Vampires, Assassins, and Romantic Angst by the Seaside: Takoma Reviews

I haven't! After I finish the 2023 challenge, I need to loop back around to some of the collections on Criterion.

I just noticed it’s leaving criterion at the end of the month.

Yikes!

Police Story 3: Supercop, 1992

Hong Kong detective Chan (Jackie Chan) teams up with a mainland Chinese detective Yang (Michelle Yeoh) to take down a ruthless drug cartel. Going undercover as a pair of siblings, they ingratiate themselves with a cartel member named Panther (Wah Yuen). But various complications arise, not the least of which is the unfortunate presence of Chan’s girlfriend, May (Maggie Cheung) at one of their high-stakes meetings.

Riding the good vibes of the chemistry between Chan and Yeoh, and capped by an absolutely mad final action sequence, this film is high on its own supply and it’s great.

How and why there wasn’t an entire series of films made starring Chan and Yeoh is absolutely beyond me. Their banter and the way that both their martial arts and their physical comedy styles complement each other is insane. It really says something when you’ve got Maggie Cheung on deck and there’s barely room to fit her in as a subplot.

The story itself moves along at a great clip. We establish the mission, Chan and Yang infiltrate the gang, and then there are a series of hijinks to get them in close proximity to the drug kingpin, then a further complication involving having to bail out the kingpin’s wife who is the only one who knows the password to the cartel’s massive bank account. The balance between the story and the action is very good, with each piece flowing naturally from the last.

The action does tend to run toward larger setpieces, with many, many moving parts. By the time you get to the finale, you basically need all the helicopters, trains, cars, and motorcycles to up the ante. That said, there’s still time for Yang kicking a woman in the crotch before kicking her fully through a conveniently placed stack of boxes, or Chan to mug on top of a moving train as an opponent heads unwittingly for a low-hanging sign.

It is true that Cheung is underused, and the sequences involving her character mainly tend to center on her being humiliated or roughly handled. It would have been nice to see her given a bit more depth, or just more of a chance to show off her comedic chops.

I also had mixed feelings watching some of the stunts, knowing that there were several times that the actors were endangered or injured. I suppose at this point, Yeoh FALLING OFF OF A MOVING CAR INTO THE PATH OF OTHER MOVING CARS is more of a historical curiosity, but it’s still troubling to see several sequences in which the safety is precarious at best.

Altogether a winning film built on engaging performances and memorable action.

Solo: A Star Wars Story, 2018

In a galaxy far, far away, a young Han (Alden Ehrenreich) escapes a miserable life of forced labor and falls in with a group of thieves led by the charismatic Beckett (Woody Harrelson). When a robbery goes wrong, the gang finds themselves in thrall to the powerful, controlling Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), who just happens to have control over Han’s lost love, Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke).

Stranded between feeling like a stand-alone film and a ~part of a cinematic universe~, this one mostly coasts on the charms of its cast as they banter through a series of action set-pieces.

As what you might call a “casual appreciator” of the original Star Wars films, I have no real emotional stakes when it comes to the expanded universe. Aside from The Force Awakens, this is the only film outside of the original trilogy that I’ve seen. And . . . it’s okay.

The plus side is definitely the cast. Ehrenreich has probably the hardest job, tasked with a character who needs to end the film set on the arc of becoming the cocky, jaded Han Solo that we meet in the original films. Ehrenreich is likable and sympathetic, though I felt that the writing often let him down. Considering the way that he is connected to almost every other character, he feels strangely isolated. His friendship with Chewie is probably the most compelling, but everything else feels very superficial.

The rest of the cast is also very solid, and they benefit from more focused character dynamics. Phoebe Waller-Bridge is funny and moving as L3, Lando Calrissian’s (Donald Glover) robot co-pilot. L3 is a staunch advocate for robot rights, and what feels like a cheap joke about Lando having a crush on her later turns out to be more true than we’d first suspect. Glover is charming in his turn as Lando, and his banter with L3 and a later more serious scene between them is some of the strongest stuff in the film.

Clarke has a lot of presence, but that mostly calls attention to the relative weakness of the character. Is Qi’ra a victim of essentially sex trafficking? Or is she an empowered, cagey woman? The movie kind of wants to have things both ways. I think that a character COULD be both, but it would require more nuance than this film is capable of. The film wants to treat her a bit as a trophy in a tug-of-war between Han and Dryden, and it’s a dynamic that is not executed well. Likewise, Harrelson’s Beckett is positioned as a mentor figure to Han, but the film consistently skirts around more serious relationship building between them. It means that many moments that should land with a punch instead land with a shrug.

The movie also looks, well, not great. There’s a very generic (to be fair, established by the original trilogy) grungy futurism thing going on, with security guards monitoring workers on little televisions. But the overwhelming palette is sand yellow and mud brown. I didn’t hate the action sequences, but neither did I feel drawn in to them. There’s a train robbery in the first act that is pretty swell, but from there it’s kind of a gloop of lasers and zooming spaceships.

Worth a watch, I suppose. But nothing very compelling.

Wild Girl, 1932

In a rural California town, Salomy Jane (Joan Bennett) is a tomboy who restlessly resists the wooing of charming gambler Jack (Ralph Bellamy), the ineffectual Rufe (Irving Picher), and the handsy politician Baldwin (Morgan Wallace). But things take a turn one day when a stagecoach robbery takes place and a local is murdered, with suspicion of the murder falling on a newly arrived stranger (Charles Farrell). Salomy has reason to defend the stranger, slowly coming to realize she has feelings for him.

This movie is an everything bagel of comedy, drama, thriller, romance, and Western---and this bagel is, for the most part, delicious.

On the comedy front, the film delivers a series of ribald jokes with the same pattern of giving a meaningful pause before delivering a second half that renders the statement innocuous. “He was stripping women . . . of their jewels.” “When you find the right man you’ll get out of those pants . . . and into a dress.” The cast has a good old time delivering these lines, and their amusement is contagious.

The drama and thriller elements are also pretty effective. In a sequence that’s all the more shocking for following on a lot of silliness, Baldwin waits behind a tree near where Salomy is swimming nude in a lake, accosting her when she emerges. The attack leaves her with nasty bruises on her arm, something we see twice more during the film. Salomy hypothesizes that a later attack on Baldwin was probably motivated by the similar assault of another woman, something that proves prescient. The other drama subplot involves a local man who is suspected of committing the stagecoach robbery. The film spends a lot of time with the man, his wife, and their children, giving a lot of impact to what comes later in that plot.

The romance is also fun for the most part. For a while it cruises along in a “love at first sight” mode, but there’s a pretty good sequence in the middle where Salomy realizes that the stranger may have killed the man who tried to rape her, and is deeply disturbed by the idea that he might be executed for having done so. With the local authorities basically brushing off her report of being assaulted, all she can offer the stranger is affection and a pretty sexy kiss. There is something a bit disappointing about the fact that Salomy likes a guy and then all of a sudden goes around in modest dresses instead of her pants and shirt. Thankfully she’s still very feisty to the last frame. Farrell plays his part well, a job that requires being adorable, guileless, and rugged in turn.

A special mention has to go to Eugene Pallette, the local carriage driver who acts as almost a greek chorus to all of the action. He keeps each character up to date on the latest events, and gently intervenes at certain moments to help make things right and support the community.

The one aspect of the film that sticks out like a sore thumb is the treatment of its Black characters. While Louise Beavers is an engaging presence (and gives a great delivery of the “get you out of those pants” line), her character is the stereotypical Mammy. (And, yes, that’s her character’s name). The portrayal of the Black characters is positive, technically, but “positive” in the sense that they are enslaved people who are just as happy as can be. Just a whole lot of laughing and singing and hanging out--yup, the life of an enslaved person in the 1800s! It’s not a huge part of the run time, but these scenes occur enough to leave a lingering negative vibe.

Overall this one packs enough laughs and moments of genuine heart to be worth a watch, with a note that the racial politics are unfortunate.

Me and My Gal, 1932

A new police officer on the beat named Danny (Spencer Tracy) strikes up a romance with a feisty waitress named Helen (Joan Bennett). Things get complicated when Helen’s married sister, Kate (Marion Burns) has a fling with gangster Duke (George Walsh) who ends up on the lam.

Built on the crackling chemistry between Tracy and Bennett, this one ends up as an effective mish-mash of comedy-romance and crime thriller.

From the get-go, Danny and Helen are very well matched so that the banter and good-natured ribbing feels mutual and not off-putting on either side. In one sequence, the two of them cuddle up on a sofa and as they exchange banter and sweet nothings, we hear their inner-monologues. “Why I’ve never even kissed a guy!” Helen exclaims, followed immediately by the thought, “I hope he didn’t hear about the fireman’s picnic!”. It’s a romance where they both know what’s up, so the different versions of game-playing never feel gross.

The subplot with Kate, Helen’s sister, is a bit more uneven. We’re introduced to Kate’s husband, the slightly geeky Eddie (George Chandler) who leaves for long stints at sea. We also meet Eddie’s father, Sarge (Henry Walthall), a disabled war veteran who has lost the ability to speak and must use a wheelchair. Kate is a bit more of a dumb-dumb archetype, though it should be said that the film is somewhat sympathetic to her. (In one of my favorite lines of the film, Danny tells a disconsolate Kate that she should stick by Eddie, “Even if he does look like a runaway horse.”) The thrills mostly come from this subplot, with Sarge being aware of Duke’s presence in the house, but unable to communicate this to Helen or Danny. There’s also a really fun prison escape sequence.

The heart and soul of this one is the banter, and that carries over outside of the wooing between Helen and Danny. It’s all very charming and moves along at a good clip. (“There was another bank robbery today.” “Oh, who’d the bank rob?” “No, someone robbed the bank.” “Ah, turned the tables on them, eh? Smart!”)

The film is very light, which isn’t exactly a criticism unless you wanted more gritty reality from the gangster/bank robbery elements. A fun little comedy-romance.

Toy Story 4, 2019

Having been gifted from Andy to Bonnie in the previous film, Woody (Tom Hanks) and the rest of the toys face a new crisis as Bonnie heads off to Kindergarten. With one last road trip before Bonnie starts school, the toys are shocked to stumble on their old friend Bo Peep (Annie Potts). Still grappling with the loss of Andy and his sense of purpose, Woody starts to question what his own future might look like.

Despite the third film having ended on what felt like a good place of closure, this one takes the lives of the toys a decent step forward.

The existential questions about the toys’ consciousness takes on a deeper dimension in this film, where Bonnie cobbles together a plastic spork with googly eyes and pipe-cleaner arms, and somehow her love of her creation, Forky (Tony Hale), brings him to life. Forky believes he’s trash---and much of the first act is dedicated to keep Forky from throwing himself in the garbage--and in trying to help Forky find his purpose as a toy, Woody begins to question his own purpose.

As with the rest of the films in the series, much of the movie hinges on a rescue mission. In this case, Woody and Forky get dropped out of the family’s RV on the vacation and the rest of the toys must help reunite them in the midst of a carnival. Their progress is impeded by a bitter, broken toy named Gabby (Christina Hendricks) and her sinister army of ventriloquist dummies.

The emotional stakes, as always, are high. Woody still hasn’t reconciled the loss of Andy, something made worse by the fact that he doesn’t have the same relationship with Bonnie as he did with Andy. The toys’ unflinching loyalty to their kids---the same kids who at times thoughtlessly cast them aside---has always had an uncomfortable masochistic streak. And in this film, for the first time, the toys are allowed to think outside of the toy box. It’s a welcome step forward, and one that balances the souls of the toys with the reverence that the series has for the bond between children and their childhood toys.

The voice cast is deep and endearing as always. My only real complaint is that the mission to retrieve Woody and Forky seems to go on a fair amount longer than it should. It feels a bit overly familiar.

A worthy sequel, and one that leaves its characters in a lovely place.

Psycho Beach Party, 2000

Outsider Chicklet (Lauren Ambrose) just wants to be a part of the local surf scene, but the male-dominated surf crew wants nothing to do with her. Worse, a mysterious killer is roaming the streets, knocking off various people with different connections to Chicklet. As the intrepid Monica Stark (Charles Busch) investigates, the bodies continue to pile up.

While there are a handful of teen beach movie/slasher parody moments that land their jokes, most of this comedy ends up feeling a bit lifeless.

I’ve seen another film written and starring Charles Busch, 2003’s Die Mommie Die. It’s actually a sentimental favorite of mine. The performances are all on the same level, which is to say totally over the top. That feisty, overwrought energy is sorely missing in this film, which ends up a few steps short of what makes a parody enjoyable to watch. A lot of the humor here seems to have stopped at: what if the line deliveries were bad and the special effects were terrible?

The cast seems game enough: Amy Adams as a local mean girl who’s dating one of the surfers, Matt Keesler as a Swedish exchange student living with Chicklet and her mother, Beth Broderick as Chicklet’s concerned mother. But a good attitude only takes you so far. A lot of the sequences feel redundant, and they aren’t memorable for being good or delightfully bad.

There’s also something a bit awkward about how the film tries to utilize its more edgy elements. Chicklet has a movie version of dissociative identity disorder that turns her into a sultry seductress or a stereotypical “sassy Black woman”. We get several allusions to the fact that Chicklet might be gender-non-conforming or gay, but this is seemingly dropped as the movie goes on, and the combination of this with her mental health issues feels disjoint in terms of what the movie is trying to do with the character. When further combined with the fact that her “seductress” persona is having sexual relations with an adult man, it all skews uncomfortable instead of fun.

There are some strong moments. A few of the fake surfing scenes are enjoyably cheesy. A scene where alpha surfer Starcat (Nicholas Brendan) teaches Chicklet about sex in a way that starts out very innocent and then takes a sudden, ribald turn.

I also have to shout out Tera Bonilla, a dancer who does a great go-go routine for the opening and the closing credits. It’s 2-3 minutes of high energy, sexy fun that the film it bookends never manages to match or top.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage, 2021

Following the events of the first film, Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is still host to the symbiotic creature Venom. Hoping to up his reputation, Eddie goes to interview convicted serial killer Kasady (Woody Harrelson), resulting in Kasady acquiring some of Eddie’s symbiote-rich blood and manifesting a new monster called Carnage. With the help of his ex-girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams) and her dopey new boyfriend Dan (Reid Scott), Eddie and Venom must stop the new deadly duo.

In a superhero market saturated by serious, world-ending, sprawling cinematic universes, there is something totally refreshing about a movie willing to be exactly the right kind of stupid.

I enjoyed the first film, but did not find it particularly memorable. This one, though, is one of only a handful of big-budget comic book films I could actually see wanting to rewatch. The movie embraces a certain degree of ridiculousness right from the get go, and it carries through the rest of the run time.

I think that liking or not liking this movie probably fully hinges on how charmed you are with the banter between Eddie and Venom, and their old married couple-like squabbles. Venom demands to be let out to eat someone. Eddie asks why he doesn’t just eat the two chickens living in their apartment. “But Sonny and Cher are best friends!!!” retorts an appalled Venom, as the bird mill around in the background. Too stupid or perfect stupid? For me it’s the latter.

Venom himself is used as an effective physical comedy mechanism. Whether that’s Venom making Eddie a deliriously messy breakfast to cheer him up, or the shenanigans Venom gets up to when he jumps ship from Eddie and ventures out into different hosts.

The only problem with the way that the film totally centers Eddie and Venom is that it really doesn’t do much with its supporting characters. Williams, despite some weak writing for her character, still makes an impression as Anne. But Naomie Harris is criminally underused as Frances, Kasady’s love interest and some sort of a mutant with deadly sonic powers. She features a bit in the climax of the film, but she’s woefully underdeveloped and so her long-awaited reunion with Kasady doesn’t have much emotional resonance. I found myself mostly checking out for the final big action scene.

Much more fun than I expected.

Big Brown Eyes, 1936

Manicurist Eve (Joan Bennett) is in a spiky romance with detective Dan (Cary Grant). When a criminal gang led by a private detective named Morey (Walter Pidgeon) kills a baby while committing a jewelry robbery, Dan ends up on the case. Eve leaves her job and ends up working at a newspaper. Together they work to find evidence to put the killer--a sadistic member of the gang named Cortig (Lloyd Nolan)---away for good.

While neither funny enough to be a screwball comedy, nor serious enough to be a crime thriller, there are enough charms in the antics and banter of Bennett and Grant to make this one a pleasant viewing.

This film feels a bit like it’s trying to take a page out of The Thin Man’s book: a quirky, brilliant couple solving crimes and pulling laughs along the way. Bennett and Grant have all of the necessary wit and timing to make their characters engaging. There is a fun dynamic whereby Eve tries to use her position at the newspaper to spur along the investigation.

There’s also some good humor in the vanity of the men who are in the gang. Cortig likes having his nails done while he’s hand-fed a milkshake by an attendant. Morey also seems to frequent the manicure services. There’s something both funny and gross about these people who killed a child just shrugging it off and going out for some indulgent self-care.

Somehow, though, the balance between the comedy and the crime elements doesn’t totally work. There are a lot of dastardly crimes that can happen and somehow still vibe with comedy, but killing a baby seems to be over a certain line. There’s only so much you can enjoy jokes when a murdered child hangs over the room. It might have been okay if that crime had been used to incite our loathing of the criminals, but it’s brought up with much frequency. The pivot from “dead baby” to Cary Grant doing silly voices is too much of an about-face.

And speaking of silly voices, this film features a pretty whacky gimmick. Namely, the idea is that Cary Grant can perfectly mimic the voices of other people (an effect achieved in the film by overdubbing him at those crucial moments), and can also throw his voice. It is . . . weird. Very weird. It does get one good laugh, when Eve does a sarcastic rendition of his trick, but otherwise it just felt far-fetched and strange in a way that didn’t jibe with the reality of the rest of the movie.

Worth a watch, but it’s an odd duck of a film.

Man Hunt, 1941

Alan Thorndike (Walter Pidgeon) is a British man on vacation in Bavaria. As a “sporting stalk,” he gets Adolph Hitler in his rifle sights, before being captured by German forces. Tortured in an attempt to get him to admit that he was acting on behalf of the British government, Thorndike manages to escape and make his way back to England, where he is stalked by two German agents (George Sanders and John Carradine). He gets some help from a plucky young woman named Jerry (Joan Bennett), but his pursuers are ruthless.

This odd film, boosted by some great staging by director Fritz Lang, is ultimately more interesting for its political positioning than for its story or characters.

Despite featuring a British protagonist and taking place only in Europe, this film was made by an American studio, and its perspective on the war is fascinating. Made before America joined WW2, the movie serves as a moral call to action, centered on the choices made by its main character and the immorality of his enemies.

The first 45 minutes or so are not quite as interesting. There’s a lot of conversation and some of it feels redundant. Weirdly, you end up understanding the position of the German officer, who is incredibly dubious when Thorndike continues to insist that almost assassinating Hitler was just his idea of a lark. We’ve all been there. On vacation in the mountains, and you set yourself up to fire a gun at a head of state. It’s a classic vacation rite of passage.

There is a solid sequence once Thorndike escapes and tries to hitch a ride on a ship leaving for England. Things also pick up in the middle of the movie as the pursuit becomes much more action-driven. There’s a great chase scene that takes place in a train tunnel, all shadows and silhouettes.

I thought that the characters were likable enough, though each has something that keeps them a bit at a distance. Thorndike is our protagonist, but we start the film with him doing something incredibly outlandish and then getting outraged when people don’t believe his explanations. I also found that he came across a bit stiff and removed when you’d expect a bit more emotion. His affection for Jerry feels real enough, but Bennett’s accent is . . . . something. Ultimately, because the film has the war at large on its mind, Jerry serves chiefly as a motivating agent for Thorndike, and not as her own character. Her character’s arc is literally resolved off-screen, and it’s frustrating.

What makes the movie most interesting is its position as a war film made during the war it’s portraying. Hanging over the whole film is the opening sequence and its implications. The film isn’t so much after a kind of sci-fi adjacent “What if someone had killed Hitler?” idea, but rather questioning moral obligation when given the opportunity. Should Thorndike have pulled the trigger? If you know someone is actively harming others or going to harm others, what are your responsibilities? It’s an interesting choice that the German agents all speak with British accents. It makes the film feel at once insular and global. If there’s any doubt about the film’s point of view, it’s settled in the final sequence, which rivals the opening moments in outlandishness.

Worth checking out, though more as an interesting example of a film directly using its narrative to compel political action.

I think I rated this the same as you did. I think most of the appeal of the play that it was based on probably had to do with the female characters probably being played by men.

It's unfortunate, because so much of it just lands flat.

Have you seen Die Mommie Die!?

Hey Takoma, I see your watching a lot of old films. Do you have TCM or are you getting them from the library? I have never see a lot of these. But that's probably because I don't feel that Hollywood films come into their own till the late 30's and early 40's. Which may be due to a great influx of talent from Europe.

I'm watching a lot of them on a mix of streaming services, mainly Criterion Channel. I have gotten a few from my library system, though they can be hit or miss with what they have of older DVDs.

Takoma actually saw these films upon their first release. She’s secretly a vampire, herself.
This thread title about “Vampires, Assassin’s and romantic angst”? It’s a reference to herself and her immortality.
Tread carefully. Like most vampires, she’s a bit of a “neck romancer”.

👀

I think I need this thread to remember how to watch movies again.

A public outing/shaming? My friend, why do you think I employ those assassins.

I don't know. I kind of admire the zen of "I'm not going to tell you why, but you should watch this movie, it's great."

The Woman in the Window, 1944

Richard Wanley (Edward G Robinson) is a mild mannered professor who becomes enamored with a woman in a painting displayed in a window near his club. One evening, by chance, Richard meets the woman herself, Alice (Joan Bennett), and accompanies her back to her place against his better judgment. When a jealous lover bursts in and attacks Richard, he kills the interloper. Faced with scandal and ruin, Richard and Alice agree to work together to cover up the crime. But their trust in one another is strained as the man’s disappearance and death become quite the big deal.

This film is an engaging thriller that balances on the precarious alliance between its two main characters, though the whole thing really goes off the deep end with an absolutely terrible ending.

A lot of plot summaries or other materials around this movie use phrases like “siren” or “femme fatale”. But one of the things I liked the most about this film is the way that Alice actually doesn’t fit that character type. Is she a slinky, seductive woman who tempts Richard away from the safety of his routine? Yes. But tellingly, it’s always Richard who makes the decisions or comes up with the schemes that embroil them more in danger. I suppose a cynic might argue that this is a plot by Alice---let Richard be the one to make the wicked choices. But we see nerves from Alice in moments where Richard is absent, leading me to believe that her fear and shakiness is real and not some act she’s putting on.

The real lure in this film is the lure of adventure. Richard and his friends spend a long time talking about the idea that they are too old for such adventures. All through their evening together, Richard keeps saying that he “should” go home. He “should” stop at two drinks. But it takes very, very little nudging from Alice to get Richard to step out of the safe lane. Alice is a single woman, while Richard is married and a father to young children. If Alice is a “siren” because she seduced Richard away from his routines, what can we say about Richard, who seems to see Alice more as a symbol of youthful adventuring than as a real person?

The murder plot itself unfolds in a rather enjoyable way. Having disposed of the body, Richard and Alice must sit back as the police try to piece together the different clues. Alice’s deceased beau was apparently a bigwig, and so his disappearance and murder garner a lot of attention. Richard gets a front-row seat to the action, as one of his friends is a police detective. (There’s also a hilarious newsreel interview with the boy scout who discovered the body, who hopes to use the reward money to send himself and his little brother to college). Unlike a lot of murder cover up plots, Richard and Alice make very few errors. Alice makes one big mistake that one senses was more out of plot necessity than the reality of the character. Yet despite their surprisingly not-terrible efforts, complications still arise that might require more illegal and more immoral actions.

The film effectively builds to a powerful, emotional climax. Well. The film effectively builds to a powerful, emotional climax until it feels the need to shoot itself in the foot. I expected to read that the ending was studio-mandated or something, only to learn that it was Lang’s idea. Color me baffled. It would be a huge spoiler to discuss specifics, but the only word that really comes to mind is disrespectful. It is an ending that is disrespectful to the characters, the story, and to the viewer.

A fun crime thriller that really drops the ball in the last 10 minutes.