problematic themes to it. Even so, you could say that this film has its positives of a strong female character whom could said to be feminist to an extent, although not completely. It is also interesting to have a character, General Gomez, whom was a successful revolutionary, but had to run away after killing the president and vice-president of a county, reminding me a bit of King Shadov (played by Charlie Chaplin) in A King in New York (1957).
With that, my review of this film comes to a close, feeling it fully deserves a rating of 9 out of 10 for the reasons I previously stated.
Possessed (1931)
From the factory to the big city
You may ask, what in "god's name" (as people like to say), possessed you to write a review of a movie released 88 years ago, with actresses like Joan Crawford (playing Marian Martin), Clara Blandick (playing Marian's mother),
Marjorie White (playing Vernice LaVerne), and actors like Clark Gable (playing Mark Whitney), Wallace Ford (playing Al Manning), Richard "Skeets" Gallagher (playing Wally Stuart), Frank Conroy (playing Horace Travers), and John Miljan (playing John Driscoll)? Well, perhaps I was pulled in as much as the protagonist, Marian, as she is "influenced or controlled by something" rather than "mad, crazed" to take from the definition of the word by Merriam-Webster. Marian works in a box factory, apparently in Erie, PA, wanting a change from her "boring" life in the quaint small town, with fellow worker, Al, continually trying to get her to marry him. After meeting a man on the train, Mark, she has the urge, the pull toward the big city, specifically of New York. In this way, this film has similarities with Forbidden (1932) and even Untamed (1929), the latter which featured Crawford in her first starring role. The move of the protagonist from a small town to the big city is also a theme of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), both of which are Capra films.
My favorite part of this film was the first 5-10 minutes, if I have that timing right, which shows the operation of the factory and the mechanics of the factory town itself, which is in a broad way sympathetic to the worker. Of course, this is a romantic film (unlike other films like If You Could Only Cook in 1935 or Platinum Blonde in 1931), but Marian, the film's protagonist, is no dummy, but is fully aware of her actions, basically a "gold digger," as they would call it, having some similarities with Ladies of Leisure (1930) or That Certain Thing (1928). Apart from being "possessed" by the big city, perhaps she is in a sense, possessed by love with Mark, a person whom is rising in the political world and is relatively wealthy. This causes her to question herself various times, although she never takes the step like Stew Smith in Platinum Blonde, whom would rather be the person he loves rather than a rich snob. After being with him for three years, as a mistress rather than a wife, she splits with him after learning that being with him would apparently ruin his political career (as claimed by the bankers who are backing Mark in his upcoming run for governor). In that way, this film's social commentary is not as strong as other contemporary ones in the 1930s that I've seen so far, specifically not those by Frank Capra. As such, there really isn't any criticism of wealth or society as a whole.
As the film comes to close, it directly enters the realm of politics. Mark begins his run for governor, while others try to slime him, like the villains of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1938) or the machinations of the "alternative facts" press in The Power of the Press (1928). He has no favorable press like Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane (1941). They heckle him during his speech, where he expresses progressive views akin to FDR but also seems somewhat anti-interventionist, to a packed auditorium at the film's end, then drop fliers asking "Who is Mrs. Moreland?" to which Mark doesn't know how to answer. Then Marian gives a short speech attesting to Mark's honesty and honorable, leaving in sobs as the crowd cheers, fooling the plan of Mark's enemies to "smear him." The film ends with Marian embraced by Mark, a clear "happy ending."
While I generally dislike happy endings, I think this film was generally well-acted and done, but with the lack of social commentary it seems right to rate it as a 7 out of 10. With that, my review of this film comes to a close.
Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder (2009)
A strong finish to the series of Futurama straight-to-DVD movies
After watching the three previous movies, each of which comprises approximately four standard episodes as noted by the Futurama Wiki, Bender's Big Score, The Beast with a Billion Backs, and Bender's Game, I decided to finish up by watching this film. I would argue that this film is the strongest of all four films, fully deserving of a rating of 9 out of 10, higher than the average rating of this film (7.3 out of 10). Billy West (voicing Fry, Farnsworth, Dr. Zoidberg, Leo Wong, Poker Sign-Up Clerk, and Nixon's head), Katey Sagal (voicing Turanga Leela), John DiMaggio (voicing Bender, Elzar, and Sal), Tress MacNeille (voicing Fanny, Boobs Vanderbilt, Justice Ginsberg's had, and Mom), Maurice LaMarche (voicing Donbot, Clamps, Headless body of Agnw, Morbo, and Kif Kroker), Phil LaMarr (voicing Hermes Conrad and Clarence Thomas's head), Lauren Tom (voicing Amy and Inez Wong), David Herman (voicing the Number 9 Man and Scruffy), and Dawnn Lewis (voicing LaBarbara Conrad) voiced their respective characters, along with guest appearances from Snoop Dogg, Seth McFarlane (not as himself), Penn Jillette, and Teller, along with Phil Hendrie (voicing Frida Waterfall, Hutch Waterfall, and the Encyclopod). I say that this movie is the strongest because of its overt social commentary. While Bender's Game had ample social commentary with Mom running a huge conglomerate that had control of all the dark matter in the universe (the primary form of fuel), along with criticism of high-minded scientists whom think they will save the day, this film is different. I say that because this film has one villain whom is so self-absorbed he only cares about himself, a literal capitalist whom is helped out by the "earth" government (basically a stand-in for the U$). Leela, one of the film's heroes, soon joins the eco-feminists whom are fighting off Leo Wong, as does Fry with his mind-reading powers and unreadable mind (because he became his own grandfather in "Roswell That Ends Well" (s3, e13).
As the movie goes on, there are occasional obvious pokes at Star Trek, as is common throughout the series, and the absurdity of secret societies/"conspiracy theorists," represented by the "League of Madfellows," all of whom you guessed it, wear tin fool hats. There's also a criticism of capitalism and military adventurism as well, the former through the fact the movie's villain is a capitalist and the government is supporting him, and the latter through Zapp Brannigan's reckless actions to chase the eco-feminists. In that way there is also a criticism of run-of-the-mill activism as not making sense, bad slogan writing, and message-writing. The eco-feminists, however, while they are facing what could be considered a class enemy are a cross-class group of those across occupations and incomes, some in the proletariat (like Leela and Amy), lumpen (the person whom is the smoking prostitute I believe), but others whom definitely have more money (like the co-TV anchor on network news), so it's not a straight class struggle here. I also liked the themes of environmentalism in this movie, feminism, and such, which made the movie stronger.
This film was also meant to cap the series as a whole, as the writers didn't know if it was coming back, and it does a pretty good job doing that. You can say, as Platypuschow wrote in December 2018, that this does no favor to your eyes and is a pathetic attempt at revitalizing the show "with wall to wall feature movies" but I think that is faulty reasoning. From the compelling plot to the antics of Bender's continual crime spree and danger-taking, this movie has a lot to keep you interested. I wouldn't say it's necessarily the most funny, but it is an effective drama to say the least.
With that, my review of this film comes to a close.
Memento (2000)
Nolan explores the depths of memory
Last night I watched this film, after re-watching If Beale Street Could Talk, which was a sharp departure from the aforementioned film. Explored is the similar theme of memory and remembering, one which often comes up in shows like Mr. Robot, which is ending this year and Terry Gilliam's strange dystopian film, Twelve Monkeys, in 1995. The plot is simple: the protagonist, Leonard Shelby, played by Guy Pearce, has lost his short-term memory and is trying to find the killer of his wife, Catherine Shelby (played by Jorja Fox). As he tells the audience, he lost his memory as he was knocked out after he shot his wife's killer, so he remembers "important facts" on Polaroids he takes and on tattoos across his body. Certain characters literally take advantage of this condition like a local bartender, Natalie, played by Carrie-Anne Moss, to kill/intimidate her boyfriend, Dodd, played by Callum Keith Rennie, and the head of a local hotel, Burt, played by Mark Boone Junior, the latter whom charges him for two separate rooms because he "won't remember." However, the story posed by John Edward "Teddy" Gammell, played by Joe Pantoliano, who claims to be an undercover cop which is investigating local gangs, including James F. "Jimmy" Grantz, played by Larry Holden. In the story Teddy tells, the protagonist killed his own wife, whom had diabetes, with injection of insulin, and now goes around from town to town killing people whom he claims are the "killer" of his wife! If this is the case, however, why does Teddy allow it to happen? Has the protagonist conditioned himself, as he claims happened with the case of Samuel R. "Sammy" Jankis (played by Stephen Tobolowsky) and Mrs. Jankis (played by Harriet Sansom Harris)? Or is that just a fabrication in his mind?
By the end of the film, the viewer is still relatively confused. Whom can be trusted? Teddy or the protagonist? We still don't know. We know no more than the story provides us. It is almost an obvious bet that every character is lying to the audience, deceiving each other in some way or another. But that makes the film interesting. In this way it is similar to Happy Accidents (2000) in that we don't know whether Sam Deed (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) is telling the truth about his travel from the future to the present, or if he is just a con man trying to make ends meet. This is why neurologists praise this film, as do film critics as it is a film that keeps you thinking.
I could be like soloyoda in their April 2001 review of this film but I think summarizing part of the plotline is worth doing, especially since there is no "happy ending" to this film, or no spoilers in the sense that they will ruin the movie's enjoyment. This film is much more than what that review calls "a highly intelligence and original brain teaser that will have you guessing from beginning to end, and even afterwards," although that is abundantly true without question. I would add that this film is interesting in that is not a straight narrative from beginning to end, but jumps around. In some ways this makes it resemble Pulp Fiction (1994), although that film is, in and of itself, its own animal. Additionally, I would say this film (Nolan's second film he directed after Following in 1998) differs from Nolan's other films, although it shares some similarities, in terms of a focus on memory and remembering, with Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014).
With that, I bring this review to a close and feel that it fully deserves a 10 out of 10, a rating I give out sparingly, only to the films I like the most.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)
Predictable drama which is only passable
I just watched this animated film this morning after beginning, to an extent, the "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" animated series, which ran from 2008 to 2014, with new episodes coming due to Disney's desire to reboot the series, with a 50-50 chance they will ruin it. Of the 224 reviews on here which have ratings, over half (124 to be exact) give this film a rating of 6-10, but others half (100 to be exact) think this movie is a stinker and that it should be subjected to distaste without question, giving it a rating of 0-5. Taking that all into account, I'd say that this film is only ok. It obviously does not raise up the caliber of the Simpsons Movie or even any of the Futurama movies. Admittedly those films are comedies, but they are also dramas to an extent.
While this film has a well-established storyline, of Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Ahsoka, the new Padawan assigned to Anakin, fighting to beat domination of a planet by the Separatists, and then to free the baby "Huttlett," the drama is almost too predictable. While you know that the "heroes" (the Jedi) will be victorious over the "villains" (the Sith) in this case, this movie does have some positives. The characters are not seen as two-dimensional beings but are a bit more relatable, humanized perhaps. The showing of characters as two-dimension beings which are not as relatable is what I think happened a bit in the earlier series (called "Star Wars: Clone Wars") by Genndy Tartakovsky, especially in the first season, but perhaps less so in the second season. The series lasted from 2003 to 2005, which was ceremoniously dumped with the Star Wars: The Clone Wars series superseding it. As such, Tartakovsky's series, which was at times like a magical fable more than just a straight war story, with a set of vignettes, was declared to not be part of the Star Wars canon anymore.
At times, this film falls into the straight war story aspect with predictable fights between Count Dooku and Anakin, between Magnaguards and Ahsoka, between Obi-Wan and Asajj Ventress. Even so, there is, apart from the continual underlying manipulations by Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious (the master manipulator on both sides, a sort of puppetmaster) to get the upper hand, there is the delicate workings of diplomacy, what one could call "aggressive diplomacy" as it was termed by Anakin and Padme in Attack of the Clones, simultaneously by Padme and by Anakin with the Hutts, which is ultimately successful. Obi-Wan does his share of diplomacy but he is more reserved, not literally putting a lightsaber to the neck of Jabba the Hutt as Anakin does at one point. Of course, Padme is engaged in the diplomacy for self-serving reasons, mainly due to her secret/forbidden relationship with Anakin rather than because she is trying to "serve the Republic."
Saying all of this, I think this film is relatively only passable. It is a compelling drama, I'll give you that, and perhaps even a strong lead into the "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" animated series, but that doesn't mean this movie doesn't have its flaws. Like in most Star Wars movies, male characters dominate, in this case Count Dooku and Darth Sidious as villains, and Obi-Wan, Anakin, Yoda, and Mace Windu as heroes. Don't forget that the clones are all men cloned on a planet modeled after a "manly" bounty hunter, and are mostly led by men. However, there are some supporting female characters whom have an important role in the story's plot: Asajj Ventress as a villain and Ahsoka and Padme as heroes. So that's a positive. The centrality of male characters is obvious even from the poster for this movie: Ahsoka is on the right side (almost in the background), behind Obi-Wan, while Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Yoda form the central three characters in the foreground.
With that, I'd give this movie a rating of a 6, in all fairness and taking into account what I have said above. As such, my review of this film comes to an end.
Futurama: Bender's Game (2008)
A funny film which is more than a story of a "fantasy world."
One line describes this film here on IMDB: "The Planet Express crew get trapped in a fantasy world" but there is much more to this movie than that. In this direct-to-video movie, which loosely falls after the end of "The Beast with A Billion Backs," Leela (voiced by Katey Sagal), Fry (voiced by Billy West), Bender (voiced by John DiMaggio), Farnsworth (voiced by Billy West), Zoidberg (voiced by Billy West), Amy Wong (voiced by Lauren Tom), and Hermes (voiced by Phil LaMarr) reprise their roles, joined by Nibbler (voiced by Frank Welker). Absent is any role for "Rear Brigadier" Zapp Brannigan (voiced by Billy West) or Amy's husband Kif (voiced by Maurice LaMarche), although Dr. Wernstrom (voiced by David Herman) and Mom (voiced by Tress MacNeille) make an appearance.
The plot of this movie is simple. Mom, head of a huge mega-conglomerate, wants to control all the dark matter, which is literally fecal matter from animals like Nibbler, claiming there is a "shortage" so she can jack up the price. Leela, after being challenged by a "bunch of rednecks" enters a demolition derby, which she wins but results in extreme damage to the ship. There is a funny cameo of
George Takei and Rich Little, with both flying in ships resembling the enterprise from Star Trek, with Takei accusing Rich of "ruining the franchise," with both ships ultimately exploding. As a result of her "anger issues" a shock collar is put on Leela, which is triggered anytime she thinks of violence, "perversions of a sexual nature," or curse words.
As Leela tries to figure out why she is angry, another sub-plot develops: Bender becoming more enveloped with Dungeons and Dragons, so much so that he believes he is Titanius Anglesmith of the imaginary land of Cornwood after playing the game with Cubert (voiced by Kath Soucie), Dwight (voiced by Phil LaMarr), and some of their other friends. Bender is, as such, sent to the Hal Institute for Criminally Insane Robots, which made me chuckle a little bit as Hal from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was clearly "insane." There he is examined in an environment, which somewhat resembles One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) in that there is a robot named "Nurse Ratched" (voiced by Tress MacNeille), where he is subjected to hammer-therapy and examined by Dr. Perceptron (voiced by Maurice LaMarche). It is here we see one of the funnest characters of the film, whom always says the most outrageous things: Roberto (voiced by David Herman), whom was created by people in Mexico who aimed to "create an insane robot." More than anyone else, he definitely finds comic relief.
As Leela never really finds what causes her anger, other than her justified hatred of Zoidberg, the main plot of Mom's hoarding of dark matter in a "crap factory" of Nibbleonians, and Bender's fantasy land of Cornwood are merged, when the resonance of the dark matter in Bender's mind creates this fantasy land as a reality, with Mom and her sons, Igner (voiced by John DiMaggio), Walt (voiced by Maurice LaMarche), and Larry (voiced by David Herman), along with the rest of the Planet Express crew. What follows is an obvious parody/homage of the Lord of thee Rings trilogy, with the centaurs whom believe in not fighting to be considered "wimps." Soon this ends with Mom holding onto the anti-backward crystal, beating them in that world and bringing them back to the regular world. However, the regular crystal that makes dark matter potent and the anti-backward crystal are brought together, making all dark matter useless. The solution? "Nibbler power" as Farnsworth calls it.
At the closing of this film I have a number of questions. For one, can this film really be truly considered canon? After all, the 2003 episode The Why of Fry (Season 4, episode 10) shows all the Nibblonians living quite well on a planet with all the food they would eat. However, this movie makes it seem that all the Nibblonians were captured and taken in by Mom, whom was previously a Doop contractor whom "mined" the planet hollow for dark matter. This creates a bit of a contradiction. However, perhaps it could fit into the canon of the show, although some gymnastics would be required. If that is the case, it would explain, partially, the rivalry Farnsworth has with Wermstrom as he was Mom's ex-husband, expressed throughout the series and in the last film, The Beast with A Billion Backs.
Even with these problems, the film still has some good themes. It criticizes corporate concentration, specifically monopolies controlling resources, and also shows the media as colluding with those very people, as one would expect. In this way, you could say the film is critical of capitalism. This is proven with the hilarious scene of an ad shown to Frydo (the version of Fry in Cornwood) to buy a knife for a limited time only so he can kill his friends. With this all being said, I give this film not a lowly rating of 3 or even a 9, the highest rating of the 39 reviews of this film on IMDB, going in-between with an 8. With that, my review of this film comes to a close.
Soylent Green (1973)
From knowledge to commodity
Last night I watched this movie and I was surprised at how good it was, leading to a rating of 10, which I rarely give to any films anymore. The film begins with a montage showing past modes of transportation and heavily implying that we are destroying our world. Following this is the setting of the film: New York City in 2022 with a population of 40 million people. Soon the focus is brought to on the protagonist: Detective Frank Thorn
(played by Charlton Heston) and his friend, a "police book" named Sol Roth (played by Edward G. Robinson) who helps him get information on cases by looking through old records. Everyone in this society is barely making by (with Thorn himself stealing food, supplies, and other household goods from the places he goes to investigate), with half of the population of the city unemployed and so many people that it becomes a major plot point of the film. Thorn walks over people whom are sleeping in the stairwells time and time again, hammering it into people's minds. Perhaps this is a bit overwrought but it makes the point in this dystopia clear.
Thorn soon investigates a case where a rich man, William R. Simonson (played by Joseph Cotten) is killed by an assassin with a metal hook, talking to the woman living with him, who he calls "furniture" (the sexist name for women in this dystopia), Shirl, whom is played by Leigh Taylor-Young. As he continues this investigation through the rest of the film he is apparently tailed by someone, with those higher-up in the government putting pressure on his boss, Chief Hatcher (played by Brock Peters) for him to stop investigating. But this doesn't work. As he digs deeper he begins to see the reality, including Simonson's role in creating Soylent Corporation (which makes Soylent Green) and that he was well-connected man.
While a subplot of sorts is Thorn's romance with Shirl, where he finally recognizes her humanity (and perhaps that of all women), perhaps more significant to note is the subplot of Sol, an intellectual and former university professor. He visits what is called "the exchange," where paper records are kept, a remaining body of knowledge held within a public library. He talks to fellow patrons, learning the truth about Soylent Green. As he dies at the film's end, he urges Sol to find the reality by going to the waste facility where the deceased old people and riotous people (scooped up by garbage trucks of sorts) are sent for disposal. But this place is no waste facility as he quickly learns but it is a factory. He learns the terrible secret about soylent green...
He returns to the exchange but four goons whom want to kill him and shut him up attack. A struggle ensues but Thorn ultimately wins, saved only at the last minute by Chief Hacker. It is there he delivers the line that has made the film a classic since then: "Soylent Green is people!" while he raises his bloody hand. Humans have become the ultimate commodity and are slaughtered, then fed to other humans, showing that they are all "cannibals" of sorts!
There are a number of other themes in this film worth pointing out. For one, the scientists (whom say Soylent Green is "plant-based"), the government, and business are in cahoots with each other to sell this substance to the masses. There are some parallels to Snowpiercer where the "rebellion" of those on the train ends up being a population control tactic. Additionally, religion gives people no solace as even the priest is tired of all the people coming to him for confessions. He is later killed by a goon because it is thought that he gave Thorn the confession of Simonson even though he did not at all. While I still think that overpopulation as a concept is racist, I think that this film still does a good job showing how humans are destroying the planet. With that, I end my review of this film.
Roger & Me (1989)
From smarmy rich people to suffering Michiganians
Michael Moore's most recent documentary, Fahrenheit 11/9 is in some ways a return to Moore's first documentary, this film. While Moore looks younger and more youthful than he does now, along with a small camera crew maybe of only three people, he uses some of his typical filmmaking techniques which come back again in Bowling for Columbine, Sicko, and Capitalism: A Love Story, along with his other films which I haven't seen as of yet. He tells his lifestory up to that point, including how most of his family worked at GM, his work on a small Michigan newspaper (Michigan's Voice), then working a short stint as editor of Mother Jones (the name of which he doesn't mention in the film if I remember right), saying he was fired because he wanted to have a column from a Flint autoworker in the magazine, and then moving back to Flint afterwards, leading into the events of this film. Moore has a simple mission: to get Roger Smith, the CEO of General Motors (GM), to visit Flint with him, seeing first-hand the destruction the layoffs from GM plants have caused. In the process of this he focuses on how the town is falling apart more and more, as more people are laid off and problems continue to spiral.
This film, which undoubtedly set a standard for documentaries to come, uses a combination of interviews and archival footage. With this, it's no surprise that the film was added to the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress, deemed to be "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant." Moore interviews people ranging from a woman whom sells rabbits as meat or pets in order to make ends meet, workers whom have been recently laid off, a PR man for GM, and assorted other figures, including celebrities, whom came to Flint to "assure" laid off workers that they had nothing to worry about. The documentary contrasts between the Flint Sheriff whom evicts people from their homes for not paying their rent to rich smarmy people who claim that all people need to do is "find a job" and they will be fine. At times it is a jarring contrast to say the least.
The documentary shows that GM is causing such destruction, justified by the cold-hearted PR man Moore interviews whom says that if they end up firing everyone in Flint to make profits, that's just how it goes. While I won't spoil the ending of the film, which provides a finale to Moore's quest to get Roger Smith to come to Flint, I will say the film shows that numerous people have been played/deceived, from the unions whom agree that cuts in worker wages is OK to the workers whom cheer on the last day of their work at a truck plant even as they are losing their jobs. With the workers disoriented, with no one attempting to organize them, and crimes increasing, the jails balloon. At the same time, Flint tries its hand at tourism but ends up wasting millions of dollars on ideas that were going nowhere. With a doubt, with the layoffs, the city is falling apart, with people leaving in droves.
Unlike his other films, like Bowling for Columbine, there are no animated features in this film. However, it still packs the punch, perhaps even more than so than his other films. This film, on its whole, is compelling, although at times he seems he is straying a little bit off. Still this film is important because while it only focuses on one city, Flint, it is emblematic of what has become of towns across the Rust Belt. With that I highly recommend this film and bring this review to a close.
Fahrenheit 11/9 (2018)
Some positive parts, but overall mixed feelings
After watching this Michael Moore documentary all the way through I feel conflicted. On one hand I think he did a good job focusing on the crimes Snyder did in Flint, the West Virginia teachers strike, or maybe even the shooting at Stoneman Douglas. On the other, it seemed this film was too stitched together in Frankenstein-like manner. I think it would have been better to divide it into chapters, like one could have been on the orange menace (the current president), one on Flint, one on school shootings (and the March for Our Lives), and one on the West Virginia teachers strike.
I like that this movie gives a good criticism of Obama and liberal establishment as they deserve to be criticized. Still I think he overplayed the progressive "heroes" like Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders when he should have been critical of them too. Additionally I don't agree with his claim that the U$ is a liberal country, which doesn't seem right in the slightest, as polls can be helpful but don't say everything. Even so I liked his use of clips, especially of media fawning the orange menace, and him coming clean about his own role in promoting him, with even Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner saying nice things about Moore at one time!
Of course there are the typical stunts like trying to put former Michigan Gov. Snyder under citizens arrest and spraying Flint water into the Governor's Mansion. This is just like his actions in Sicko where he goes on a boat with a bullhorn near Gitmo. I even think that the connection between the orange menace and fascism was good, even showing Obama as enabling what happened.
The final conclusion of the film, saying people should fight for a better U$, rather than a focus on elections or voting which was a positive refresher. However, when he transitioned to the end he moved to the fake missile attack warning for Hawaii and then the Stoneman Douglas shooting, saying this was an emergency. The film ended on the face of one of the Stoneman Douglas young gun control advocates, which was a strange ending as the film probably should have ended 5 or 10 minutes earlier.
Moore has his celebrity and star power, having some credibility, making it clear he can't just be dismissed outright even though he is what you could call a "limousine liberal." With that my review of this film comes to an end.
Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs (2008)
Robots, heaven, and existential questions
Following in the footsteps of Bender's Big Score, this animated (and direct-to-video) film features the Planet Express crew of the show Futurama (Leela, Fry, Bender, Prof. Farnsworth, Dr. Zoidberg, Amy, and Hermes) on their next adventure, joined by the William Shatner/James T. Kirk parody, Zapp Brannigan (voiced by Billy West), Amy's husband Kif (voiced by Maurice LaMarche), the Robot Devil (voiced by Dan Castellaneta), Yivo (played by David Cross), Colleen O'Hallahan (played by Brittany Murphy), Dr. Wernstrom (voiced by David Herman), and many others. One month has passed since Bender's reckless actions, which disrupted the space-time continuum, opened a rip in the universe, and the Planet Express crew goes on a mission to explore this anomaly. There are some hilarious parts, like when they all gasp they will learn more about the anomaly at a scientific conference, a place where Stephen Hawking (playing himself) acts like a jerk, shooting lasers out of his eyes, and such. Anyway, in Fry's desperation after his failed relationship with Colleen, whom was polyamorous, or wants to have an open relationship with five men of different cultures, leading to utter confusion, he enters the other universe. As he is literally dying, he is saved by Yivo, an octopus-like creature with one eye and purple tentacles.
Soon, the tentacles enter the Earth after breaking through Wornstrom's "diamondilium" sphere around the planet (an idea which was actually Farnsworth's) and Fry heads this new "religion," as he calls it, where all people are said to "love the tentacle." At first people are afraid of it (with a failed assault led by Brannigan and varied other ships), but then they accept it, until it is clear that it is mating with all of them (as Leela reveals)...the most expansive open relationship! This disgusts everyone, perhaps showing their prudishness, but they eventually embrace it, and are brought to what could be considered "heaven." Leela is skeptical, but is won over just before Bender and his league of robots, with an "army of the damned" says they are "saving" Fry and others in "heaven," since they cannot cross the universe barrier. Their idea is since they cannot visit the other universe, they will bring heaven to them. Perhaps this is how the robots are able to physically hurt Yivo, as it was said earlier in the film that nothing in the universe with Earth could hurt Yivo. If not, this is a bit of a plot issue, to say the least! There the relationship between Yivo and humanity/species in the universe with Earth ends, with all humans thrown onto the robots' ship, turning it into a sort of refugee ship, which is ironic because Bender leads a group which says it wants to "kill all humans." This is a common contradiction as Bender often says he wants to do this, yet he is friends/roommates with Fry, a human from the 20th century, and is on a crew with various other humans, whom he calls "meatbags" (like Farnsworth, Hermes, and Amy), whom he never attempts to kill.
With that summary being done, the question remains: what does this movie mean? Clearly when the humans are on this "heaven" they are content, not arguing with each other, but by the end of the film they are at each other's throats again, just as Wornstrom and Farnsworth have been with their never-ending enmity for each other. . This movie has the themes of love and loss, from Fry's failed relationship to Colleen, to humanity's up-and-down relationship with Yivo, to Amy's relationship with Kif (during which she cheats on him by sleeping with Zapp), and Leela not wanting any relationship as well. It also connects with the existential questions of existence, like why we are here at all, although The Meaning of Life (1983) is much better in this regard. Again, there really isn't much social commentary other than talking of the power of organized religion, government incompetence (in that Wornstrom and Farnsworth are imprisoned while Zapp leads a military mission, leading to slight anti-military statements from both scientists), and such, but that's about it.
That being said, this film is still enjoyable as an effective drama, although it's probably not as funny, as a comedy, than something like The Simpsons Movie, which came out one year earlier. With that, my review of this film comes to a close.
Futurama: Bender's Big Score (2007)
A compelling animated drama
Tonight I decided to watch this movie once again, which I've probably watched 3 to 4 times, at least, in the past. With the 80 reviews on here ranging from 1 to 10 stars, that gives a lot of latitude for my rating and review, a range to be within. I would argue that it would be wrong to rate this as a measley 1 star but also not right to give it am excellent rating of 10, so my rating of 8 goes right in-between.
The plot of this movie is simple: Planet Express is back in business after being canceled by the Box/Fox Network (with a parody of network executives as "assine morons) and is scammed by a group of nudist aliens, with the rest of the movie being about our "heroes" trying to fight them off and prevail. These "heroes" compromise the main cast/crew of the Futurama show: Turanga Leela (voiced by Katey Sagal), Philip J. Fry (voiced by Billy West), Bender Rodriguez (voiced by John DiMaggio), Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth (voiced by Billy West), Dr. John Zoidberg (voiced by Billy West), Amy Wong (voiced by Lauren Tom) and Bureaucrat Hermes Conrad (voiced by Phil LaMarr) with supporting characters being Cubert Farnsworth (voiced by Kath Soucie), Nibbler (voiced by Frank Welker), Al Gore (playing himself), Lars Fillmore (voiced by Billy West), Zapp Brannigan (voiced by Billy West), Robot Santa (voiced by John DiMaggio), Barbados Slim (voiced by John DiMaggio), Ethan "Bubblegum" Tate (voiced by Phil LaMarr), Nudar (voiced by David Herman), LaBarbara Conrad (voiced by Dawnn Lewis), Kwanzaa-bot (voiced by Coolio), Chanukah Zombie (voiced by Mark Hamill), Yancy Fry, Jr. (voiced by Tom Kenny), and Michelle (voiced by Sarah Silverman).
Now, onto the rest of the review. I thought the film was funny a times but for me was a more effective drama than anything else. At times the plot had inconsistencies, like Fry somehow knowing where his fellow crew mates were having a funeral for him, or the fact that Bender's dummy ships seemed to fire lasers even though they were dummy ships. It also seems odd that with Nibbler saying that the universe will shatter and/or it will be the end of causality, that this doesn't happen sooner considering that there were 50, at minimum, travels through time which created duplicates. Apparently Fry only created another duplicate, whom became "Lars Fillmore," living in New York City from 2000 to 2012, also explaining how his dog was fossilized. But for this to fit with the rest of Futurama canon it means the events of this movie had to already have happened, just like with Somewhere in Time (1980), creating a paradox in and of itself.
In terms of social commentary, you could say that perhaps there is some, with slight criticism of religion, people's gullibility, rampant commercialism, sexism, and such. I actually think that The Simpsons Movie, which was released in movie theaters whike thus was directly released to video, has much more biting social commentary. Even so, it is still a compelling drama with a substory of romance between Leela and Lars, and another of Hermes trying to win his wife, LaBarbara back. Like The Simpsons, stereotypes are rampant here, you could say, from the Jamaican Hermes, the dottering professor (Farnsworth), the klutzy girl (Amy), the immature 90s kid (Fry), the incompetent doctor (Zoidberg), and the alcoholic/master criminal (Bender). I'm not sure Leela would fall into stereotype category as she is probably the most headstrong character. Even if they embody these stereotypes they live beyond and outside them, rather than simply embodying them, which is generally the case in the show as well.
With that, my review of this film comes to an end, even though I recognize that this film needs to be watched as one of four films, with the next three being The Beast with A Billion Backs (2008), Bender's Game (2008), and Into the Wild Green Yonder (2009), before the show began again in Season 6, since all the movies compromised "Season 5."
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
Witty and funny, harkens back to Golden Age of The Simpsons
I recently watched this movie again as I was looking to fill up some time. While I've watched this movie, directed by David Silverman, probably 5 or 6 times before, it was still enjoyable. It features the common voice actors, Dan Castellaneta (voicing Homer Simpson, Abe Simpson, Krusty the Clown, Groundskeeper Willie, Mayor Quimby, Sideshow Mel, Mr. Teeny, an EPA officer, Itchy, and Barney Gumble), Julie Kavner (voicing Marge Simpson, Selma Bouvier, and Patty Bouvier), Nancy Cartwright (voicing Bart Simpson, Ralph Wiggum, Todd Flanders, and Nelson Muntz), Yeardley Smith (voicing Lisa Simpson), Hank Azaria (voicing Moe Szyslak, Chief Wiggum, Cletus Spuckler, Professor Frink, Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, Lou, Comic Book Guy, Captain McCallister, Bumblebee Man, and Dr. Nick), Henry Shearer (voicing Mr. Burns, Smithers, Ned Flanders, Reverend Lovejoy, Lenny, President Arnold Schwarzenegger, Seymour Skinner, Kent Brockman, Dr. Hibbert, and Otto Mann), Pamela Hayden (voicing Milhouse Van Houten, Rod Flanders, and Jimbo Jones), and Tress MacNeille (voicing the Medicine Woman, Agnes Skinner, Crazy Cat Lady, Colin, and Cookie Kwan). Additionally, long time Simpsons producer Albert Brooks whom is voicing the "mad with power" (as a fellow EPA worker tells him at one point) head of the EPA, Russ Cargill. I know some reviews of this film go down to even 2 stars, I'm rating this film 8 stars and I'll fully and completely explain why.
For one, while this film has annoying elements, like Lisa having a sort of boyfriend (an Irish boy named Colin, whom is also passionate about the environment), if it can make you laugh, then it is a victory. The film features Lisa, as the heart of the show, leading the charge to clean up Lake Springfield which is polluted by everyone in the town, which is sanctioned by Mayor Quimby who declares "code black." However, Homer, as you would think, it utterly impulsive, slowly fulfilling the prophecy that Grampa Simpson tells the shocked churchgoers (seemingly comprising most of the town of Springfield), after dumping the waste of a pig he adopted in the lake because he wanted to eat donuts. As a result, the EPA, led by a corporate hatchet man, Russ Cargill, quarantines the town in a dome to "contain" its pollution, which is sanctioned by President Schwarzenegger (which should have been Ranier Wolfcastle/McBain instead, as this ruins this longstanding Simpsons parody) in a glass dome, trapping the citizenry.
Soon, the Simpsons family (Maggie, Marge, Homer, Lisa, and Bart) are targeted by a torch-wielding "mob" comprising all of those in the town. Even Colin is in the "mob," although it is hard to say if he is there willingly or happened to be there. In fact, they would have gone to the wrong house had Homer not pointed out they were going the wrong direction. They escape the town thanks to a sinkhole, yet the town "mob" dumbly doesn't follow them while the Simpsons house is quickly destroyed by the sinkhole, apparently. From there, the Simpsons family is on the run from the EPA, which can't manage to track them when they go from Springfield to Alaska, which includes crossing international borders (the Canada-U.S. border two times). If we suspend belief, this narrative is otherwise compelling.
Meanwhile, Springfield has descended into "utter anarchy" in this dystopia. Soon, Homer selfishly wants to stay in Alaska, their new home, but Marge and the rest of the family go back to Springfield. It is here there is a hilarious criticism of the NSA as utterly incompetent, with the one analyst shouting "we finally found someone we are looking for!" Keep in mind this is before the Snowden revelations, showing that the concern for mass surveillance is nothing new to say the least. Another criticism I liked was of how Homer describes the fellow church people, saying that these pious people believe in their "phony, baloney god," knowing they will hear him, while publicly he puts on a face that he cares. This raises the question of how religious Homer is, after all, if it's all just a front of some sort. It reminds me a bit of The Miracle Woman (1931) by Frank Capra, especially of the beginning scene when Florence Fallon (played by Barbara Stanwyck) condemns her fellow churchgoers as hypocrites and liars, although she was much more forceful. The criticism of the rich is evident, with Mr. Burns saying at one point that "finally, the rich white man is in charge" (or something to that effect) when Dr. Hibbert, Apu, and Chief Wiggum ask for power to be supplied to the city, which he doesn't do. Clearly, Mr. Burns is representative of the evil capitalist, as he, in a credits scene, and has a dark side, as he is fine with watching someone commit suicide!
I'm not sure, personally about the depiction of indigenous people in this movie, represented specifically medicine woman, as it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable in that it seems to feed into a stereotype. But perhaps that's no surprise as Apu himself is a stereotype, even more so than the medicine woman. Even with that being said, I liked the fan service of the motorcycle, with Homer and Bart above it, jumping over the Springfield gorge, over which Homer and Bart had failed in their attempts to get across it in the past, and getting across thanks to Bart's slingshot.
While I have my reservations about this movie, especially wondering if this movie can be considered canon since it would mean that any episodes after this movie could get awkward since the house was utterly destroyed, as were their possessions, I would say that it is generally enjoyable and I would recommend it. If this movie is not canon, it would make sense because it would explain what happened to people like Russ Cargill, the President, Colin, and other characters just for this movie. I understand the criticisms of this movie, but I just have to disagree with them, as I've stated here. With that, my review of this film comes to a close.
The Squall (1929)
Entertaining but problematic drama
Last night and this morning I watched this classic 1929 talkie. I was only familiar with one of the cast, Loretta Young, whom plays Erma in this movie, plays Gallagher in Frank Capra's classic 1931 film, Platinum Blonde. Otherwise the rest of the cast was new to me. Of all the cast, I think Myrna Loy, as Nubi, was the strongest, while the other actors were ok but nothing to write home about.
The plot of this movie is simple. A beautiful woman, who says she is 16, named Nubi comes to the farm of Josef Lujos (played by Richard Tucker) and his wife Maria (played by Alice Joyce) in the midst of a squall, saying she is escaping her brutal husband, a fellow "gypsy"/Romani. In the process, however she turns men against each other, as they fawn over her, buying her necklaces and jewelry as they want her affection. This leads to jealousy among the men, like Paul (played by Carroll Nye) and Peter (played by Harry Cording), who compete among one another for her. In the process, the women they love, like Erma, in the case of Peter, and Lena (played by ZaSu Pitts), in the case of Peter, are left behind. For his hostile behavior toward Nubi, Paul is kicked out of the house, while Peter even steals Lena's savings to buy beautiful jewelry for Nubi.
The women, like Maria, Lena, and Erma, suspect that something is peculiar about Nubi and the film implies that she has some magical powers, apart from her seductive prowess as you could call it. This is where I agree with the more critical reviews on here of this film, which range from 2 stars to 6 stars. However, I think the concept of this film is relatively interesting so I decided to give it a rating of 7 out of 10. I would say that at its worst this film reminds me of Spike Lee's Chiraq in that men are just seen as interested in love from women, not much more, with the idea that a "sex strike" will solve problems, playing into stereotypes about men.
This film, by showing men as pining for Nubi's attention, does make them relatively shallow characters. Additionally it seems that this film is somewhat anti-Romani in that Nubi, a Romani, is seen as a sort of evil spirit, like another race to be feared, almost in a racist way. At the same time, they are also shown as a strong and proud people. At the same time, the women in this movie are heavily submissive, even though they do think and act on their own accord.
And with that, my review of this film comes to a close.