iluv2viddyfilms' monthly Criterion Channel picks (a baker's dozen)

I will start by saying The Criterion Channel is an absolute godsend. I'm old enough to remember, as a kid, having to watch dubbed VHS tapes in the 1980's and into the 1990's - before DVDs, before Blu-Ray, and certainly before streaming. And we was poor... so we didn't get cable. This mean that I had to watched the dubbed copy of Empire Strikes Back on the lowest quality (as to get 2-3 movies on one VHS) about 30 times as a kid before I wore it out. Don't come after me, I imagine the statute of limitations is in effect... besides I was only six years old!

In any event... I say this because streaming is remarkable. I'm also old enough to remember being poor, not that I'm not poor, but being a poor college kid in the early to mid 2000's... who the Hell had $30 or $40 to fork over for a Criterion DVD or Blu Ray?

I'm also old enough to remember the early days of Hulu, when Criterion films... just a handful mind you... were available for streaming on that platform, but no longer.

And since I can't afford to get TCM now because cable costs are insane... and, to my knowledge TCM doesn't have a streaming service...

We now have THE CRITERION CHANNEL!!! I have subscribed now for about a year and a half and I will say, it's the best thing ever! Yes, I know some films can be randomly found on youtube or in random corners of the interweb, but it's so nice and convenient to have a single platform dedicated to some of the best and most interesting films of all time. I have yet to dive into MUBI, so Criterion Channel it is.

So what I'm going to do with this thread is pick 13, a baker's dozen films, that I recommend to people who subscribe the to Channel. These are random films, but I'll try to pick an assortment of films that showcase multiple genres, multiple decades, multiple languages, and so on and so forth. Some well known canon bonafide classics and some lesser known and less well regarded. Some will be the from highlighted and featured thematic showcased collections they have (which I love how they are bundling these films btw... EX: June's Synth Soundtracks or last December's MGM Musicals). I will also pick a handful of films that will be leaving at the end of each respective month and put an asterisk by them. The commonality of all these picks is that they will ALL and EACH be worth your time investment and give a good cross section of film.

I'll start off by posting my list and then move on, as time allows, to write a synopsis over each and why I think each one is worth people's time to watch. And yes, I know, there is SOOOOO much playing on the Criterion Channel that it would be impossible to keep up or to even really choose. Just so many great options, but these are just my recommendations for the month...

I'll make my best effort in trying to get these posted for each month within the first 14 days (so in the first half of the month) to give ample time to catch them before they leave (for those asterisked films that are leaving at the end of each respective month).

And here's iluv2viddyfilms' June picks...

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

June 2024:

The Devil's Eye (1960, Ingmar Bergman)

Forbidden Planet (1956, Fred M. Wilcox)

Bonjour Tristesse (1958, Otto Preminger)

The Place Promised in Our Early Days (2004, Makoto Shinkai)

The Damned Don't Cry (1950, Vincent Sherman) *

Brainstorm (1965, William Conrad)

Personal Shopper (2016, Olivier Assayss)

Sorcerer (1977, William Friedkin) *

Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky (1991, Lam Ngai Kai)

Heaven Knows What (2014, Safdie Brothers) *

Sunset Boulevard (1950, Billy Wilder) *

Little Odessa (1994, James Gray) *

Bucking Broadway (1917, John Ford)

* = leaving the Criterion Channel at the end of the month (June)

The Devil's Eye (1960, Ingmar Bergman)



What is it about? A clever comedy/drama/philosophical film about the Devil hisself, who finds a stye in his eye which he attributes to a virtuous young virgin who is engaged. The Devil sends Don Juan out of Hell back to Earth with the task of corrupting the girl and for added points the girl’s mother.

Why is it worth your time? I really did enjoy the fourth wall breaking and frame narrative and it’s one of the lesser known Bergman films, though you will recognize much of his “stock” cast. Comedy and drama… or specifically tragicomedy can be a tricky task to accomplish, but when done right… think The Apartment by Billy Wilder or City Lights by Chaplin, it really works well and is great stuff! This film defies what one might think it is based upon the first 20 minutes or so of exposition as it goes an entirely different direction. The film's conclusion and the Devil’s interpretations of the goings on's regarding the consequences of Don Juan visiting Earth are not what the evil one had entirely expected and just as that character is surprised, so is the audience. It fits perfectly into the late 50’s early 60’s mix of Bergman films dealing with questions of God, questions of the afterlife, morality, good vs evil, and existentialism.

GRADE: A-

Forbidden Planet (1956, Fred M. Wilcox)



What is it about? A spaceship and its crew travels to check up on a world that was colonized decades previously only to find it’s all but uninhabited except by a father scientist, his beautiful daughter, and a robot named Robby. Mysteries are revealed and then uncovered as the nature of the planet, the scientist, and the civilization that previously inhabited the planet are revealed.

Why is it worth your time? Well, if you’ve ever seen "Star Trek," then you’ll recognized how much influence Forbidden Planet had on it. The format is very similar or at least in any episode that dealt with Captain Kirk landing on a planet to discover bizarre and mysterious goings-on, while seducing the “eye candy” of the narrative as a plot unfolds where things aren’t what they seem on the surface. Currently it’s playing under the Criterion Channel’s “Synth Soundtracks” programing and the soundtrack is truly great and honestly for the 1950s the special effects are spectacular and even in a quaint and novel kind of way, still look great today. It's also very novel and special to see Leslie Neilsen in a serious, actually serious non-deadpan pre Airplane and pre "Police Squad" role. It's also a wonderful example of using Shakespeare, in this case The Tempest, as source material to loosely base and adapt a story around in an entirely different setting. Think 10 Things I Hate About You, as The Taming of the Shrew.

Grade: B+

last one for now...

Bonjour Tristesse (1958, Otto Preminger)



What is it about? A wealthy playboy widower father (David Niven) and his carefree, spoiled, but cheerful and charming late teens daughter (Jean Seberg) live on the French Riviera and spend their days in casual aloofness and luxury that money can afford until a former fling (Deborah Kerr), who genuinely loves him, threatens to throw everything off balance by marrying him and forcing him to settle down and end his womanizing and conquering ways. Obviously this creates tension for the daughter and things quickly boil over as she schemes to break up the engagement.

Why is it worth your time? Well for one… Jean Seberg looks absolutely great and genuinely seems to get into the part well and embody her character as she runs the emotional gamut, as a young lady would, from happy to sad, to jealous, to in love, to confused, to remorseful. This is a part that Seberg could have easily played as a one-dimensional dislikable spoiled-brat rich girl, but her portrayal adds so much more depth, charm, and complexity to such an easily archetypal role... or rather what could have been an archetypal role. Seberg's very gamine and pixie-like beauty plays wonderfully against Deborah Kerr's classically elegant and full-bodied beauty.

The source material (a short novel) was written by 18 year old Françoise Sagan and while there’s nothing remarkable or new here about the plot of a young girl who doesn’t want her father to marry and subsequently falls into conflict by the stepmother to be... setting boundaries and laying some ground rules, what is interesting is the pace at which it plays out and the emotional depth involved in some of the portrayals. Not only that, but a lesser film would have made the daughter and the step-mom fall in line with cliches of the step-mom either being entirely good or bad and the same for the step daughter. As it is, neither character is wholly right or wrong. The point of view is so well done from a 17/18 year old girl’s point of view and the way the switch from black and white to color cinematography is used, doesn’t come across as gimmicky or cheap narrative trick, but it genuinely coincides with the emotional state the characters are in. Just a delightful film and one of my all time favorites and yes, the camera just absolutely adores Jean Seberg, whether she’s in color or black and white. Oddly enough the most one-dimensional and weak character in the film is Niven's, although that could be contributed to the fact that this is Cecile's (Seberg) story and it's entirely her point of view.

Grade: A-

By some strange coincidence, I just started checking out MUBI recently... if you're interested I can get you a code for a 30-day free trial (their usual free trial is 7 days only). They really do have a lot of good stuff that's almost on par with Criterion Channel at least in terms of recent indie and international cinema - not so much with older classics (although they do have the 1968 La mujer murciélago)

The Criterion Channel is really good, I appreciate they don't try to rush you off to another thing as soon as the end credits start rolling, which by now all the main streamers are all too happy to do. And lately they've been getting a lot of streaming exclusives for new films, like Anselm (I'd already watched it in a theater because I wanted to see it in 3D).

The Place Promised in Our Early Days (2004, Makoto Shinkai)



What is it about? An anime film from Shinkai who apparently is anime’s next best thing to Miyazaki. I apologize if I’m wrong on that as I’m not well versed in anime as it’s not a go-to style or genre for me. Basically a couple of school kids make a promise to visit a tower on an island in Japan in an alternative timeline where the Soviet Union has taken over parts of Japan. The purpose and function of the tower is revealed as time passes and the story jumps ahead.

Why is it worth your time? Again, I’m not the biggest anime fan, but I imagine there are many film nerds like myself who are familiar with Miyazakai and have seen a handful of his films and maybe Akira, but nothing else for anime. I will admit I had trouble following the plot, as anime is sometimes difficult for me to follow and keep track of characters and plot points, but the visuals are truly great and I wanted to expand and continue to try and keep an open mind for anime. I really did like many of the animations and it is a beautiful film to be sure. Several of Shinkai’s films are featured on Criterion Channel now, so I’ll give another a try, I’m sure. Also I did like the pacing of the first 45 minutes or so, even though the second half of the film became seemingly rushed.

Grade: C+

Yeah I briefly, very very briefly considered getting a MUBI subscription, but I think you hit the nail on the head in stating that MUBI has a greater emphasis on recent indie and international cinema. Criterion seems to have more of a "catch all" approach and while they do have some great deep dives in modern indie and international cinema, it's not as all encompassing as MUBI. That's where Criterion is more to my liking, as first and foremost, I'm more of a canon classic Hollywood and classic international films guy. I love Wilder, Hawks, and Godard so my leanings will be more of "mainstream" films from yesteryear than what MUBI might provide, so Criterion is more up my ally in that regard.

I will say, MUBI does seem to have some of the absolute best lists and I was looking through their website several months ago in their year by year best of films and it's a great place to start for film recommendations!

https://mubi.com/en/lists/the-best-films-of-every-year

The Damned Don't Cry (1950, Vincent Sherman) *



What is it about? A film noir Joan Crawford vehicle, which features the legendary actress in another type-A female social climber role that simultaneously works are a light crime based critique of both poverty and upward social mobility. The film starts with a few quick expository and setup scenes of Crawford as a impoverished housewife and mother whose husband is struggling. Tragedy strikes and the son dies and Crawford decides to leave her marriage and pursue life and wealth. As such she gets a few entry level odd jobs before she becomes entangled with several men who are in the criminal numbers and wire gambling racket and she bounces back-and-forth between her loyalties to three different men all trying to win her allegiance and loyalty to their corner.

Why is it worth your time? Whether you prefer Joan Crawford or Bette Davis (both are great), it’s worth your time to watch one of Crawford’s not quite canonical works. It doesn't rank up there among Mildred Pierce or Humoresque, but the film moves at a quick pace and despite the story being standard film noir faire, it is entertaining and genuinely does a solid job in putting the audience on edge and in the mind of Crawford’s character as she gets in way over her head with some mobsters. Also, Steve Cochran is an actor I’m unfamiliar with, but he was genuinely good as the hot-headed rags to riches Nick, “I’ll put a bullet in any man” hoodlum who rises the ranks of the crime world. His role in this is just a fun and silly, albeit minorly sympathetic, slum-rat with just a hint of Paul Muni in Scarface. This film is currently featured in the 1950 noir collection on Criterion which features a handful of films from “the greatest year of film noir.” Sure, it’s no In a Lonely Place or Sunset Boulevard… what is? But it’s a fun noir and a good watch for those looking for a bit of a deep dive into the genre and time period of film.

GRADE: B

Brainstorm (1965, William Conrad)



What is it about? Jeffrey Hunter plays a computer systems analysis who rescues a young woman (Anne Francis) who happens to be the wife of his boss (Dana Andrews). The wife seems upset that she was rescued as she wanted to commit suicide and the husband seems in denial about her condition, albeit more for his image and reputation than of concern for his wife. Of course, the two begin an affair and hatch a plan to have the husband killed. He feigns insanity in order to avoid the death penalty and ends up in an asylum at which point the film goes into different and bizarre territory.

Why is it worth your time? Well, this film is very strange and a unique blend of genres... think film noir meets the 1960's lunatic asylum film (fitting that it's in Criterion's 1960's Hollywood Crack Up collection). Dana Andrews is always great in film, although here he mainly plays a straight forward cold and unloving husband who is more concerned about his career and his social status than love for his wife or family. Jeffrey Hunter is very good here as he goes deeper and deeper off the reservation into feigned madness and then maybe not so feigned. Watching Hunter slowly descend into madness and lose control over his situation in a somewhat karmatic self-fulling prophecy is half the value of this film. There are several moments in this movie of great intensity, but the audience definitely has to get beyond the ridiculousness of the premise. Think maybe something like Double Indemnity meets One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and you might have something close. It's not nearly as good as either of those films, but it's a genuine curiosity and oddity of a movie and a chance to see Jeffrey Hunter (The Searchers, King of Kings, "Star Trek") in a sizeable role is always welcome. Too bad Jeffrey Hunter never really got to fully develop as an actor or find his niche' before his tragic and young death.


GRADE: B-

Personal Shopper (2016, Olivier Assayss)



What is it about? Kirsten Stewart plays a young woman who is living in Paris and is dealing with her brother’s death due to a heart defect. At the start of the film, only two months have gone by since her brother’s death, so she’s wrestling with the grief process along with the possibility of the same defect within her own ticker. While in Paris she has something of an “odd job” as a personal shopper to a snobbish and aloof and completely disconnected celebrity model. She’s forbidden to try on the clothes she shops, but as the film goes on she becomes more daring and reckless. Also Stewart fancies herself to be a medium to can get message or channel the dead, although we never truly see her employed in such a fashion. Along the way she’s barely holding together a relationship with her long-distance boyfriend and their whole relationship feels forced and disconnected which only heightens Stewart’s sense of being lost in the world. The conflict of the film… if one could describe it as such, comes from mysterious texts and possible appearances of apparitions she receives that could possibly be the ghost of her brother. Throughout the film the story progresses as she digs deeper into the objective of contacting her brother from beyond.

Why is it worth your time? This is a genuinely solid film and a very surprising one at that. Several things are note worthy of praise, chief among them is how the film tackles point of view. Nearly every frame is from Stewart’s point of view. It does such a great job of this that we the audience take it verbatim that the events of the story are objective, but as the film goes on we start to second guess what’s really happening and whether or not Stewart’s character is actually seeing and hearing things from beyond or whether she’s embattled with her own psyche and grief and fear addled mind. The point of view is just spectacular in this film. Also, I’ll go ahead and add, who would have ever imagined 10-15 years ago that two of the best thespians of their generation (Kristin Stewart and Robert Pattinson) would arise from the trash heap of one of the silliest and contrived book and film franchises (Twilight). And yes, let it be known, I have read the first Twilight… I think I promised a student back in 2011 or so that if they did well on an essay or something to that effect, that I would read the first Twilight book… lest I be made out to be a liar. In any event Kirsten Stewart is genuinely great in this film without giving a bland or run of the mill performance. It’s a very subtle and nuanced interpretation and genuinely emotes not only the pain of grief, but also the mental acuity and decision making process and self doubt and loathing and fear that are all partners in crime with grief.

Now, from a style and tone presentation, this film is a slow burn. It’s very well done. The scenes take their time to play out and I appreciate how there aren’t a lot of quick edits and the camera holds on a frame, a rarity these days in a world of the shaky cam and overuse of jump cuts and camera shots that are far too close. This is a film that demonstrates patience, but also rewards the audience in spades with it. Also something else I noticed was how minimal music was in this film. It’s a very quiet film, which I warmly welcomed. Personal Shopper has been called something of a ghost story or ghost movie… that’s not necessarily wrong, but it doesn’t really describe the film either. There really isn’t much like it out there. Maybe a few films that come close in tone and subject matter to a point, are The Innocents, Don’t Look Now, and Repulsion. We’ll also throw in a touch of The Sixth Sense, but Personal Shopper is a much, much better film and far less manipulative than The Sixth Sense. Well, I have written enough on it… more than I intended with a quick blurb. So, definitely go watch this if you are a Criterion Channel subscriber.

Grade: A-

Sorcerer (1977, William Friedkin) *



What is it about? This is the infamous William Friedkin flop that put a huge damper and stop to the fuse of his explosive 70's career coming off of the wildly critical and commercial successes of The French Connection (1971) and The Exorcist (1973). Sorcerer is a remake of the great french film The Wages of Fear (1953). Here we have four men from different backgrounds, all with the common thread of being ostracized or forced out of their previous endeavors and lives who cross paths in South America and are given the task to transport nitroglycerin down a horrible shoddy road through the worst possible conditions. Of course they accept because what else are they going to do for money? The first half of the film is largely setup and exposition with character prologues and backstories, while the real action of the film doesn’t really hit until over an hour into it.

Why is it worth your time? Well, the most obvious reason is because of its reputation as a bold and huge daring failure of film, that isn’t exactly a great film, but it’s also not deserving of its negative reputation either. Sorcerer is to William Friedkin as Heaven’s Gate is to Michael Cimino. I agree with the criticism of Sorcerer, either by Roger Ebert or Paueline Kael, I forget, that there is way too much backstory with these characters which largely detracts from the action and story. It plods along until the half point… and honestly, you could probably skip the first hour and watch the second and be just fine as there are some truly great moments in the film. Actually maybe just start with the sequence of something Friedkin does great which is filming of procedural and mechanical items. If you loved the sequence in The French Connection where the Lincoln gets completely dissected while the detectives are searching it for narcotics, then you’ll love a similar but reverse sequence in Sorcerer where the men are preparing an old broken down rig to transport the nitro. It’s a beautiful sequence and the musical score by Tangerine Dream (featured in the Criterion synth scores compilation of films) works very well. The ending is also spectacular too with a “blink and you’ll miss it, keep your ears on point” think the end of Antonioni’s The Passenger moment. It’s an unbalanced film and it could have been so much more. It’s not even close to the brilliance and greatness of Wages of Fear, but it IS worth a watch.

GRADE: B-

Riki-Oh: The Story of Riki (1991, Lam Nai-choi)



What is it about? This Hong Kong action/kung-fu/splatter gore film is based on Japanese manga and even though I’ve never read the manga and as a general rule, I'm not always interested in the source material of good films. Riki-Oh, I’m sure wears its manga origins on its sleeve. This feels more like a live action comic book or video game than a film, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing and this is coming from someone who dislikes comic book films. In any event, Riki-Oh is about a man who is sent to prison for killing his girlfriend’s murderer and then it goes from one escapade to another as Riki-Oh battles through bosses of the privatized prison… a different boss for a different ward until he gets to the big baddie himself… the end level boss, the Warden.

Why is it worth your time? I really don’t even know what to make of this film. It’s one of the most over-the-top and ridiculous films I’ve ever seen. I imagine that’s the whole point of splatte gore - highly stylized and gruesome blood and guts filled bursts of violence in a comedic and “take it to level 11” fashion. Yes the violence is extreme like a pre-Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson film on steroids or even something like Ichi the Killer, but that’s part of the fun of a film that doesn’t take itself seriously. This is a check your brain at the door type of film where you just enjoy it for what it is and watch in disbelief as each action sequence seems to outdo the previous without ever becoming numbing or losing effect. There’s amazing practical, animatronic, and gore effects in this film. While typically not my thing, the hybridizing of genres here… revenge film, prison movie, horror film, Hong Kong action/kung fu movie, and comedy make it all so worth your time! Watch it because, for what it is, it is truly a great movie and I see the same type of greatness and joy in a film like Riki-Oh as I do in an over-the-top 80s actioner like Commando (1985). Riki-Oh knows exactly what it is and presents itself to the audience knowing they're in for a helluva fun ride.

Grade: A

I would also recommend The Cat, which was Lam’s next film.

Heaven Knows What (2014, Safdie Brothers) *





What is it about? This film is a semi-autobiographical fictionalized account of main actress Arielle Holmes as she battles through herorin drug addiction, hustling on the streets, homelessness, and trying to maintain shaky relationships with other street denizens who are on as shaky if not more shaky ground than hers. There’s no coherent plot so to speak, it’s just a slice of life film that plays out almost like a documentary, full of handheld camera work and guerilla style filmmaking by the Safdie Brothers who are more interested in not writing a traditional narrative, but rather capturing the day after day after day ordeals, dramas, and hardships of drug addiction on the streets of New York City.

Why is it worth your time? This is the second Safdie Brothers film I’ve seen, after Uncut Gems (possibly one of two best Adam Sandler performances) and I can safely say now that I’m a fan. Typically I don’t like frantic and breakneck camera movements and over reliance on handheld and shaky cameras, but for this film it works. There’s also that crazy fast electronic soundtrack that takes and twists Debussy in a way that heightens the overall sense of hopelessness and bleakness of the film. Again, it follows the main character loosely based on Arielle Holmes who as a non-actress turns in a great performance that is very jagged and on-edge, but rings authentic as well as the supporting characters. It follows her drug use, which is tragic enough, but also her self defeating and self abusive relationships with a couple of other men - off and on boyfriends and their little squabbles and jealousies and fights that don’t go anywhere and stay stuck in a cycle and repetition of pain and suffering. This is not an enjoyable film, but it is a film that acts as a witness and examination of individuals who have no clue or perhaps even desire to help themselves - certainly no ability to help themselves as they are dealing with mental health issues, trauma, random and sudden acts of extreme violence, and tendencies of those who are trying to survive abuse. It’s a challenging film and would make a good companion piece to a film like Requiem for a Dream and has cinematic ancestors in films like Panic in Needle Park, Trainspotting, My Own Private Idaho, The Man With the Golden Arm, and Stroszek in following main characters who are simply trapped and the only way they can "handle" the existence of life is through the downward spiral of narcotics.

Grade: A

Sunset Boulevard (1950, Billy Wilder) *




What is it about? Classic Billy Wilder film about a screenwriter played by the iconic William Holden who has met hard times, struggling with his career and finances, all the while trying to stay ahead of the landlord and repo men. His paths cross with a silent movie queen who struck it rich in oil, whereas her career is anything but. The film follows the unlikely pair as they each fulfill each other’s needs at the moment… his financial needs and her needs to be a star again… if only she could have the perfect script to act as a vehicle for her comeback! It’s a classic noir that ends… or maybe I should say, begins in tragedy, all the while acting as commentary on the fleeting nature of stardom and the burn and churn nature of Hollywood, that I imagine might be as true today as it was 70 years ago.

Why is it worth your time? Oh my goodness, where do I begin? Well, there’s nothing I can write that hasn’t been said elsewhere a thousand times and better. It’s featured in Criterion Channels 1950 noir collection, which also happened to showcase one of my top 10 films of all time, Nicholas Ray’s In a Lonely Place, another film that explores a screenwriter and murder set in the seedy and the dark places of the mind and human soul beyond the limelight in Tinseltown. It’s such a great movie, a classic, and an essential, not only of noir, but just of film in general. It’s canon and non-negotiable mandatory viewing for anyone who even fancies themselves a novice film buff. In fact if you’re posting at movieforums… taking the time to nerd out online in a message board forum and you haven’t seen Sunset Boulevard, then shame on you and remedy that right away!

I know Billy Wilder (in my top 10 directors of all time list) has gone on the record in stating that his best film is The Apartment because that’s where he felt the most complete and realized with his unique and special blend of comedy and drama. In my mind however, Sunset Boulevard is his best film because his writing is perfection along with frequent co-writing collaborator Charles Brackett, and the film does act as a dark satire on Hollywood, a great film noir in its greatest year - five years post World War II when the style has been perfected at its pinnacle. Moreover, it’s a great character and psychological study of how we are all in a battle against ourselves… our former selves and our potential selves and how perhaps some of life’s worst tragedies occur when we fail to live up to our own standards. William Holden is great… what a bold choice to open a film with his dead body floating in the pool as we hear his narration from beyond the grave… and yes, American Beauty… wonderfully referenced this. Gloria Swanson is also spectacular as the fallen and tragic former silent movie queen who has witnessed the world move beyond her with no place for her and the cruelty of a mind and soul that can’t bring one’s self to come to terms with a painful and unforgiving reality. Perhaps the real star of the picture goes to real life silent film director who stars as Swanson’s butler/companion/only friend, Erich von Stroheim (Greed), who long suffers as caretaker and a check on Swanson' self destructiveness and suicide attempts. Oh and I should also mention, it's one of the earliest films, at least big budget major Hollywood films that dealt with the topic of suicide in such a straight forward fashion at a time when the Hayes Code was at its strongest at the dawn of the 1950's. It’s a perfect film, really. You have no excuse to have not seen this. If you don’t catch it on Criterion… I think it’s gone here in a couple days, just go ahead and blind buy it on Amazon.

GRADE: A+

Little Odessa (1994, James Gray) *




What is it about? I’m going to make this one quick, but Tim Roth plays a low level hitman who is juggling his nefarious work with his dissolved relationship with his working class father (Maximilian Schell), his dying mother (Vanessa Redgrave), and his idolizing younger brother (Edward Furlong). The film incorporates drama between the family and the Russian Jewish mafia in Brooklyn from which Roth takes work.


Why is it worth your time? James Gray films are just very well done and in much of a downbeat and dark slowly paced style of a director like Francis Ford Coppola. They have a unique sense of time and place and do a great job of juxtaposing personal drama in families with the larger scale outside the family conflicts and how both worlds often collide and easily end in tragedy. Little Odessa has a great cast and the four main characters and actors who play them are just stellar and fully dynamic. It’s a somewhat gritty film, but the story roles right along and we see the relationships play out. Also giving Tim Roth a lead, who many times played excellent in supporting roles like Pulp Fiction is good, as he easily carries this film. Edward Furlong is also a wonderful actor, who sadly, never really made it past the child/young adult actor typecast and fell into the typical “true Hollywood story” downfall of drugs, getting fat and out of shape, and so on. Still there’s no denying he’s spectacular in this film as he was in so many solid 90’s outings like Detroit Rock City, American History X, American Heart, and a handful of others. I don’t think Little Odessa is quite to the level of Gray’s subsequent films as he really, really took off with great movies like The Yards, The Immigrant, and Lost City of Z in the next handful of years, but this is a worthy watch and a spectacular first picture.

GRADE: B