Day 140 - Stripes

Stripes (1981) directed by Ivan Reitman

Recruiter: "Now, either of you homosexuals?"
Winger: "You mean, like, flaming, or..."
Recruiter: Well it's a standard question we have to ask."
Russell: "No, we're not homosexual, but we are willing to learn."
Winger: "yeah, would they send us someplace special?
Recruiter: I guess that's "no" for both. Now if you could just give Uncle Sam your autograph..."

Stripes is a comedy in the same vein as Animal House, a film starring a bunch of slackers and misfits bucking the establishment.  It stars the brilliant Bill Murray whose laid back approach lets the laughs come in nice and easy. He has his moments of John Belushi style hijinks, but nothing seems forced. Bill Murray was born to play the character of John Winger, the wisecracking unambitious lovable loser. He is joined by fellow Ghostbusters star Harold Ramis, who plays Russell Ziskey, Winger's sidekick in crime and comedy.

John Winger, fired from his menial job, dumped by his girlfriend, and reduced to betting $3 to see if he can do five pushups, decides to get his act together and join the army. He brings along his buddy Russell who is equally aloof. As is the case of such films, the army doesn't change Winger, Winger changes the army, as he gets by just as he always has in life, cracking jokes, challenging authority and doing as little as he can. This isn't supposed to be a story with a valuable lesson at the end; Winger gets away with it and comes out smelling like roses at the end. The film celebrates anarchy and mischief. It doesn't make any attempts to shun their bad behavior.

Harold Ramis has writer credits for both Stripes and Animal House and you can see the similarities in both movies. However I found Stripes to be funnier because the humor doesn't rely on the outrageousness of the characters and situations that Animal House does. It relies simply on telling jokes which are told thoughtfully, even if at times tastelessly, and always funny. One notable difference between the two films is the tone at the end. In these types of films you always expect the slackers to learn something valuable and redeem themselves in the end. There is no redemption or lesson in Animal House; the characters end up being badder than ever. Stripes follows a more traditional formula in that Winger admits responsibility for his actions and ends up being the saving the day even if he still ends the film as the same old goofball. I'm not saying one ending is better or more preferable than the other, just simply different.

Stripes made me laugh. Bill Murray is great. Loads of fun.

Grade: A-

Day 139 - Stranger Than Paradise

Stranger Than Paradise (1984) directed by Jim Jarmusch

"You know, it's funny... you come to someplace new, and everything looks just the same."


People are often saying they want to move someplace new, to see the world, to get away from home, but often times nothing much changes. They are as bored, alone, or lost in their new surroundings as they were back home. What's the point in going to a beach in Florida if it's going to be the same as wintery cold Cleveland?

Stranger Than Paradise is a wonderful little film whose characters are floating through life aimlessly. Willie is a Hungarian immigrant living in New York living the life. He's perfected the life of slacker whose idea of American living is eating TV dinners and watching TV, not necessarily at the same time, and is annoyed with the idea of his cousin Eva coming to visit him for ten days before she departs to Cleveland to live with her aunt. She arrives in grand fashion, bringing out a cassette player and playing it for all to hear, as she walks down the street. I've always wanted to have a soundtrack to my life. She does.

The first act deals with Willie and Eva's interactions. Not much goes on. They sit around annoyed at each other. He thinks she's just a dumb kid. She finds his way of life dull. Watching football on TV she simply remarks, "I think this game is really stupid." Fade out to the next scene. The entire film is shot with these random scenes filled with such deadpan humor and expression that it is a revelation when anything remotely interesting occurs in their lives, a smile, an act of kindness, anything. That isn't to say that the film is boring, far from the truth. I found the film fascinating and I loved watching them just get by living their lives. In one scene, some day later (we never really have a grasp of time in the film), Eva comes back to the apartment and starts unloading things from a grocery store. Willie comments, "I thought you had no money." Without a hint of irony in her voice, she says, "I got this stuff with no money." I laughed, really hard.

By the second act, one year later, Eva has moved away to Cleveland. Willie and his friend Eddie are just hanging around hustling poker games. (As is typical, the poker scene is about as unrealistic as it gets but this isn't a poker movie.) They got $600 between them. They are rich men, but with nothing to do. Remembering his cousin in Cleveland, Willie suggests they head out to Cleveland for vacation. In an earlier scene Eddie once told Eva that he heard Cleveland was beautiful. I've never been to Cleveland before, but a friend of mine moved there a couple years ago, from New York incidentally, and I'd imagine he'd like to occasionally hang himself. No one in their right mind would go from New York to Cleveland and think of it as a wonderful place. But these characters do not know better. They assume a new place will lead to new experiences when in truth, if you don't actively change something about yourself, where ever you go will be the same as where ever you left. So the two do a little road trip to Cleveland and meet up with Eva who seems delighted to see them. Needless to say, life in Cleveland isn't all that. The highlight of this act is when they all go to watch a kung fu movie. The expressions on their faces are hilarious.

Deciding that Cleveland wasn't everything it was cracked out to be, Willie and Eddie spontaneously decide to bring Eva along and drive to Florida, to paradise. Even paradise isn't everything it's cracked out to be. They wind up hanging around a dingy motel with interior shots not much different from Willie's apartment back in New York. Things go sour and nobody seems to be having any fun. In a series of mishaps and misunderstandings the three road buddies somehow end up in different directions. You are left puzzled yet excited by what you just saw.

I loved how unique the film felt, how seemingly nothing goes on, yet you stay so intrigued with what's happening or being said. I loved the dry banter and deadpan expressions. All the performances are brilliant in their own ways. All and all, a great film.

Grade: A

Day 138 - The Debt

The Debt (2011) directed by John Madden

It's impossible to talk about The Debt in detail without mentioning the key plot turn, so I'll go ahead and sort of hint at it. Though when you watch the movie, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out where it's going. Plus, some of it is probably implied in the previews and in the title of the movie itself...

What are heroes for if not to inspire the people that look up to them? Superman is a hero not just because he has super powers and saves lives, but because he represents an ideal that people aspire to. But what if Superman was a fraud? What if he didn't have special powers at all and the bank robber just slipped on a banana peel rather than actually being stopped? Would Metropolis be better off knowing the truth or having a hero to look up to?

The Debt follows the events of a covert mission by three agents of Mossad (Israel's intelligence agency similar to the CIA) to kidnap an ex-Nazi war criminal in East Germany in 1965. The film opens with the three agents returning to Israel to a hero's welcome. Fast forward thirty years later and a book has been written about their successful mission, the agents painted as heroes. In a reading of a chapter in the book, we are transported back in time where we see young Rachel Singer (Jessica Chastain) shooting and killing the war criminal Vogel, the Surgeon of Birkenau. Mission accomplished.

The older Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren) reflects back on this event and how it has shaped her life. She is a hero to her country, to her daughter, to her friends, yet she seems troubled by something. A detail from the past has risen up which allows us to be transported back in time to the mission via flashback. At this stage, the film turns into an exciting spy thriller. We get to watch the three agents training, planning, and capturing Vogel. In a suspenseful and well crafted scene they kidnap him and transport him back to their place, which leads to the scene in the beginning where Rachel kills Vogel. Except that not everything is quite what it seems.

Therein lies the dilemma for the three characters. How do they tell the world what really happened that mission? The truth may be difficult to handle but it would be the truth, but to twist it around a little, then justice would prevail in the eyes of the world and isn't that the most important thing? From here the film slows down quite a bit and shifts its focus from spy thriller to philosophical debate. Whatever it is that they decided to tell the world, they have had to live with for over thirty years and now it has come back to them. Perhaps now would be the time to set things straight once and for all.

The film has a lot of potential to be a great spy thriller except that it splits its focus on the two narratives. The main focus is in the aftermath of the mission, in how these events have affected the characters. As much emphasis as the film places on this sudden morality tale, they aren't nearly as effective as the earlier scenes. What results is a sort of unbalanced film where the flashback scenes are exciting and focused while the present day scenes are sort of just there. That isn't to say I think they should have scrapped the latter scenes all together, just that they could have been executed better because I thought the premise and set up was quite strong. I will also say that much of the film is pretty predictable, though I think the revelation in the middle isn't really supposed to be a revelation as it seems implied the whole way. The ending however should not have that same feeling yet it does. It just felt pretty weak compared to the rest of the film and ends with a too obvious tone without taking the proper steps to get there. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems like it could have been better. (Incredibly specific analysis right?)

Overall though the film is pretty entertaining and well acted. Six actors play three characters young and old, but each play their parts well and in line with their counterparts. I really liked the flashback scenes. As much hate as it seems like I'm giving the present day scenes, they're not that bad; they just could have been better. About midway through The Debt, I thought I was going to really like this movie; by the end I managed to like it a little bit less.

Grade: B

Day 137 - Winchester '73

Winchester '73 (1950) directed by Anthony Mann

Along with vampire movies, westerns are another genre that I have watched more of during this challenge. Aside from The Man With No Name trilogy and Unforgiven I never really got into westerns, but I've liked the ones I've seen in the past couple months and am definitely warming up to the genre.

Winchester '73 stars my homeboy James Stewart, a sentimental favorite of mine known for his honest good guy roles. (I think Harvey is one of the sweetest and most endearing movies ever.) He did, however, star in a bunch of westerns where he toted guns and shot at Indians so he wasn't above being a bad-ass, a good natured one, but a bad-ass nonetheless.

The film begins with Lin McAdam (Stewart) and his sidekick High-Spade riding into Dodge City for a shooting contest where the grand prize is a "One of a Thousand" Winchester rifle, the finest gun ever made. The real reason Lin is there though is to find someone he knows will show up for the contest. He finds the man he is looking for, Dutch Henry Brown, and immediately you can sense an animosity and hidden history between them. Naturally they square off against each other in the finals with Lin edging Dutch Henry and winning the rifle. Dutch Henry ends up stealing the rifle and flees town with his gang with Lin and High-Spade in hot pursuit.

For the most part this film can be seen as a revenge flick. Lin's vendetta against Dutch Henry is revealed slowly but surely and by the end I was totally hooked into the story. There are also lots of side stories as well as we follow Lin and his exploits. The other side stories include Dutch Henry and his gang, a heart of gold frontier woman Lola, an Indian raid inspired by Crazy Horse's rout of Custer, and a group of bandits led by Waco Johnny. One of the threads that link the stories together is the Winchester '73 rifle as it changes hands multiple times. Also, of course Lin and Dutch Henry's intertwined fates.

The story started off a little light and a little slow, but it ends up being rich in character and story and has a big action sequence in the middle. Naturally it is a bunch of Indians getting shot down but that comes with the territory in a mid century western. I really liked James Stewart's character as he shows a cold determination to hunt down Dutch Henry yet still retains his aw shucks charm that he is known for. The inevitable showdown between Lin and Dutch Henry is great and uniquely set in a rugged and jagged mountain side. I wish I came up with this on my own as it is a perfect description of the scene: "The final shoot-out remains a classic study in mise-en-scene, as Mann transforms a jagged landscape into a highly charged psychological battleground." (Dave Kehr)

I never heard of Winchester '73 before today but am glad I watched it. Finding new stuff that you end up really liking is what watching movies are all about.

Grade: B+

Day 136 - Scarface (1932)

Scarface (1932) directed by Howard Hawks

I had no idea that Brian De Palma's Scarface is actually a remake of this Howard Hawks film right down to key plot points and the tag line "The World Is Yours." In that regard I had a lot of fun watching this movie and comparing the two versions and just enjoying the classic story. Knowing that De Palma's version is a remake doesn't diminish it at all. On the contrary, it makes me appreciate it more because of how faithfully it follows this story and how he makes it uniquely his own. On the other side of the coin, it makes me respect the hell out of this original version because not only did it inspire De Palma's classic, it holds up remarkably well and is every bit as gangster if not more so than a movie made fifty years later.

People seem to get the misconception that older movies are more tame than newer movies. While it may be true in some cases, there are quite a few notable exceptions. (In the beloved family film The Adventures of Robin Hood, the hero Robin Hood kills at least a dozen people.) This 1932 film is so gangster that it makes DMX look like Drake. This film has so much gunplay that it makes Rambo look like he's shooting water pistols. This film is shockingly violent and mature.

For those of you familiar with the Brian De Palma/ Al Pacino version, this version should seem like a trip down memory lane with some of the details changed here and there. It follows the story of a small timer Tony Camonte as the right hand man of boss Johnny Lovo. Johnny wants to gain control of the south side of Chicago by controlling the booze; those who don't fall in line get a face to face meeting with Tony. Tony of course has his eyes set for bigger and better things expanding operations to the north side of town against the orders of Johnny. Needless to say, Tony gets more and more powerful. Replace 1930's Chicago with 1980's Miami and booze for cocaine and the two film's plots are almost indistinguishable.

Paul Muni is great as Tony. He is a bad bad dude and you can see where Al Pacino drew his inspiration from in portraying of Tony Montana. Muni struts around confidently and is every bit as eccentric. One of the key ingredients to becoming such a fearsome gangster is the ability to live life on the edge without really caring. In a telling scene, a restaurant Tony is eating at is hit with a drive by shooting. Rather than cowering in fear, Tony can't help but appreciate the brand new machine guns his enemies are using and can't wait to get his hands on one, thinking how fun it would be to shoot them. In another scene, his men track down one of his enemies and they need Tony to come along to make the hit. Tony, however, is so enthralled by the play he is watching that he would rather stay there to see which guy the girl chooses. He reluctantly agrees to come along for the hit, but not before making sure one of his men stays behind to watch the rest of the play so he can know what happens. These elements bring a lot of humor to a rather macabre story and add a lot of color to Tony's character. It's also a reminder of how reckless Tony is which may be a cause for his inevitable downfall.

I was actually pretty surprised how funny the movie is, but it is done in such a way that it isn't distracting to the overall tone. It shows that you can laugh during a drama without making it a comedy or cheapening the seriousness of it.

This marks the third Howard Hawks film I've seen (Rio Bravo, The Big Sleep) and I've been impressed with them all in their own way. He has such a wide range of movies under his filmography and was able to do it all. Scarface is my favorite so far but I'm intrigued to check out more of his work. This is a really great film and a historical landmark of the gangster genre and a must see for any fan of the De Palma/Pacino Scarface.

Grade: A

Day 135 - Days of Being Wild

Days of Being Wild (1990) directed by Wong Kar-Wai

Days of Being Wild is seen as the first film of an informal trilogy which includes In the Mood for Love and 2046. These films deal with issues of longing, loneliness, rejection and unrequited love. They are also films that exhibit director Wong Kar-Wai's methodically slow and meandering storytelling that he has become known for. While his other works Chungking Express and Fallen Angels have equally meandering stories, they display a frantic and kinetic style that is refreshing and exciting. That is not to say that this trilogy is aesthetically lacking; on the contrary, In The Mood For Love is one of the most visually striking films I've ever seen. It relies on the beauty and sadness of its story in conjunction with its subtle yet provocative visual style.

Days of Being Wild can sort of being seen as Wong finding his style. You can see instances of his visual flair but its not quite there yet. (In the film's defense, the Netflix stream I was watching seemed to be pretty poor.) It also sets the blueprint for the themes of many of Wong's future works, namely the aforementioned love, longing, loneliness, rejection and disappointment.

The film focuses on a young playboy named Yuddy who seemingly specializes in breaking girls' hearts. He has a destructive attitude regarding women primarily due to motherly issues. He desperately wants to know his real mother, but his adopted mother, a former high end escort, will not tell him about her in fear of being abandoned herself. In result, his whole psyche is a mess, fear of commitment yet longing for love, self destruction, pain, and anguish. In the movie, he smoothly captures two girls' hearts only to unmercifully break them.

He begins with a beautiful but shy girl Li Zhen working at a concession stand. He smoothly asks her to to look at his watch for a minute. She reluctantly obliges and he explains that they were friends for this one minute and that it cannot be taken back; he will remember this minute forever because of her. The two are shown together sometime later. She asks him if he would ever marry her and he coldly responds no. She is devastated. Then he is shown seducing another woman, a loud and vivacious dancer named Mimi. She invariably falls for his charms but she too will eventually be left by the wayside as he picks up and goes off to the Philippines in search of his mother.

Two side stories emerge. Li Zhen shows up at Yuddy's door, still heartbroken and devastated. A cop looks on with sympathy and he falls in love with her, but as long as Li Zhen still loves Yuddy, he keeps his feelings for her to himself. Yuddy's friend Zeb falls for Mimi. She recognizes this and warns him against it. Even when she has been ditched, she still refuses his advances, preferring instead to wait for Yuddy or live in sorrow. As is the case for many of Wong Kar-Wai's films, it is a matter of love gone wrong, either loving the wrong person or not acting out on it. These characters are all in desperate need for companionship yet none of them can offer it to each other.

It works beautifully and somberly in In the Mood For Love, but falls a little flat in Days of Being Wild. The primary problem is in the character of Yuddy himself. It is hard to connect or develop any feeling for someone who is so self destructive that he poisons everyone around him. He is so callous and undeserving of these women's affection it actually makes them look worse. When Mimi confronts Li Zhen, instead of realizing what kind of person Yuddy is, she goes off on her. Mimi herself doesn't seem worthy of any sympathy either throughout the film. Li Zhen comes out innocent of all this mess but unfortunately her feelings for Yuddy brings not only her down but the cop who loves her as well. It's all a despairing mess. Aside from Li Zhen, I just had a lot of difficulty feeling for anybody in the film. Yet, I cannot deny the potential the film displays, its ability to evoke emotions through its tone and style, even if I didn't like the characters. In that way, Days of Being Wild can sort of be seen as a work in progress of a feeling and style that he would bring into his future films.

Grade: B-

Day 134 - Them!

Them! (1954) directed by Gordon Douglas

I just had LASIK done today so I wanted to watch something bright and vivid with my new eyesight, but instead I stumbled upon this black and white creature feature that I could not resist clicking on...

A genre that has always interested me that I've never really explored is 1950's sci-fi. Many of the titles are well known such as The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Forbidden Planet, War of the Worlds, and Creature from the Black Lagoon, yet I haven't seen a single one. I suppose part of it is that many of these movies just look really bad with their absurd premises, cheesy special effects and campy production. It requires a special type of audience and mood to intentionally watch a movie about fifty foot tarantulas that look like stuffed animals, although I did watch Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus, so I guess have no excuses. But then again, why not watch a movie about gigantic killer insects? It's really no more absurd than Cowboys vs. Aliens, a movie I was excited to see specifically because of how silly it sounded. So I stumbled upon Them!, a movie I've never even heard of. After looking around a bit, I found out that it was regarded as one of the better creature features of the time and also has a 100% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Sold.

The film opens up rather mysteriously. A cop car is patrolling the desert and finds a little girl wandering by herself in apparent shock unable to speak. The police officers locate the trailer home she lives in only to find it torn to pieces with only a mysterious print in the sand. Later they find a man dead in his store, a shotgun bent in half nearby. Who or what could possibly do such a thing? When the little girl finally comes out of her comatose state, she screams out hysterically, "Them!" Dun-dun-dun! The film works like many other good monster movies, building up the mystery and suspense, leaving the unknown lingering for the audience to grasp at. (In Super 8, JJ Abrams's homage to the genre, the creature is hidden throughout most of the film.) In this film we don't catch the first glimpse of "them" until over twenty minutes in.

So, who does "them" refer to in the movie? Ten foot tall mutated ants. There, it's out in the open. I figure there are two types of people in this world, those that want to see teen foot tall ants in a movie and those that do not. More specifically regarding these old school sci-fi films, you have to accept these amateurish looking creatures as real and go with the flow or you simply won't get into the movie. If all you see are the cheesy effects, then Them! and every other film from this period will be exactly what you thought they were, lousy low rate B films.

I think that is where modern audiences have been spoiled by today's special effects. Today you can create entire scenes through CGI like in Transformers leaving nothing to the imagination. We expect things to be done for us, to look as real as possible, otherwise we won't believe what we are seeing. Back then monsters had to be played by real people in costumes like in Beauty and the Beast, often times looking obviously fake, but it allowed viewers to watch with a sense of wonderment and the willingness to be told a fantasy. I am typically much more captivated by the special effects of an older film like Wizard of Oz than a modern film like The Lord of the Rings perhaps for this reason. And who is to say that today's effects are necessarily even better? There has been an ongoing war within the Star Wars community regarding George Lucas's revision of the franchise particularly in introducing modern special effects to the original films. Many people prefer the older "inferior" looks and effects.

For what it's worth, the ants in Them! actually look pretty good. I've seen billions of movie creatures in my life and these ants are just as convincing as the monkeys in Rise of the Planets of the Apes. I don't mean to say that the fifty plus year old puppet ants look better than the CGI rendered apes, just that the emotion and feeling of watching them are roughly the same in the context of the film. When the people are exploring the tunnels and are surrounded by the menacing looking ants, it never occurred to me that "Hey, that's obviously a puppet," or "It would look so much better if it was CGI." Instead, I was wondering how the hell the people were going to get out alive. In that regard, the special effects did everything you could possibly ask out of them.

Grade: B