Thief's Monthly Movie Loot - 2023 Edition

Busy days, so here's a couple of things to catch up...

First, I was a guest for a third time on Brian Skutle's Sonic Cinema, this time to talk about David Fincher's The Game. You can check it out here:

Sonic Cinema Episode 141 – Discussing “The Game”

Also available on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.


Second, I was also a guest on Forgotten Filmcast, to discuss a "forgotten" but still a bit interesting film called Holocaust 2000 (which I reviewed here a while ago). You can check it out here:

Forgotten Filmcast Episode 195: Holocaust 2000

Again, also available on most podcasting and streaming platforms.


And finally, if you can tolerate more than two spoonfuls of me, then check out my own episode on David Fincher on The Movie Loot. I met with academic and writer Richard Dyer, and we talked about his work and career, and shared our Top 5 Fincher films. Check it out here:

The Movie Loot 90: The Fincher Loot (with Richard Dyer)

Also available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and other streaming platforms.


Enjoy!

__________________

They actually did that in real life for the film. Friedkin was a bit of a madman.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I heard it was a specially constructed hydraulic bridge made just for the production, that they could mechanically sway at will, though.

Probably so. Either way, it's a great sequence, so I'm fine with showing a bit of suspension of disbelief.

I agree. At the end of the day, it's not about the bridge itself, but about the lengths these men would go for this "wage".

Set in MACA, a remote prison in Cote d'Ivoire, Night of the Kings follows a young thief and gang member (Bakary Koné) who finds himself reluctantly appointed as "Roman", or storyteller, by Blackbeard (Steve Tientcheu), a fellow prisoner who serves as "king" from within. Since his health is failing, Blackbeard is pressured to surrender his position and commit suicide, according to their beliefs. But in an effort to delay the inevitable, he tasks Roman to tell stories to the inmate population.

This is a film I hadn't heard of until a couple of months ago, but I've always said it's really interesting to experience films from other countries and cultures. Night of the Kings goes a bit further, not only in how it highlights some specific cultural aspects of Cote d'Ivoire, but also a specific belief system from within this prison. I'm not sure how much of this system is based in real life, but I still find it mesmerizing.

However, the film doesn't dwell as much in the power struggle between Blackbeard and his ambitious subordinate/successor Lass (Abdoul-Karim Konate), or in the logistics of how/why Roman has to tell stories until the "red moon" sets. Instead, the film puts you in the middle of this hypnotizing ceremony to perhaps let you experience it in the same trance-like state as some of the prisoners.

The thing about the film is that, much like Roman's stories seem to weave in and out, leaving his listeners asking for more, the film weaves in and out of certain characters and subplots leaving us asking for more. Tientcheu might be the one I wanted to see more from, and the film certainly loses a bit of oomphh when he's not in. But then there's also Lass, or the guards that stay at the sidelines watching all of this unfold; all stories that seemed worthy of a bit more.

French actor Denis Lavant (Holy Motors, Les amants pont du neuf) also has a supporting performance as the only white prisoner in MACA. It's not a big role, but Lavant does his usual eccentric bit as he warns Roman about what could be his fate. But for now, he just has to tell stories, while we sit there mesmerized in the haze of the film.

Grade:

That's a sentence that every student in Weaver High School dreads, but as fate had it, it would fall on meek student and school journalist Jerry Mitchell (Casey Siemazko). Three O'Clock High follows Jerry's day after he receives this threat from new student/juvenile delinquent Buddy Revell (Richard Tyson) when he awkwardly approached him in the school restroom for a school newspaper interview; something that Buddy's not happy about.

This is a film I knew about, but for some weird reason, I hadn't seen. Weird, because growing up in the 1980s, this seems pretty much like my kind of film at the moment. So I was happy when my friend Josh recommended it to me as a "birthday gift", and I was happier when it turned out to be a pleasant and enjoyable surprise.

Three O'Clock High inhabits that same space as other teen films of the era that walk within that "suburban magical realism" realm; kinda like Better Off Dead or License to Drive. The events are grounded in reality, but are presented in ways that make them feel they're not. This is done to help heighten the dread, the tension, and the feeling of being trapped by the main character, usually in hilarious ways.

In this regard, the direction of Phil Joanou, helped by the cinematography of Barry Sonnenfeld, was really fantastic. The way they move the camera, the angles they choose, how they block certain scenes, it was definitely above the average teen movie standards. In addition, the two leads are pretty solid, which makes you wonder why both of them didn't have better careers. I do think the character of Buddy could've been more developed, but it was still a pretty good performance from Tyson.

Three O'Clock High is also interesting in how it subverts some of the typical tropes of the genre. There are a couple of times where you think it's going to zig, but then it zags, which felt refreshing. However, what happens in the last act, although surprising, felt less interesting than what could've been. Also, the way they handle the main two female characters, both Jerry's romantic interests, felt as if the script didn't necessarily knew what to do or where to go.

Despite those flaws, Three O'Clock High was overall a refreshing take on the teen school sub-genre. Well acted, neatly directed and shot, and maybe giving more credit to its audience than most films of the genre do. Certainly a must-watch for 1980s kids, and maybe to anybody that enjoys a good teen comedy.

Grade:

If you're looking for a review, then check out what I wrote back in 2021. There really isn't much I would add. If you're looking for what makes a film "Fincheresque", then look no further than this: an isolated man, obsessed with some "quest" that leads him into dark and morally ambiguous places. The Game is an exemplification of Fincher's style – people playing "adult" games – but it is also an undervalued, neat little thriller.

Grade:

That's what cartoonist-turned-investigator Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) confesses to his wife. But the statement serves as much to put forward this film's thesis than to highlight Graysmith's obsession. You see this film is not necessarily about the Zodiac Killer, but rather about how three different people become obsessed and ultimately consumed by the "need to know".

Starting in 1969, Zodiac mostly focuses on Graysmith, but it also follows police detective Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and journalist Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.), all of which "need to know" who this killer is for different reasons; even if it is at the expense of their careers, their families, or even their lives.

David Fincher uses a clever story structure to reel us in with a bunch of incredibly intense, and sometimes gruesome murder sequences during the first act. Much like the Zodiac Killer himself used different modus operandi for each murder, the way Fincher handles these sequences is different, but they're all incredibly effective. I can say that the Lake Berryessa scene is one that sticks with you.

However, as the film progresses, Fincher turns the tables on us to focus more on these three characters, becoming more of a character study than a plot-driven film. Thankfully, all three actors are up to the task delivering excellent performances all around. Downey, Jr. is particularly impressive in one of his best performances before he became absorbed by the MCU machinery.

However, it is Gyllenhaal the one that delivers the most interesting and probably complex performance. By focusing on his obsession, Fincher is putting us in his shoes, entangling us in the same quest to find out who is this killer, even though we all know the quest will ultimately be "pointless" and the end will not be "satisfactory".

But much like The Game, this fits perfectly into Fincher's usual themes and tropes, making us follow isolated characters obsessed with "games" that lead them into dark, dangerous, and morally ambiguous places. Graysmith needs to know, and yes, we need to know as well, but Fincher doesn't know and maybe doesn't even care. It's up to us to live with that answer.

Grade:

Set near the beginning of World War II, The Conformist follows Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Trintignant), a Fascist that is instructed to assassinate his former mentor and professor. But things get complicated when he starts a relationship with the professor's wife. Will he pay the price?

This is a film I had barely heard of, but when my friend Ian recommended it and I read the plot, I was immediately intrigued. Bertolucci's direction uses a non-linear narrative as the film starts with Marcello preparing for his mission, but then starts going back and forth to different moments in his past that led him to where he is now.

This approach felt a bit scattered to me and it took me a while to get into the film's wavelength. I also felt that, despite all the flashbacks, I found it a bit hard to connect with the characters and their motivations. However, I appreciated the tonal shift in the last act to a more dark and bleak one, leading to its uncompromising conclusion. Aside from that, the direction and cinematography are great.

Regardless of how much I appreciated its strengths, I still feel like I missed something. Overall, I enjoyed it, but I think that my inability to get into the film's vibe early on hindered its overall effect. Bottom line, this is a film I feel I might or should revisit again at some point to maybe appreciate it more. It is the price I must pay, and I shall pay it.

Grade:

Occam's razor is a principle that basically states that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. That principle is somewhat in the background when airplane engineer Kyle Pratt (Jodie Foster) says the above to the captain of the plane she's in. You see, she has just boarded the plane that is transporting the body of her recently deceased husband from Germany to the US. She is accompanied in the flight by her young daughter Julia (Marlene Lawston), or is she? The thing is that shortly after take-off, Julia disappears but nobody seems to have any recollection or evidence of the girl boarding the plane.

Flightplan follows Kyle's efforts to find her daughter while also trying to keep her sanity and convince the captain and those around her that the simplest explanation is the right one... or is it the simplest? Because, either there's a conspiracy of some sort involving several people including crew members to kidnap Julia to get something out of Kyle... or she's actually struggling with her sanity and has imagined her daughter getting on the plane and is just now realizing she's actually not there as she pretends to look for her. Does either of these possibilities make any sense?

This is a film that I remember got not so good reviews back in the day, which is probably why I avoided it. With time, it has more or less vanished from the public consciousness, so when Andrew recommended it I thought, did I imagine those bad reviews? I did approach it with little to no expectation which maybe hampered the overall effect a bit. The film feels like a bit of a play on Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes, a film that starts with a similar premise that gets a bit more complex and darker as it goes on. Unfortunately, that's not the case here. Flightplan starts with a mildly intriguing premise that becomes less and less interesting, and more and more generic as it goes on.

And that is the film's biggest weakness. Despite that interesting premise, what ends up happening doesn't really quite compute neither logically nor story-wise. Sure, the amount of things that had to happen for what actually happened to *happen* is laughable and ludicrous, but it is also such a formulaic twist that the film pretty much deflates afterwards. And despite that, the writers still decide to extend things unnecessarily for about 20-25 minutes more, even though it's clear they didn't really know what to do.

Major props to a relatively strong cast that elevates the weak script. Jodie Foster certainly gives it her all, especially in the first two acts. She really conveys the desperation and mental anguish of her character as she tries to internalize what is happening. Peter Sarsgaard is also pretty good as an air mashal that tries to handle the different situations in the plane. Sean Bean plays the captain, but although he does his best, his role is not as relevant as one would think.

According to Occam's razor, it should be pretty simple to get a quality film out of a talented cast. It's the simplest explanation. But this is one of those cases where you just don't understand why would they take a high-caliber actress like Jodie Foster, start her up with such an interesting premise, only to drag it all down halfway through with tired clichés and dumb plot developments. Does that make any sense? Can you think of a reason why they would do that?

Grade:

The Guardian follows Phil and Kate (Dwier Brown and Carey Lowell), a young married couple that is going through some changes: Phil was just hired for a new job, they just moved to Los Angeles, and they're about to have a baby. Their worst nightmare, though, is that Camilla (Jenny Seagrove), their lovely new nanny, is actually a supernatural being that sacrifices babies to a tree entity.

Director William Friedkin certainly has a talent for building atmosphere and dread; whether it is in The Exorcist or Killer Joe, or Sorcerer which I just saw earlier this month. His films always give you that sense of uneasiness and danger to its characters, whether that danger is spiritual, human, or in this case, supernatural.

Unfortunately, that effective sense of dread is paired with some weak performances and a script that feels a bit unsure of what to be. Sure, there are elements of fantasy and the supernatural, with bits of gore and horror, but there are times where it borrows from genre thrillers of the 90s like Fatal Attraction, even though some of those borrowings don't necessarily lead anywhere.

The film also doesn't really dive much into the background of what Camilla's doing. Not that there needs to be a whole lot of explanation, but there feels something missing. Coming from Friedkin, this feels a bit "cheap" and mediocre in some aspects, but it still carries that undeniable flavor of dread I mentioned, and I feel that might warrant a watch for some.

Grade:

Here's my summary for AUGUST 2023:

A film from the 1980s: Three O'Clock High
A film from the Sight & Sound Greatest Films list whose ranking includes the #8: The Conformist (#118)
A film mostly set on a plane (Nat'l Aviation Day, August 19): Flightplan
A film from William Friedkin (born August 29): Sorcerer, The Guardian
A film from Cote d'Ivoire (Independence Day, August 7): Night of the Kings


Other films seen, not for the challenge

Mystery and horror: The Old Dark House, The Fog, The Dyatlov Pass Case
Fincher films: The Game, Zodiac



Not a lot of quantity, but some quality. Not counting rewatches, my favorite first-time watch was easily Sorcerer. Even with The Wages of Fear being pretty darn good, Friedkin still managed to make quite something with this remake.

My least favorite was easily Flightplan, but The Guardian was close.

Here is my latest "assignment" episode!

The Movie Loot: The September Assignment (with David Rosen)

In this one, me and David Rosen, composer and host of Piecing It Together podcast, joined the loot as we chose a set of 5 categories to guide us on what to watch during the month.

You can also see the live broadcast we did via YouTube



...or listen to it through any podcasting platform like Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or any other.

Here are the criteria we chose for SEPTEMBER 2023:

A film from Oliver Stone (born September 15):
A film with a punctuation symbol in its title (Nat'l Punctuation Day, September 24):
A film with a title that starts with the letters Q or R:
A film about pirates (International Talk Like a Pirate Day, September 19):
A film with Native American characters (Native American Day, September 22):

There was a glitch in the matrix, but I just fixed the above link.

That's how a particularly drunken priest describes "the end of the world, Armageddon" to Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), something which he claims to have been hunting "for 30 years". In a way, that might mirror Loomis' own quest to hunt Michael Myers, which he describes as "evil on two legs". Ten years ago, he barely stopped him as he tried to kill Laurie Strode. But after being in a coma for a long time, Myers now returns to kill Laurie's daughter, Jamie (Danielle Harris).

Halloween 4 starts with the transfer of Myers from one hospital to another, and his expected eventual escape. With Myers headed to Haddonfield, it is up to Loomis to stop him from murdering Jamie. But this time, he has the help of the townspeople, especially Jamie's foster sister, Rachel (Ellie Cornell).

As we all know, this film came to be because of the failure of Halloween III. With audiences clamoring for the return of Myers, the producers and the studio gave them just that, resulting in what could be seen as a retread of the original film: Myers escapes, goes to Haddonfield, stalks family member, kills random people.

A couple of things separate this installment from the bunch. First, Rachel makes for a pretty good "final girl". She's brave, smart, and resourceful, and manages to hold her own against Michael. Second, despite all the rehashed elements, it is nice to see a "different" Haddonfield, with townsfolk still suffering and reeling in from the events of a decade before. Not that the film dwells too much in it, but it was still nice to see that speck of realism.

However, the film really doesn't have a lot of memorable kills (the only significant ones were added in post-production when the studio deemed the film too tame) which makes it feel a bit neutered. Also, the film tries to insert some level of "mental connection" between Jamie and Michael, but aside from the final shot, I don't think the execution of this plotline was the best. If they had played on that a bit better through the film, the final shot would've been significantly more powerful.

Despite those flaws, Halloween 4 is still a fairly competent slasher with two pretty good leads and a solid ending. It's also nice to see Donald Pleasance still give it his all, despite the shortcomings of the script. He gives such an intense energy to his performance as he relentlessly tries to finish off Michael, even if deep down he knows you can't kill damnaton.

Grade:

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have been around since 1984; from comics and action figures to TV shows, films, and video games. Most of these give prominence to the fact that they're ninjas, because it's cool, and mutants, because well, it's obvious. But few have managed to capture the fact that they're "teenagers" as well as this latest animated outing.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem follows the turtles struggle to stop two different people from getting their hands in the mutagen that mutated them: on one side, there's TCRI executive Cynthia Utrom (Maya Rudolph) who wants to use it for her evil experiments, and on the other hand there's Superfly (Ice Cube), a mutated housefly turned criminal that wants to use it to mutate all creatures and achieve mutant dominance.

But one thing that the turtles have in common with Superfly and his gang are their need for acceptance, which drives their lives and efforts in wildly different directions. Superfly wants vengeance and power, while the turtles want to be friends and coexist. In one of those efforts, they meet student and aspiring journalist April O'Neill (Ayo Edebiri) who, being an outcast herself, accepts them and sets to help them out.

There are a number of things that this film does right, but the main one might be the successful chemistry and vocal performances they pull out from the four main leads (Nicolas Cantu, Brady Noon, Shamon Brown Jr., and Micah Abbey). They talk and behave like teenage kids would; something that the directors and writers noticed and took advantage of by recording many of their scenes together as well as allowing some level of improvisation.

The theme of acceptance and its importance is also well represented across most of the characters. Being teenagers isolated from the rest of the world, it makes sense that the turtles would want to go out, make friends, and have fun. But when you pair it with the fact that they're mutant turtles, it creates an obvious predicament. Their desire to be heroes is fueled by that need for acceptance, until they realize they *should* be heroes to save the world, regardless of whether they're accepted or not.

This project was mostly put forward and driven by Seth Rogen who, along with his frequent collaborator and childhood friend, Evan Goldberg, wrote the script. They also managed to bring along a cast of frequent collaborators (Paul Rudd, Rose Byrne, etc.) for some of the supporting roles which, again, goes to that familiar vibe the film manages to achieve. The whole tone of the film is very loose and fun.

Finally, the film has a very unique animation style, reminiscent of the one used for The Mitchells vs. the Machines, which seems to be a choice of main director Jeff Rowe, who co-directed that film. These style which can vary from very detailed bits to rougher sketch-like scenes goes neatly with the loose tone of the film which makes the end result all the more effective. With this being overall the seventh TMNT film, and with a sequel already in pre-production, looks like these turtles don't have to worry about acceptance.

Grade:

Adam Sandler started his career in the late 80s, but it wasn't until the mid-90s that he became a household name through a common schtick that featured him as a mild-mannered man prone to violent outbursts in "hilarious" ways. That's basically the template of films like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer, The Waterboy... and then he met Paul Thomas Anderson.

Punch-Drunk Love follows Barry (Sandler), a "nice man" that happens to be socially awkward, depressed and, well, prone to violent outbursts. Things take a turn when he meets Lena (Emily Watson), the charming co-worker of one of his seven sisters, just as he starts being accosted by a phone sex operator that was trying to extort him under orders of his shady boss (Philip Seymour Hoffman).

There's something magical in seeing a gifted director like Paul Thomas Anderson take someone like Sandler and what might seem like a tired schtick and make something as beautiful as this film. Punch-Drunk Love is an earnest romcom about the magic of two seemingly different people meeting each other and learning to work with the other person's strengths and weaknesses for the benefit of the relationship; which is pretty much what Anderson and Sandler did with this.

There is an undeniable charm and innocence to the relationship between Barry and Lena that's just infectious, and both Sandler and Watson portray that beautifully. Sure, there are some moments when Sandler "let's go", but he never orbits too far from Watson, which keeps his performance reined in. Hoffman's performance is, as is usual with him, brilliant but brief, since Anderson never strays too far from Sandler and Watson.

Although part of me wishes the film could've touched a bit more on Barry's depression, the truth is that Punch-Drunk Love is a really simple film; a delightful one! A nice man meets a nice woman, they fall in love, and when struggles come, he overcomes them by threatening to beat the hell out of whoever tries to mess things up, as the two march together hand-in-hand towards the end... and that's that.

Grade:

If you haven't picked for all of your categories:

Featuring a Native American character(s): The Manitou or Smoke Signals.

Pirates: Muppet Treasure Island or for contemporary pirates, A Hijacking.

Nice! I saw a short for the Native American characters category, but I might be open for a full feature. I'll see what those two are about.

I still haven't decided about the pirates one, but I did see A Hijacking a while ago. Thanks!