Day 80 - Bob le Flambeur

Bob le Flambeur (1955) directed by Jean-Pierre Melville

Bob is a pro gambler and ex-con. He is widely respected in the neighborhood, everybody knows his name, and even the head of police, Inspector Ledru, is friends with him after Bob saved his life all those years ago. He is also a gentleman with morals and a generous heart. He helped a friend open up a bar by lending her money, he took in a friend's son in as his protege, and tries to guide a girl away from a life on the streets. Yet for all the help he gives to others, he cannot seem to help himself. As cool and calm as he looks, there is a sense of desperation in Bob, the need to put it all on the line. He's been gambling for a long time yet doesn't seem to have things figured out for himself. He's never had that big run. He seems to be in no better shape now than he was twenty years ago. Perhaps that is why he takes on Paolo as his protege and protects Anne from being exploited by pimps, he doesn't want them to repeat his same mistakes, the ones he's still making today. In a bad run of luck, Bob is dead broke (a feeling I've known all too well a couple times in my life). A friend tells him that the casino's vault holds an unheard of amount of money and Bob suddenly gets it in his head to take it down.

At this point, the story heads into a different direction than I had hoped it would. I wish it would have focused more on Bob's gambling and the relationships he's fostered with Paolo and Anne. Instead, it becomes yet another heist movie, albeit a pretty good one. Bob gets a crew together to take down the casino with the middle portions of the movie being focused on the planning and scheming. It plays out like a classic American crime drama. Not surprisingly Melville was obsessed with American movies and culture. In fact Melville wasn't even his real last name, he took it from the author of Moby Dick because he loved it so much.

Bob, played by Roger Duchesne, is cool in the way his hair is slicked back and the way he smokes his cigarettes. When he walks down the street in a trench coach, you probably couldn't tell him and Humphrey Bogart apart from a distance. Bob le Flambeur is sort of Melville's tribute to Hollywood noir, but it is also known to be perhaps the first film of the French New Wave. I did notice some of those elements, like the hand held camera and stylish camera movements. (I did miss the jump cut the film supposedly has, which Breathless would later make famous.) I really enjoyed the first couple scenes where we see Bob in the black and white checkered room, such a visually compelling set piece.

SPOLIER:
The ending is very fitting and what I wished the majority of the film focused on, the destructive nature of Bob's gambling. While planning for the heist, Bob promises to not gamble until then to remain focused. But while staking out the casino he casually places an innocent bet and wins, pleasantly surprised. At this point, you know this will be his downfall. Naturally, he goes on the hot streak of his life and wins so much that people have to carry his money in boxes for him. He is supposed to rendezvous with his crew at 5:00 and misses the date. He looks at his watch too late and his crew arrives on scene to find the police waiting for them and a shoot out ensues, killing Bob's protege Paolo. Bob arrives outside just in time for Paolo to die in his arms, a heavy price to pay for Bob's lucky run in the casino. What a perfectly ironic and tragic ending. It is bittersweet since it appears that Bob will be able to get away with it, but at what price to his conscience?
END SPOILER


The life of a gambler can be quite bleak if Bob's story is any indication. It seems like every movie about gambler revolves around personal loss and struggles, a theme that has reoccurred over and over again in my life. I am eagerly awaiting the movie where a guy shows up in Las Vegas with $20 and turns it into $1,000,000 in one weekend and lives happily ever after.

Grade: B+


Note: Rereading this, this is probably the least thought I've put into a post, it is almost entirely all plot. It kind of sucks because I probably should have been able to give more insight to Bob's character or personal stories.

Day 79 - Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses (2011) directed by Seth Gordon

I've never had a real job before so I don't know how it feels when people say that they hate their bosses, but it's not hard to imagine. People can be incompetent, they can be controlling and power hungry, and they can be real jerks (though I'm sure some of you are thinking of nastier words than that) and if these people are the ones you work for, it can make your life a living hell.

So have you ever imagined killing your boss? Hypothetically speaking of course. That is the question our three misfit heroes ask themselves drinking at a bar one night after a rough day at work. Nick (Jason Batmen) has been working his ass off for eight years under scumbag Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) hoping to get that big promotion, but doesn't. Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) can only watch as sleazeball Bobby Pellit (Colin Ferrell) takes over the business. And then there's Dale (Charlie Day) who is being sexually harassed by his nymphomaniac boss, Julia Harris, DDS (Jennifer Aniston).

At first they are only kidding, but after further contemplation it suddenly doesn't seem like a bad idea. The only problem of course is that they are just three regular guys who know nothing about killing people, setting up hilarious situations where amateur hour is on full display. For instance on a recon mission breaking into one of the bosses' house, it never occurs to them that perhaps they should be wearing gloves and one of them seems more interested in pulling pranks than in gathering real intel.

Horrible Bosses continues the tradition of dirty adult comedies to come out the past ten years in the spirit of the Judd Apatow comedies and mega-hits The Hangover and Bridesmaids. Being rated R is no longer the death sentence it once was to comedies as audiences' tastes have grown more crass and less sensitive. This movie is really funny in this manner yet doesn't feel overly absurd or vulgar. Funny is just funny.

A lot of it has to do with the stars and Horrible Bosses is loaded. I've always liked Jason Bateman's sarcastic deadpan comedy since Arrested Development. Jason Sudeikis of SNL fame is a decent actor and of the three lead characters is probably the weakest, but that has more to do with the strength of his co-stars than anything. Charlie Day was a supporting character in what I thought was the best romantic comedy of 2010, Going the Distance (another of those aforementioned adult style comedies), but was often the film's funniest part. In Horrible Bosses, Day is able to showcase more of the same type of humor and while not as quite as funny, is still pretty damn funny.

And the bosses? Kevin Spacey is probably the worst boss, but his character isn't necessarily very funny, though he is clearly a real asshole. Colin Ferrell must have had a blast getting into character. He is barely recognizable with that balding hair and those beady little eyes. He has a couple funny one liners that I won't divulge into but he probably has the best lines in the movie. This is also the dirtiest and raunchiest role that Aniston has ever played. Rachel Green would never say the words that Dr. Julia Harris does. Aniston has never looked better and has a couple scenes in skimpy outfits. Nope, no nudity though.

Obviously Horrible Bosses is an absurd film but it works with the strength of the actors and the pure comedy. There is also a nice Strangers on a Train reference for you Hitchcock buffs.

Grade: B+

Day 78 - Charade

Charade (1963) directed by Stanley Donen

One of my faithful followers suggested this movie to me. Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn in a Hitchcock style thriller? Sold! Word of advice to others though, you definitely need to see this on DVD, or if you can, Blu-ray. Netflix and Hulu both use the same source for their streaming and the video quality is really really bad, which is a shame because this movie is really really good.

Charade has been labeled as "the best Hitchcock movie that Hitchcock never made" and it really does have all those great moments of suspense, intrigue, drama, and twists and turns. Most notably however is the chemistry between the two legends Grant and Hepburn who shine brightly in well written roles. Grant would only star in two more films after Charade, but Hepburn was perhaps at her peak. (Charade was shot in between Breakfast at Tiffany's and My Fair Lady) Both are fantastic in their own ways, Grant for his strong and smooth approach and Hepburn for her charm and sweet presence. Between all the stars that I have watched recently, I feel like Audrey Hepburn may be the best combination of beauty, grace, and talent among the big actresses of her time. The repartee between the two stars is only made possible however by the screenplay which is witty, funny and charming. I often found myself smiling and laughing at the casual banter and clever dialogue.

I don't want to write too much about the story because it is a mystery with multiple layers that needs unwrapping but here is the basic premise. A young woman on vacation, Regina Lampbert (Hepburn), discovers that her husband has been murdered and apparently left behind $250,000. Three men who knew her husband are convinced that she has the money and threaten her. She enlists the help of Peter Joshua (Grant), a man she recently met at the vacation. All of them try to find the money before the other in a strong and compelling mystery thriller.

There are a bunch of great scenes of suspense and action, like the rooftop battle with Grant. I loved the large neon sign in the background giving it such unique lighting and feel. The cat and mouse chase sequence in the the last twenty minutes of the film reminded me a lot of the finale of Brian DePalma's Carlito's Way, partly for being in a train station and partly for the pure suspense.

The action on screen is highlighted by a great musical score, both chilling and exciting. Punches are accompanied by Batman style sound effects and shocking revelations have the dun-dun-dun music of intrigue. The chase sequence gets the heart pumping with the heightened feel of danger set by the music.

This film has it all, great story, great performances by two legends, great writing and music all put together by great direction. I like how it has such a wide range of appeal, from being a romantic comedy to a crime thriller or just ascetically pleasing.

Note: Apparently The Truth About Charlie (2002) starring Mark Wahlberg and Thandie Newton is a near identical remake of Charade. Never seen it, but I'm kind of interested now to compare.

Grade: A

Day 77 - Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) directed by Michael Bay

Has Michael Bay ever directed anything good? Here's a quick look at his directing filmography. Bad Boys was pretty good. The Rock is easily his best movie. I liked Armageddon when I was fifteen (probably the exact audience Bay was aiming for) but looking back at it now, it is absurdly bad. Chalk that one up as a guilty pleasure I guess. Pearl Harbor might be one of the worst movies ever (only slight hyperbole). Bad Boys II might be the definitive point in Michael Bay's career. Stick to what made the original fresh and funny or blow it up into a gratuitous and mindless money grabbing blockbuster? I think we know what he chose there. I didn't even remember that Bay directed The Island, which is pretty funny since I thought it was pretty good and thoughtful. Ironically it was his only box office bomb.

Then we have Transformers summarized by a haiku.


Words cannot express
Just how bad Michael Bay is
Worst franchise ever.

(I was having trouble between that last line or this one:
Completely tasteless.)

Okay, that's probably not true, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of a worse series of movies. The first Transformers was actually decent, acceptable popcorn fare. Then Bay went the Bad Boys II route with the sequel and made one of the most embarrassing big budget pictures ever. Dark of the Moon is a better movie than Revenge of the Fallen in the same way Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is better than At World's End, it couldn't possibly be any worse.

I'm giving Michael Bay an overly hard time here because frankly he has earned this reputation. But I also have to give him credit because he knows exactly what sells and exploits it in every possible way, making him hundreds of millions in the process. So as they say, haters gonna hate.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon continues the story of the war between Autobots and Decepticons. That's all I really care to explain because, well, what else is there to really tell? Don't you just want to see big masses of unrecognizable CGI metal duke it out? That is the whole point isn't it?

I will instead just point stuff out. Like how much I miss Megan Fox. Yes, the same Megan Fox that starred in the abysmal Jonah Hex and Jennifer's Body. But at least she has a way about her that demands your attention on screen and as I read in someone's blog, "Rosie Huntington-Whitelely makes Megan Fox look like Meryl Streep." Is there really any other reason for RHW to be there other than to run away from danger or to look up on screen in awe as chaos circles around her? In one scene I could barely hold in my laughter at a cliche shot of her gazing into the distance as buildings literally collapse behind her. Okay we get it, Megan Fox didn't want to do this movie (or Michael Bay didn't want her, whichever side you want to believe), but does Sam (Shia LeBeof) really need another super model girlfriend for this installment? Even Stevens having two top notch babes is more unrealistic than transforming robots and is just cliche casting. Why is RHW cast in this movie? Why was the role even written in? Because Sam needs a hot girlfriend to save. Because there needs to be romance! Because there needs to be eye candy on screen. (Her introduction shot is a close up of her pant-less rear end walking up stairs.) Couldn't they just explain that Megan Fox's character was on a trip or something and leave it at that? I think it was a big mistake to introduce a new female lead, especially one who is such an obvious replacement. It doesn't help that she's not given much to work with in her character, probably to protect the fact that she's not really an actress.

One of the big complaints I had with the first two movies was that the action sequences were too big, too messy and too fast. The robots were indistinguishable from each other and when they collided with each other it was impossible to tell what was going on. The scenes were cut together and edited with such breakneck speed that if you blinked for a second it felt like you'd miss half of the entire scene. The solution for Dark of the Moon? Slow-mo and lots of it. Literally every action sequence has some sort of slow motion effect. You could probably make a drinking game out of it, take a shot every time the effect is used. It is one step away from having the bullet-time camera which will probably come in the next installment. However, the action on screen is still a big mess. There is a snake-like Decepticon that is so large and confusing to look that as it destroys everything on screen you can't differentiate it from the surroundings. Also despite the gigantic robots and big explosions, the sense of danger and excitement does not match the size of action on screen. Two robots clash, they destroy a building, people get evaporated by death rays, people hopelessly shoot back, yawn. The big problem is that it is hard to make compelling or believable action sequences with the CGI robots as the centerpiece. There is one solid action scene however which features a building toppling over. In it, the human heroes slide back and forth inside holding on for dear life.

Why do some robots have hair? One has Einstein-like hair and another has a pirates style beard. It makes already bad looking transformers look ridiculous. And also why do they have such ungodly accents? Like, seriously, why are some of the Autobots Irish?

I won't even go into the inane dialogue and comedy bits or the cliche characters and plot points. The film is so poorly written you just have to take my word for it. Why is there so much pointless exposition (new film term I've learned)? This film is over two and a half hours long yet there doesn't seem to be any character development or sensible plot whatsoever. It seems almost impossible to be bored in such a grandiose action film, yet I couldn't wait till the next action sequence I was sure to not enjoy. Two words of advice: editing room. This film could easily be less than two hours tops.

Oh, what about the the fact that the Autobots go into hiding to teach the humans a lesson? How incredibly narcissistic are they? Tens of thousands of people die while they do nothing and then show up to save the day when they feel like it. Then Optimus has the audacity to say, "We'll never forsake humanity" or some other platitudinal nonsense.

As long as I'm talking about Michael Bay, what about Shia LeBeof? Has he ever starred in a good movie? I am quickly losing all hope for him as he's been in nothing but a bunch of big budget Hollywood stinkers. He is pretty forgettable here. I can't tell if it's his acting or the character of Sam himself that is so unpleasant to watch.

Michael Bay has said that he has made his last Transformers film, so we can thankfully close the book on one of the most avaricious and artistically empty franchises in cinematic history. At least Dark of the Moon is better than Revenge of the Fallen if only because we know it is the merciful end.

Grade: D+

Day 76 - And God Created Woman

And God Created Woman (1956) directed by Roger Vadim

I first saw Brigitte Bardot in Jean-Luc Godard's excellent Contempt and was struck by her beauty and persona. I have no idea if she is considered a great actress or not (she probably is good at best) but her glamour and star power is undeniable. She was arguably as big of a star and celebrity as her American counterparts Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe. Naturally I was intrigued to see her in her breakout role in And God Created Woman, a film in hindsight made specifically to shoot Bardot into superstardom by her then husband Roger Vadim.

In this film, Bardot, who was twenty-two at the time, plays eighteen year old Juliette, an untamed and carefree girl with few inhibitions. In her very first scene she is seen sunbathing in the nude (profile only, no actual nudity in the movie). She spends the majority of the film not caring about the social codes or opinions of others. Juliette is chased by three men, an older millionaire Eric and two brothers Antoine and Michel. The young and naive Michel proposes to Juliette in order to keep her from being sent away by her foster mother in a marriage of convenience. He truly loves her and hopes that she will one day love him too, despite what everyone thinks. She tries her best at the married life but she grows restless and in the process drives all three men nuts.

To say Bardot stars in the film is an understatement. The film is an excuse to show her off in as many seductive ways possible. While there is no actual nudity in the movie, remember this was filmed in 1956 before nudity or even sexuality was commonplace so you can imagine the stir this film created. Bardot's naked profile is seen one minute into the movie to set the tone. In more than one occasion she wears nothing but a bed sheet and in others wears tight fitting dresses swaying her hips seductively as she walks. In the final sequences, her sensuality is displayed full force as she dances the mamba.

But other than showcasing Bardot, what really is the purpose of And God Created Woman? At first I thought it was a rather light hearted story about a liberated woman living on her own terms, but it's really hard to call this film feminist. If anything, the film is overtly sexist. It introduces the viewer to Juliette but her behavior is not rewarded or fully explored. On the contrary, the film is about attempting to tame and conform her. In the final scene when Juliette is out of control, Michel quite literally slaps her back to reality, then the couple is seen quietly walking home as if that settled everything. What kind of message is that? The film's title has religious implications as well, comparing Juliette to Eve, who would tempt man into sin. As Eric comments about Juliette, "That woman was created to destroy man." Very subtle.

The film definitely has its strong points, namely Bardot, who is beautiful and charming. The film is also funny at times and occasional moments of tenderness come through, but the overall story and message remain a little hallow.

Grade: C+

Day 75 - Student Services

Student Services (2010) directed by Emmanuelle Bercot

This film is so obscure (ie unimportant and mediocre) that it has no Wikipedia entry or a single critic review from Rottentomatoes, but thanks to Netflix I was able to randomly click on this movie and waste the better part of two hours of my life. It's not that this film is bad, in fact it's actually pretty decent, but if I write a review to a movie that no one has ever heard of or will ever care to watch, why would they bother reading it? And remember, I can only watch a finite number of movies for this blog so I could have watched a "real" movie instead. But every now and then you got to take that chance, so I went out on a limb hoping to discover an awesome foreign flick but instead I got some random movie with no real significance. That's really not any different than watching a random current movie in theaters though. This movie is certainly better than some of the mediocrities I've watched like Pirates 4 and Priest. Upon further research, Student Services wasn't even a theatrical release in France. It was a TV movie, probably the equivalent of an original late night HBO or Showtime feature, which is actually probably why I decided to watch it in the first place. Raunchy situations and full frontal nudity!

Student Services is about a young college student named Laura who is struggling to get by and must resort to prostitution to pay the bills. She goes on the internet in the adult personals and nervously agrees to meet a man named Joe who's willing to pay her 100 euros for an hour. She is scared and nervous, but also incredibly naive. She has no idea what she is getting into and even after her first uncomfortable encounter with Joe, where they don't even have sex, she still has no idea what she has gotten herself into. She sees the cash in her hand and smells it like a bouquet of flowers, thinking her problems are all solved.

But this path can only lead into one direction, one where Laura is not willing to admit to herself she is heading. In her second encounter, she meets another man only seeing the money involved and not the acts that she has to do to get it. The two have a date and she naively talks down to her customer, ready to give it a go. Yet when it comes down to actually doing the deed, she is nervous and reluctant. He takes matters into his own hands and basically rapes her in a pretty shocking and revealing scene. As the customer drives off leaving her alone in the parking lot, there is a close up of Laura's clenched fist squeezing her blood money in anger. After this point, she goes head onto her job, but makes it clear that it is only a job to her. None of the scenes with paying customers are very erotic or sensual, she just lies there without emotion or a hint of pleasure. Contrast that however to when she makes love to her boyfriend where she allows herelf to let go.

But where does her job end and where does her personal life begin? The two lines inevitably blur together. The relationship with the understanding boyfriend obviously becomes strained. What she was once doing just to pay the bills, she now does to buy fancy dinners and new flashy jackets. She is becoming the one thing she swore she would not become, a whore. However, the film does not have the happy or sad ending you would expect. It falls right in the middle, purposely ambiguous. She passes her classes, but loses her boyfriend, she is further humiliated and frustrated by job but reaps the rewards of it. After a disturbing encounter with Joe, she seemingly quits forever, yet does she really? The film ends with her looking into renting out a fancy apartment that no regular student could possibly afford. Did she get a new job after successfully completing college? Is she still a prostitute? She refuses to say and instead looks directly into the camera inviting us to look into her eyes and guess.

The film is pretty unevenly directed. Some parts are well thought out and constructed, others border on made-for-TV bad. In other words, it could have been tightened up a little. Despite its premise and nudity, this film is not particularly erotic, it is more cold and depressing if anything, which is exactly the point. However, I found it frustrating how naive Laura is. What does she honestly expect to happen?

Note: There is a scene where she is trying to study at a bar with a live band playing and is frustrated when guys approach her. I feel like this has been in other movies before, but obviously that is a retarded scenario.

Note 2: The actor who plays Joe (Alain Cauchi) looks almost exactly like a French Burt Reynolds, which is pretty hilarious.

Grade: C+

Day 74 - Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) directed by Richard Brooks

The film opens similarly to Cool Hand Luke, with Paul Newman's character drunk and out of control. He's at a sports stadium and hears the roar of the crowd in his head. Trying to relive his glorious youth, he attempts to jump the hurdles on the track and ends up breaking his foot. There's something about Paul Newman in this time period where he's able to play the reckless youth so well as he does in here, Cool Hand Luke and The Hustler.

In Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Brick (Newman) is deeply bothered by something. He has become a morose alcoholic because of it, but why? Why can't he stand his wife Maggie (Elizabeth Taylor) or his father Big Daddy (Burl Ives)? Something is amiss but nobody seems to be saying anything at all. There is a great deal of tension in the film to discover the secret that has destroyed Brick and Maggie's marriage. Maggie desperately wants to win back the approval of her husband, but what did she do so wrong? The rest of the film deals with Big Daddy who is coming home for his sixty-fifth birthday after a visit from the doctors. Big Daddy is dying of cancer but doesn't know it yet, but his children do. They have been squabbling over the estate in case of his death and Brick's brother's family has been circling around like vultures. Will Big Daddy learn of his inevitable fate and can he reconcile with Brick who is so cold and distant to him? What is it that he did so wrong?

The most remarkable thing about this movie is that every single character is deeply flawed or downright despicable. It is like when I tried to watch Grey's Anatomy, but couldn't because I found that I hated every single character. The characters in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof all seem like miserable human beings and yet you can't help but be engaged in their lives, to hear them bicker, to watch them loathe each other. It is almost satire on the concept of the all American family. It looks perfect from the outside, but as Big Mama sadly admits, "There wasn't a lot of love in this house."

The film is well acted and well written, as it should be being based on Tennessee William's famous play. The melodrama is at an all time high and near suffocating, kind of like 12 Angry Men. That is typically my impression on well adapted films from plays. The language and the dialogue come out in the forefront with little need for any fancy shenanigans. Here is a camera, here is your set, now go act your ass off. Paul Newman is of course Paul Newman and great. I think this is the first time I've seen Elizabeth Taylor in action and she can really act! While I don't think she is as beautiful or glamourous as some of her contemporaries, she has a certain presence about her that commands your attention. For instance, as beautiful as I think Grace Kelly was, there was once a movie I watched where I didn't even realize it was her until midway through the movie. I get the feeling that would never happen with Elizabeth Taylor.

Ironically some of the best qualities of the film can also be used against it. The melodrama is so thick, it's almost maddening. The first thirty minutes of film is so cryptic you know it will lead to a big revelation somewhere, but this slow roasting boiling tension had me in angst. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Also, while the characters are interesting you have to get past the fact that you sometimes might want to just grab them by the shoulders and shake them violently, even Paul Newman.

Grade: B