1996: The Craft (37th)

What else happened this year? Some stuff, there would have been Olympics, Clinton getting re-elected, and some other stuff. On a personal note, I grew 11 inches this year, which took me from an already tall kid, to an incredibly tall one. Luckily I never got too gangly, but I don't recommend it.

What is the plot - in one sentence? A new girl rocks up at a catholic high school in L.A., and joins a group of friends who are interested in witchcraft.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Turns out, they each have some magical powers, and struggle with how best to use them. The new girl and the 'leader' have a huge falling out which ends in a witch battle which ends with all of their powers stripped, possibly, but with the leader tied down in bed in some sort of asylum. Also, the 'new' one still has hers she just has to keep them quiet.

What is the meaning of the title? It's the name of a book that she buys from an occult bookshop, staffed by a woman who I thought was going to be far more intrinsic to the plot.

 

So this is them all swaggering around, like grown women pretending to be jailbait. Just a reminder, Neve Campbell, on the left, was referred to as the ugly one for some reason.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No slappin', but the music is terrible. It's sort of post-grunge, post-goth industrial stuff, and there's never a time when it's used that it isn't jarring. 

It's also jarring to have Christine Taylor, as an obviously not-teenaged high-school student declare 'I don't like negroids' to one of the four main characters.* Speaking of not-teenaged... the new witch who arrives, in real life, was married at the time and in her twenties. I also don't think it would end up with one of the four characters locked in a looney bin now, either, but hey, that's fashion. 

*Yes she said that, and yes she was 25, posing as a high school student. Come on.

Any thoughts? The 'magic' that they use is really poorly defined. The new witch seems to have some genuine powers, and the others have some powers through spells. They also use their powers in shitty ways. The 'ugly' one uses a spell to make her more noticed by boys. She just starts wearing saucier clothing. She's also Neve Campbell, who is gorgeous. The new witch makes a boy (Skeet Ulrich - what happened to him??) fall in love with her, as punishment for telling people that they slept together. That ought to work.

There are a few 'gross' scenes which just show tonnes of spiders and snakes, but they don't really make any sense unless you had a pretty severe arachnophobia and whatever the equivalent is for snakes. The 'white witch' who owns a witchcraft store seems to be an enigmatic character, but is really just poorly written. One thing this movie does show, however, is the intensity of being part of a clique, and how awful high school is. I say this as someone who was pretty popular in high school too. [for the record, I'm not now.]

Would you recommend this? As a borderline middle-aged male, it's safe to say that this movie about highschool witches isn't for me. It is however, interesting to see where all of the stars of these movies are around. It seems that a few have carved out successful lives for themselves, others less so, and the leader of the clique, with the enormous mouth, seems to be somewhere in the middle of it. I wouldn't rush out to recommend it, but it's interesting to see where a million outcasts in various high schools around the world found solace.

Final thoughts? I don't remember why the group fell out, but I do remember that the queen bee, Faizura Balk, has an enormous mouth. That's all for this one, not my cup of tea.

The rest of this list is found right m'f'in' here - take care everyone

1933: The Testament Of Doctor Mabuse (aka Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse) (36th)

What else happened this year? In Germany, Hitler installs himself as chancellor after the reichstag fire. Not a great time to be Germany. Probably some other stuff happened outside of Germany, too.

What is the plot - in one sentence? In Germany, a police officer is on the lookout for the mysterious Dr Mabuse, who is still operating criminal undertakings despite the notable handicap of being first imprisoned, then dead.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Weird one this, a psychologist who was looking after Dr Mabuse before his death is (possibly) possessed by Dr Mabuse, and continues to run the Mabuse operations either through possession, or reading his works. One of the members of the gang switches sides, and helps to identify some other gangsters, before the professor / Mabuse is captured. the final scene shows the professor destroying the works of Dr Mabuse.

What is the meaning of the title? Mabuse has died, but before his death he left some criminal plans behind - hence the testament of Dr Mabuse. 

 

Here are some of Mabuse's henchmen, here being berated over microphone. The guy second from left is our man Tom Kent, who looks more like that bloke from 'Office Space' who gets with Jennifer Aniston than you'd imagine from this picture.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? This must have been very on the nose in Nazi Germany. A charismatic conman talking about a world doomed to annihilation from a prison cell? That's not going to be popular with the authorities. There's not really violence to women here, in fact the two who talk do pretty well for themselves. 

Any thoughts? Despite being named after the villain - the movie's real hero is the large policeman named Lohmann. The character who gets the most time on screen is the gang member of Mabuse who leaves the gang and helps the police. He does this after a crisis of conscience at killing someone, and at the behest of the 'one woman in the movie' - their romance is shown in flashback. Strangely, his name is Thomas Kent.

The movie has a huge number of scenes with infuriating logic. A ratty underling sees something important - and calls Lohmann. He tells him 'I have something to tell you' and arranges to meet, when what he wanted to tell was 'the guy in charge is Dr Mabuse!' - why not just tell him on the phone? Despite that, he's later killed in a very cool scene.

Later, Thomas Kent and the policeman meet up. Kent tells him that Mabuse has only ever been heard, he's never seen him as he uses voice recordings and microphones for contact. Immediately the policeman asks if he could recognise his face, and gets annoyed that he can't identify him by sight alone. If he'd listened, he'd have known that was a dumb question.

Kent admits to some of his crimes when he was working in the gang. We're shown through a flashback that he took the job as a last resort. One of his crimes is a murder, which he admitted to. Despite the fact that he helped to solve the crime, he's definitely going back to prision after this movie ends, surely? Also, this 'criminal / civilian who is able to just help solve crimes' is an annoying bugbear of mine in movies.

Kent and his girlfriend hunt down Mabuse, but are trapped in a room. It eventually fills with water. The voice recording (Mabuse's stuff is often done by recording) tells them that 'within three hours' they'll be dead. It's a precursor to an escape room, sure, but 3 hours is a long time. By the way, you'll be happy to know that they solve it by using plumbing.

Would you recommend this? It's definitely an important movie, for the context it was made in. I also think that Dr Mabuse is a really good character - an evil genius of great charisma and possibly magical properties. There are a lot of interesting camera special effects, and some really great playing with the media. There are also some great scenes, but the whole thing seems a bit disjointed, and I didn't enjoy it as much as I might.I'd recommend 'M' which is by the same director, and I think was made in the same year.

Final thoughts?  I didn't quite get the logic of this. Mabuse is supposed to be a very charismatic genius who is able to inspire some just by reading about him... but he's also able to possess them? His plans seem to be formulated in a catatonic state, and mirror Nazi techniques of infrastructure disruption very closely, but we're shown him 'writing' them and it looks like a chimp holding a pen. 

The movie also has a particularly pointless, yet cool, siege against a few members of Mabuses gang. The police call for 'tactical units' to come and help... but, it's a single old guy with a moustache who does very little. I'm glad I watched this, but it was weird. 

Follow me on my quest to watch a movie from every year possible, look here for ones I've done already. 

1949: Criss Cross (35th!)

What else happened this year? The formation of Communist China, East and West Germany, and... Nato was formed after a treaty was signed. So, not much fun that year.

What is the plot - in one sentence? An abusive couple try to continue their affair under the guise of a plan to rob an armoured car, despite her being married to a mobster. 

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? The robbery goes off after a double cross, and the affair couple end up in a hideout with the money. He's injured, and just as she tells him that she's leaving with the money, the mobster husband (injured in the robbery) comes and shoots them both. The End. For the record, Burt Lancaster is the guy she's having an affair with, some other guy is her husband, and she is Lily Munster, aka Yvonne De Carlo.

What is the meaning of the title? At the end, she her paramour that she's criss-crossing him and is going to leave with his money. She even says the phrase, but it comes at the end of a bunch of betrayals in the movie, so it probably refers to all of them.

Here's Burt Lancaster in a vest, a couple of years before A Streetcar Named Desire. Yvonne Di Carlo is behind him. This is them pretending they haven't just had 1949-style sex. They're fooling no one.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? She doesn't, onscreen, but she shows the bruises she's got from her husband. She went from an abusive relationship to a violent one. Also of its age: this mentions Einstein (as did 1947's Boomerang) as a 'genius' of the age, something which is still going on now. Burt Lancaster also has a mate from his past who is now a policeman, who offers him a way out of crime, and I think that's an addition that was made at the behest of the studio, as he adds very little except a 'moral safety net.'

Any thoughts? Burt Lancaster is in a lot of really good movies. He's usually the hero, or at least a good guy, and in this one it's surprising that he absolutely isn't. We're told at the beginning that he went away around the country in order to clear his head after a particularly unpleasant relationship ended, and when he gets back he's stunned and shocked that she's now married to a gangers. It's implied that he's stalked her. 

The two still rile each other up, have an affair, and show themselves to be trapped in a circle of abuse and co-dependence. Lily Munster says 'I with I'd never met you' more than once to him. Surprisingly, he also seems like a bit of a dick. That she left him and married a persistent, possessive, violent gangster says a lot about the situation.

To avoid getting caught out by the gangster, Burt Lancaster comes up with a plan to rob the company he's working for and who have treated him kindly, but he's double-crossed by the gangsters he teams up with, and then by Yvonne De Carla. It's pretty much the pinnacle of the double-cross film noir, and it ends up with everyone either dead or about to be arrested.

Despite that, he's got a few allies, his family are happy to see him, and his police mate is there to stop the whole movie from being too bleak, and giving him an option to leave the crime business. He chooses Yvonne De Carla instead, which is a fair decision.

There are some nice side-characters in the story, as there often are in movies like this. There's a drunk woman at the bar that they all hang out at, I liked an old guy who was driving in the armoured car, and you can even briefly but unmistakably see Tony Curtis dancing around with Yvonne De Carlo in one scene.

Would you recommend this? Kinda. It's a solid noir story with strong performances, unpleasant characters, double-crosses and an unexpectedly bleak ending, but it is pretty grim. would I recommend it because it's good? Yeah.

Final thoughts? After the robbery goes awry, Burt Lancaster lies in hospital, injured, and worried that every person who is there may be an assassin coming for him. It's very similar in 'tense-ness' and in intent as the scene in the Godfather where Michael protects his father from attack, and something similar to Bullitt where an assassin is seeking to kill a witness. It's a good scene and seems to have influenced other good scenes.

I was also really glad that his dog wasn't killed, it was seen in the arms of a criminal flunky, but is later shown alive and well with his family. I think that would have been a step too far.

That's it. 35 done, to check out the other 34, with their weird formatting errors and general shitty grammar that I'm slowly going through, you can click here.

1964: Viva Las Vegas! (34th)

What else happened this year? Forget Cold War Stuff for a moment, Beatlemania!

What is the plot - in one sentence? Elvis is a race-car driver in Las Vegas, competing in love and in races with a suave Italian driver for the love of a red-hot red-head (Ann-Marie.)

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? After wooings, fallings-out, songs and a talent contest, in a genuinely surprising ending, the Italian driver ends up in a fiery car crash, and it turns out that the Redhead's dad bet all his money on Elvis, so by winning he's secured his future. He also marries said redhead, the end.

What is the meaning of the title? It's set in Las Vegas, it's also a song that's in your head right now.

In the story here Elvis has shown he can sing, so he is invited to dance and sing with Rusty. They shake their hips at each other like the mating ritual of some exotic birds. She's so happy to dance she doesn't need real clothes, and I am not complaining.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? Of Course this is of its time, so let's ignore the fashion and formula of the movie, and say that it's good that no one gets slapped around. Rusty, the 'one woman' in the movie is treated pretty well, and though she's lusted over by Elvis and his Italian pal / rival, they seem to treat her pretty well. Let's ignore the fact that the race is effectively a race for her, and focus on the fact that she's nicknamed 'Rusty' because of her red hair. I'm not convinced.

Any thoughts? This is nonsense, the plot is just a vague throw rug to tie in the movies songs and dances. Need Elvis to sing a song about Texans? Have him sing it to empty a Texan bar for some reason.

Elvis loses all his money (he'd been meaning to buy a car engine or something, it's of no consequence) and to pay his debts works in the same hotel as Rusty, whose job seems to involve flinging toddlers into the pool. After a song which proves he's not a hound dog, he takes her for a 'no-money' date- which involves waterski-ing, helicopter riding, motorbike riding and some time as cowboys. I guess the plot isn't why you watch an Elvis movie?

So, it appears as though in most movies of Elvis' he wasn't matched with a woman who could keep up with him, and it's a shame that they weren't more like this. From her first appearance in tiny short-shorts, Ann-Marie's more than a match for him. The two share a couple of dances which can only be described as 'horny.' A song they sing even has her mention his 'two heads.' It's evident that they're sexually attracted to each other, even with the cinematic conventions of repression of the time. We know what's going on.

The downside is that they have a falling-out to enable them to re-fall in love, and it's dumb even by summer movie standards. It ends with her admitting 'I've wronged him' very earnestly, but how long have they known each other? The name Cal Howard - a racer who died - is also mentioned very obviously twice. My guess it was a guy who won a competition to have his name in a movie. Anyway, she is attracted to a race-car driver, dates a driver, and then starts to worry that he'll die in a race. It seems a legitimate concern, but what did she expect? Anyway, time for another song.

Would you recommend this? Is this the best Elvis movie? Is this the only one worth watching? Probably, but as a cultural icon, it's worth seeing, and thus it was a bonus that it was enjoyable, albeit as nonsensical as this sentence. He has genuine charisma despite being an odd-looking guy (though in a handsome way) and he has good chemistry with old Rusty.

Final thoughts? Surprisingly for a movie set in Las Vegas, there is no gambling whatsoever, other than a walk through of one casino at the very beginning, and the final bet by the dad. Actually that's wrong, Elvis and the Italian guy go to see every stage show in the city in order to find the one redhead who decided to brave the desert, they don't gamble, but they do find her working at the hotel that the Italian guy is staying at.

Ann-Marie, is great in this, and it's nuts to think that merely 11 years later she would be the mother to fully adult Roger Daltry's, getting covered in beans and making me feel weird.

Elvis is shown topless during the waterski-ing scene. He is slim, and not at all muscular, it's amazing how much body standards have changed since then, as steroid use has become more visible but unspoken of.

Most of note is how quickly the ending is wrapped up as though they had to beat a clock. Elvis finishes first, the dad admits he is now wealthy, and the two youngsters get married, in literally 15 seconds of time. Add another 15 seconds and the primary love interest's car (and body, presumably) are horribly burned up in a crash that is probably Elvis' fault. It's quite impressive how quickly it wrapped up, it's like they had to get off the lot before the end of the day.

We're getting there people! All of the others are available here.

1955: Diabolique (aka Les Diaboliques) 33rd

What else happened this year? In 1955.... Einstein died. There was probably a lot of jostling for position in Europe too... Other than that... I don't know [I was right. twice].

What is the plot - in one sentence? In France, the weak-willed wife and the strong-willed mistress team up to kill the man they share.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? They kill him, but his body goes missing. In the end it turns out that the mistress and the husband had plotted against the wife, and they work to frighten the poor dear to death (she has congenital-heart-problems-itis). This will lead to them being together, and gaining her inheritance. It almost works,... as they do force a heart attack, but a convenient policeman overhears them and they're arrested.

What is the meaning of the title? We assume that the 'Diaboliques' (devils, scoundrels) are the two women, but in the end it turns out to be the mistress and the husband. Very clever.

Left to right: meek wife, bruiser mistress, child who is probably in his 80s now.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? Does she ever! The wife is slapped around and raped, and the guy who does it still can count on her staying married to him, and on his mistress. The husband is a real dick, it's long overdue when he 'dies' - and a bit disappointing when he doesn't - is he co-ercing the mistress into it too? Let's say... no. Also of note is this tells you not to spoil the story for your mates, which is a pretty canny marketing gimmick, as the end was pretty surprising.

Any thoughts? OK, so the three main characters all work in a school. It's owned by the wife, who can't divorce her husband because of her religion. He openly keeps a mistress, the other female teacher in the school. The result is that the three of them all work there teachers, while other teachers are aware of their situation, and seem to be not too bothered. Only in France huh?

The kids of the school play only an incidental role: one meets the 'corpse,' in a conversation that is told to us but not shown, one swims underwater where we're made to think he will find a corpse, but he doesn't. They're not that important in any way other than showing how the two women interact in the movie: the mistress is a disciplinarian, the wife a little more tolerant of kids.

The ending involves the 'dead' husband appearing to rise, zombie-like from a bath - he'd been 'drowned' before by the two women. He slowly rises from the bath in what is probably the horror climax of the movie. Right as I was watching this, in bed, my cat jumped up on my chest from behind. I nearly soiled myself. You could also rightly wonder why the husband put on 'dead' eye contacts, I think it wouldn't seal the deal to make the wife die of fright if his eyes were normal or not, but we still get a gross looking shot of him taking his contacts out.

Structurally it's pretty interesting. He's 'dead' after 40 minutes, the rest of the time is spent on the cover-up, the search for the body, and the 'haunting' of the school by his ghost. There are a lot of misdirects and red herrings, and I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't hold up to second views, but the first one was fine.

Would you recommend this? Yeah, I would. I had managed to keep it unspoiled, and it was a nice surprise - I just hope some bozo didn't spoil it for you first.

Final thoughts? They 'scare' a woman to death by pretending to be the ghost of her old husband, and the other turns some lights off to get her riled up. After they celebrate, the policeman acts as though he has caught them with bloody axes or something, but my legal knowledge would say that it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law. The detective telling them that they were caught seemed a huge studio add-on.

Also of note is that when she's being chased and terrified, she's wearing almost nothing. I really miss being in a place you can slink around almost naked and not worry people. I'm in Scotland now, even if people didn't mind, it would be too cold.

I hope you enjoyed this as much as I enjoy being naked in the warmth, if you want more (year-by-year movie thoughts, not nudity), you should click right here for all of them.

1995: Wild Bill (32nd)

What else happened this year? I, as a very young child, sat through Braveheart with my dad at a screening that Mel Gibson was at. Christ knows what he was thinking. As for global politics, I'm a single search away, and so are you.

What is the plot - in one sentence? It's 'Wild' Bill Hicock, famed gunman in the 'West,' we follow him to Deadwood...

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Where he's shot dead, Calamity Jane and some of his followers mourn him.

He's a famous gunshooter, and complains of bowels problems throughout the movie, so I was a little disappointed to find that this was what they meant by 'shooting craps.'

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? Oh probably, but this will be brief, this covers a lot of the material which made it to Deadwood, the TV show, but Deadwood was MILES better. It's not aged that well in that way.

Any thoughts? Not very good, this, despite a large number of recognisable faces.

There are so many flashbacks - we're at the end of Wild Bill's life and it seems he knows it - and a few hilariously yelled-out pieces of exposition. For example, we meet a guy in a wheelchair who wants vengeance, we flashback to Wild Bill shooting a guy in the leg, the guy then shouts 'I CAN'T MOVE MY LEG!' and then the movie tells us that the guy in the present in the wheelchair is the same guy who was shot in the leg in the past. Thanks, I hadn't quite worked that out. In another scene, a guy screams 'I've been shot!' and we learn that his brother has come to avenge him, for shooting his brother, see.So far, so mediocre.

My main thought however, is about David Arquette, who is in this as a young hoodlum who is getting revenge on Wild Bill - it seems Wild Bill fucked his mum, consensually, of course. He comes along angry a few times, and each of them is among the worst acting I've ever seen. Really, I could do better now, and so could you. I looked him up, and he's from a family of actors - several generations of them, movies and then stages. Patricia, his sister is a fine actress. Jeff Bridges, who plays Wild Bill, is also the son of a famous actor, he has been in better things, and his acting isn't what's at fault in this movie. Keith Carradine is in this too (He played Buffalo Bill in this one, Wild Bill in Deadwood), all of them are legacy actors, but David Arquette wouldn't be an actor if he wasn't from an acting family.

Wild Bill also adheres to several life aphorisms which he states from time to time: One of which is 'No apologies,' and another is 'No Explaining himself.' Despite that, he does both of them in the movie.

Would you recommend this? No, I wouldn't. If you're at all interested in this, watch Deadwood. If you're interested in the mythology of the West and celebrity, then that 'Assassination of Jesse James' move was better. They maybe more recent, so these may have been influenced by this... but they're also better.

Final thoughts? Wild Bill is played by Jeff Bridges, just a couple of years before he was the Dude, who was another long-haired, drunken scalliwag.

This is also the second movie I've done on this list called 'Wild Bill,' the other one isn't much better, but it's better.

Some good ones coming up, some ok ones behind us, you can find them all at this page.

2009: The Joneses (31st)

What else happened this year? Outside of world politics, conman Uri Geller bought an island off Scotland which I know by sight, because he thought it had something to do with ley lines or some bullshit. That that charlatan prick has enough spare cash lying around to buy an island is a sad indication of the world.

What is the plot - in one sentence? A new family in a wealthy community, the Joneses, live a perfect life of comfort and label-adherence, which inspires others to do the same.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? They're not a real family, they're just posing like that as they were put together by an advertising company. They work together to sell shite to the neighbours. At the end of it all, they find their humanity, and the two parents head off together into the sunset. 

What's the meaning of the title? Their name is the Joneses, but it's also an illusion to that notion of 'keeping up with the Joneses.' Easy one that.

I scanned through this again to find a picture, and this one of David Duchovny dressed as Steve Jobs, with a giant mug, is from one of the dozens of scenes where these two have too serious conversations.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? What's not aged well is the fashion. This is to be expected from something which is so 'cutting edge' at the time. The 'height of fashion' - and the sponsorships involved, look ridiculous even from only a decade or so on. Also it features Amber Heard, posing as a teenager, getting nailed on a boat by an older gentleman who doesn't like her, which seems prophetic more than anything else.

Any thoughts? So, it's a social commentary about what materialistic lives we lead. It's also pretty well timed coming right after the wall street crash. The story is that Demi Moore (the 'wife' of the family) is the boss of the family, and David Duchovny is newly recruited to the whole business. Their job is to look good, play with the newest toys (clothes, cars, products etc) and 'influence' others to buy the same things. As he's the latest in, he's the one who's questioning why they do it as they do. As well as these two there's a couple of 20-somethings posing as teenagers, the boy of whom is gay, and the girl of whom is a 'nymphomaniac' - it seems that they understood the brief in a way that David Duchovny just didn't.

When a friend of Dave's his kills himself because of his debt, he starts to have some doubts about it all...but what did he expect would happen? Did he just sign up and not think about it? He feels similarly saddened when a girl injures herself drink driving - she's a school age kid and the wine was being peddled by one of the 'kids' of the family - but it isn't his decision to make her drink drive. I don't know why he cared so much.

There's also a hilarious bit where the suicidal guy is plucked from the pool, seemingly dead, and David Duchovny makes it all about himself. He uses this situation to tells all of the townspeople what the Joneses are really up to. Way to go Dave. Doing this costs him the chance of having the dream job that Demi Moore had been talking about all movie, yet she still wants to go off with him. She could do better.

Would you recommend this? What's really annoying is that this movie's largely toothless. There's a lot to say about consumerism and greed, it's annoying that this movie essentially has a 'happy ending' by getting the two together. A better ending would have been them continuing to work a miserable job influencing rich idiots.

So, it's not great, but I didn't hate it. I also thought... why am I watching these? for fun? to get a good look at the time? If that's the case this is more important than good, as it's a great snapshot of 2009. 

Final thoughts? It must cost a lot to buy a proprety, furnish it with fancy products, pay (presumably good) money to the actors / salespeople and then analyse it all. Was that worthwhile at all? Surely a company could earn more money in the end just advertising as usual? It's pretty telling that a company could do far better advertising now merely through targeted ads and monitoring of internet through cookies and the like. So, we can add that to the list of things which haven't aged well.

Right, that's that. More o' this, for movies from other years - right here.

1989: The Abyss (30th!)

What else happened this year? The Tiananmen Square Massacre, also known as 'the what?' in China. The Berlin Wall fell this year too.

What is the plot - in one sentence? A rough-and-ready crew of undersea salvage workers have to recover a nuclear submarine, but it's made harder with the threat of war above the waves, weather conditions down below, some annoying army guys, and last but not least... ALIENS.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? the ALIENS (or some deep-sea AI thing, it doesn't matter) threaten to destroy the world through a series of giant tidal waves, but they stop when Ed Harris writes 'I love you wife' to his ex-wife. This is the same Ex-wife that he has been very unpleasant to for the entire movie. After various battles and a race to the finish, the aliens bring them to the surface. The surviving crew are ecstatic, so much so that they must have forgotten all of their recently dead colleagues.

What is the meaning of the title? There's an Abyss where the alien things live.

'Greetings human, please stop shaking that, it's not my hand.' 

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? The two (!) women characters are pretty sassy, but one of them drowns, and is woken up ( following an extended 'don't you die on me!' scene) where her corpse is slapped around before the miraculous recovery. She was out so long that she would have had brain damage for sure, and to top it all of, everyone in the room was watching and got to see her boobs.

Any thoughts? I haven't seen Titanic. However, I've seen enough parodies of it that I was able to tell the entire story to a group who were impressed by how much it had seeped into my subconscious.

In a similar way, I hadn't seen the Abyss, but I'd basically seen it before. I hated this. Every bad aspect of a James Cameron movie was on full display: a working class group or heroes, despite the fact that to operate that machinery would require academic scientific knowledge? Check. CLoth-eared dialogue? Check and check. I nearly vomited when one of them talked about 'candles in the dark.' The military as 'evil?' - yep, they're bad guys down there, and above, where there's some war going on. There's also the utterly needless dynamic between Ed Harris and his ex-wife, who ends up down there for some reason? Yep. They realise that they really still love each other after it all, so don't worry.

The one thing you can say for in a bad James Cameron movie, the 'spectacle' and action, aren't good here either. The 'action' in Aliens is good enough to offset the dumb chatter by all of the soldiers. This though, it's filmed underwater, and a lot of the 'action' is for building sized machines interacting and crashing. It also must have been hell to actually film, as a lot of the time the actors are waist deep in water, and that's just asking for urinary tract infections. It's a fine technical achievement, but that doesn't make it interesting, no sir.

Like most James Cameron movies, this was far too long. There's a full 45 minutes left after the ex-wife is brought back to life, as the army guy leaves for some reason and has to be stopped. It was utterly pointless and had no heft behind it.

The crew itself was irritating. They talk in a way that doesn't happen in real life. There's a couple of idiot rednecks in there, a 'nerd' who has a rat on his shoulder, and a giant with sea sickness. Most tokenistic is the sassy cowgirl who is an expert driver. There's no surprise that most of them didn't make a career as a star, despite being in such a huge movie.

 Would you recommend this? I hated this. To make matters worse, it turns out that I watched the extended version. Don't waste your time.

Final thoughts? Let's ignore the fact that the alien manipulating water to become a water sausage with a face on it, was obviously the inspiration for that water temple boss in Ocarina of time, and focus more on the aliens' plan to destroy the planet.

So, the aliens / AI (who are in the movie for about 10 seconds, total) threaten the world with giant tidal waves, they're shown growing ever larger in front of terrified crowds. However, the aliens plan is reversed after they watch a little TV and see the 'love' in the interactions between Ed Harris and his ex-wife. So... did they only do the waves thing as a threat, to get people to be nicer to each other, or were they really dissuaded from an attack by such a small thing? Either way, it doesn't reflect well on them. 

 

More of these, some of which I liked, can be found here.

 

1979: Phantasm (29th)

What else happened this year? Iran-Contra, Iran hostage situation, something with Iran? I need to read more history. [Turns out that Iran-Contra DID happen in 1979, though I'll stay very quiet if you ask me too many details about it].

What is the plot - in one sentence? A guy and his much younger brother try to work out the mysteries of a seemingly haunted funeral home.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? They kind of do, and work to destroy some MacGubbin or other to stop bad things happening there. Despite the older brother dying, all seems well, but then the kid gets sucked into a mirror and seemingly killed.

What is the meaning of the title? I have no idea what a 'Phantasm' is: Phantom / orgasm? Let's say yes. Probably it refers to that high-gravity world with a portal into it.

From right to left: Older brother, younger brother, older brother's boy hungry mate.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? Eh, it's VERY of its time, but I don't remember any women getting slapped around.

Any thoughts? This is a very dream-like horror movie. A lot of stuff is merely suggested, and there's a lot of shadow and darkness. Hardly anyone is visible in the movie, despite it being in a town. It's almost Brechtian how few people are in the movie. When investigating a scary situation in pairs, one goes ahead, and the other says 'stay here', at least three times in the movie. Each time, something horrible happens to the person that said the other should stay behind, but you follow it because that's how this movie is.

The main bad guy is 'The Tall Man,' an unsettling looking undertaker who it turns out is from another dimension. He's immensely strong, commands an army of zombie dwarves, and has some violent and magical weaponry. He's also shown lifting a coffin on his own at least a couple of times. He's a great villain, and very spooky, despite being tricked into falling into a perfectly square hole, in a convoluted plan at the movie's end. As this is the first of, oh, 5 movies in the Phantasm series, it's lucky that it'll take more than a mere mineshaft tumble to stop the Tall man.

The two brothers have a few allies in the town. A couple of women (who end up dead) and a guy with a ponytail. He apparently sells ice cream to kids. My stomach says that he shouldn't be anywhere near kids. He's also very touchy feely with the boy. Let's just say that alarm bells were ringing, not just the ice cream type.

This same fellow later works out the entire plot from very little information. The kid puts his head into a portal, and explains that there are dwarves visible there. From that ponytail man extrapolates that the Tall man is harvesting human dead to another planet which has very high gravity, making the zombies into dwarf zombies. The plot is insane, and him understanding it so quickly is a sign that he's insane too.

Oh, and at the beginning, we meet a soothsayer woman, who warns the main kid (who I thought was a girl till quite late on), that he was in danger. I was sure that she'd turn up again at the end.

She didn't.

Would you recommend this? I would, but with a solid asterisk. It was much better than I thought it would be, and it was genuinely unsettling, despite the 'it was all a dream' logic. There are lots of spooky and creepy bits, and it's enigmatic enough to be fascinating. I can see why this is a cult classic, and it's a reminder that you need neither, logic, nor budget, to to make a scary movie.

Final thoughts? The Tall man is able to turn into a pretty lady, and use that form to seduce someone before killing them. We're shown the very horror movie juxtaposition of the tall man's face with some boobs. I could have done without that. Anyway, this was a cool, nightmarish movie which I will watch this again on a bigger screen and while less sober. 

Enjoy this? Why not read some more? You can do so by clicking, right, here. 

1975: Tommy (28th)

What else happened this year? Far out, I don't really know - was this the OPEC crisis? [No that was 1973 - There was Vietnam stuff and a lot of countries declaring independence, it seems].

What is the plot - in one sentence? Tommy is a boy struck deaf dumb and blind as a child, and his skills at pinball, as well as his miraculous recovery, lead to him becoming a leader of a cult.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? It was psychosomatic all along? Fuck knows, even by the standards of a rock opera, this was pretty enigmatic, but at the end Tommy has started a cult, finished a cult and ends up on the same hillside that he was seemingly conceived at.

What is the meaning of the title? Tommy is the kid and star of the show.

These new computer screensavers are getting really trippy.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? This is a very of-its-era movie. It's a rock opera by the Who, directed by Ken Russel, in the 1970s, so it's so over the top it's untrue.

There's a scene with a Frankenstein-themed child wedding, there's a molestation by Keith Moon, and, showing its age, Eric Clapton is there, and he's a dick. But, it was the 1970s, so, you know...

Any thoughts? This is a musical version of The Who's Tommy Rock opera. This was also nuts, and the plot, such as it was, was full of Rock Opera logic. This was a near constant stream of insane images and scenes: huge Butlins-style group exercise movies with a cast of hundreds, Eric Clapton as a guitarist-monk for a Marylin Monroe statue cult, Roger Daltrey running around without a shirt on. It is insane, highly choreographed nonsense, but I enjoyed it a lot.

The Who all make appearances - Daltry plays a deaf dumb and blind kid well, but a lot of that involves starting into space with a gormless manner. He comes around later, and his 'acting' improves. Keith Moon appears as a child molester, and Townsend and Entwistle are gatekeepers for Eric Clapton's church. They do... fine, but they're not the stars of the show.

The non-Who cast give it a better shake, Ann-Marie plays Tommy's attractive mother, who manages at one stage to make 'being covered in baked beans' alluring. Oliver Reed is a British holiday camp Greencoat who becomes Tommy's Step-dad. Despite being Oliver Reed, and despite killing the father when he returns from WWII, he's a positive character in the movie - which is a huge surprise. He inspires Tommy to start the cult, protects him from a molestation, helps him get laid, and fights to the death protecting his son. Sure. there are asterisks there, but I was just assuming that he'd be the villain. 

  Jack Nicholson appears as a horny doctor, and Elton John and Tina Turner arrive for parts and songs too. That Elton John is a professional pinball player on 10foot tall platform shoes is something amazing. It's also possible to look past the allegories in the plot - the critiques of masculinity, commercialism, religion and fervour, and the commercialism of religion - and just enjoy it for the imagery and madness. I note that this is something you would say to a baby watching TV, but I stand by it.

Would you recommend this? The most excessive movie by most excessive director, in probably the most excessive decade in cinema. This was mental.

I'd recommend it just for how over the top it was, but... I was disappointed that the music wasn't all that great. The who have some great songs, but very few of them were here.=, Pinball Wizard being the most famous of them,by a long way. It does include a great final scene though, with Daltrey running past a burning pavillion, climbing a mountain barefoot, and singing a catchy anthem. It's worth watching for that alone. This is really something.

Final thoughts? Daltrey spends half the movie 'disabled' and then miraculously stops when he sees himself in a mirror. It was psychosomatic? Probably, it's never addressed. However, after this he makes up for it, casting off his shirt and running, swimming, climbing mountains, running over a green-screen vision of volcanoes. Fair play to him then. Now? Not so much. 

 More of this can be found right here. 

1981: My Dinner With Andre (27th)

What else happened this year? My gut is telling me that blade Runner came out in this year. My gut is also telling me something related to Pol Pot... [Blade runner is pretty much right, and Cambodia has an 'election' which only one party was allowed to run, so close, but not directly Pol Pot related].

What is the plot - in one sentence? A playwright named Wally meets his an eccentric friend Andre for dinner: they haven't seen each other in ages.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? That's it. They talk at each other for hours, until the wait staff are practically begging them to leave, and then Wally heads home, seemingly eager to wake his partner and discuss things further. .

What is the meaning of the title? It couldn't be more plain, he's going for dinner with Andre.

This is the setting. If you've seen this picture, you could listen to the rest of the movie without vision, and you'd enjoy it as much.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? This is arty enough and pretentious enough to have not aged at all. You'd feel about this today as you would 40 years ago when it came out.

Any thoughts? This is very firmly in the cultural lexicon, so I was happy to get around to it, maybe enjoy it, maybe be a better person because of it. I was disappointed, however, that after a 5 minute introduction, it's just listening to Andre talking pretentious nonsense for 50 minutes. He tells about his experiences in Poland, in Scotland, his tours around the world, looking for meaning, and his incredibly pretentious plays and acting workshops. I struggled. Then I realised that it's probably making fun of this type of person, the wait staff seem to despise him, and there are a couple of glimpses from people around who seem to feel the same way that I did. 

 After this Wally starts to talk a little more. They're having a pretentious, academic discussion, and when Wally's plays are discussed they're ridiculous too. It's safe to say that neither of them is as clever as they think that they are. 

 However, is that the point? It suggests it might be by the response of the wait staff, who seem to view them as annoyingly as I did. I must admit, I struggled during the first... 50 minutes where Andre talked nonstop. After this, they get to discussing society as a whole. 

 Andre describes society being 'an Orwellian nightmare, where people are asleep' - which is obviously where John Carpenter got his inspiration for 'They Live' from. Together they discuss the need to challenge society (through terrible plays with human corpses as props in them), and that the 1960s were the peak of humanity, everything is in decline since then, See how it is now? Is it prescient? I don't know.

 All of their chat, hints at something interesting, that... Andre says, with all of the stress of life, and how unfulfilling life is, I can see why people cheat on their spouse - just to feel something. I'm guessing that his trips around the world, his recent behaviour which Wallace hints at in voice over, was the whole thing him justifying an affair he had? My guess is, yes.

Wallace says that he finds joy in the little things in life (cold coffee, being one, reading reviews another, Andre has traveled the world to find meaning, and says he shuns the material world. As ever, the guy who doesn't believe in society ends up footing the bill.

Would you recommend this? I would, if you view it as a comedy. If you view it as a serious piece, it's extraordinarily pretentious. I suppose I'd recommend it merely for the Simpsons video [click here for that.

I'll also say that with the staging (basically two people chatting for an hour and a half) and the two stars being in theatre, I'll guess that this was a stage play before being made into a movie. I also don't care enough to find that information out.  

Final thoughts? The food didn't play a major part (other than that Wally didn't understand what any of it was), but it was horrifying for seeing Wally eating a bowl of soup at one stage. It's a truly horrible thing to see. Why is he chomping soup?

It was also mildly amusing when he declared something as 'inconceivable.' My final question of the day though, is what exactly did Andre get out of this conversation, that he couldn't have gotten just talking to a wall instead?

 

 

I love you. If you love me, check out more of these when you click here.

1932: Trouble In Paradise (26th)

What else happened this year? Munich Putsch? Was that then? Did Japan invade China that year too? [Checked: that was 1923 and yes, Japan invaded Manchuria that year. Luckily that would be the last bit of bad news for Manchuria that century.]

What is the plot - in one sentence? An in-love thief couple find a new mark: a beautiful lady with a huge fortune.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? The bloke eventually falls in love with the mark, but he comes around at the end to be back with his wife, who takes a piece of jewelry as a payment for letting her sleep with her husband.

What's the meaning of the title? There's a central, seemingly perfect relationship going on, but it's broken up by a pretty interloper. It could also refer to the trouble in the paradise of the rich woman's life, as it turns out some business people are screwing her over.

This is a hard one to find decent pictures from, as so much of it is based on dialogue.... But here's the heiress and the thief bloke.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? This is a pre-code movie, which is very forthright about (hinting at) sex and other 'adult' events happening. The plot probably wouldn't happen today, but because it's too transgressive: The central plot is about a couple of thieves, and a rich, attractive woman who strings two suitors along. 

  The rich woman is shown to be a generally good person (she refuses to cut the wages at her company, for example), and when the affair between her and the male thief comes to an end, there's an admission that the real thieves in the land aren't the meager pickpockets and jewel-snatchers, but the one's who steal millions from millions of people. It's a thought that wouldn't be made on any mainstream movie today. 

  Other than that, the wife thief is shaken, but it's to unleash the wallet she pickpocketd from her future husband (the two have a meet cute where they steal stuff from each other without noticing).

Any thoughts? This is a pre-Code movie, which means that it was made before the Hays code was implemented on Hollywood movies. For movies in the 1930s, they can be remarkably frank about sex, murder, violence, and affairs, things that just couldn't go unpunished in movies when the code was applied. That's all well and good, but this one is an amusing, saucy tale which really stands up well. It feels like a (good) modern piece of TV, and for that sake I'll stick even less to the plot than I usually do, because you should see it.

The only thing that I didn't get was that the husband didn't allow either of his partners to eat potatoes, which led to them going to elaborate lengths to quickly and secretly eat potatoes. Other than the fact that it's funny to chomp down on spuds secretly, I didn't get 'why' that happened.

The plot's really just an excuse to put a bunch of jokes in, but a few of the plot points are just ridiculous. For example, in the first scene, the male thief steals from a wealthy gent in Venice, who despite his disguise is recognised by the guy he robbed.... and his memory is jarred by a conveniently placed gondola ashtray. I'm willing to forgive it, as this zipped by and was a lot of fun.

I'll also say that this movie also obviously influenced the movie 'Parasite' - as a criminal enterprise seeks to work within a family, eventually using their guile to steal from them and secure their own future.

Would you recommend this? Yes, this really was great. You should watch it.

Final thoughts? I liked this but I was stunned by just how much implied fucking there is throughout the movie. One of the suitors admits to just wanting to fuck her (he and the other suitor have a couple of earnest, amusing chats about their love life); at one stage a character is threatened with a spanking, and she looks VERY into it.

The thief wife is allowed into the woman's hosue to work as a secretary, and we're told that the former secretary had been fired for having a too active '... social life'. It's really weird to see the heavily implied sex and romance, followed by the three second kisses of the era. It's even weirder that the movie ends with the wife taking a payment for letting her husband fuck an heiress for a while. 

 There you go, guys, a good rec from me. Other pieces from this banal blog are here. I hope you're all just swell.

1992: Baraka (25th!)

What else happened this year? Yugoslav war stuff. Rodney King was this year too, I know that!

What is the plot - in one sentence? It's a non-narrative documentary movie filmed in various countries around the world.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? A lot of footage of various things is shown, religious practices, cultural practices, and then the focus moves more onto the mechanisation and urbanisation of the world.

What is the meaning of the title? Baraka is the Sufi word for Essence, breath, or blessing, according to wikipedia

It's very intereting to see 1990s general fashion, and what people did when there weren't phones to distract them.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? In a good way, this is very of its time. Good because that's what they were aiming for, a snapshot of various processes and rituals seen around the world today. There are also a lot of scenes of nature, which, to be honest, I wouldn't have minded being told where they were.

What is telling is that a lot of helicopter footage used in the move would now be drone footage - there's a scene where some flamingos are shown flying away from above, when they would have been less spooked by a smaller, quieter drone, possibly.

There's a large section showing the contrast between the spiritual and the modern, and it's in Kyoto, there's a scene in a temple, then scenes of people walking around.  In terms of fashion, mindset and looks, it seems more than a mere generation ago. Also distracting is that most of the children in this movie would now be middle aged.

There are some scenes of automation: people making cigarettes, people making (what would now be hopelessly outdated) computer boards, and other tasks which would now be done automatically.

Probably the only really jarring thing was some footage of the funeral pyres in India - it was pretty on the nose as I was watchign it during the peak of Covid-19 hitting India. There was some stuff in Auschwitch too, but everything done was done for reasons of interest.

Any thoughts? this is very similar in style to Samsara and Koyaanquotsi, both of which I have seen also. Samsara is the sequel to this movie, as it has a lot of similar themes and images to it. That means that it was very familiar, but still interesting. 

This is a very beautiful and intriguing piece of film, and which shows some great scenes and sights from around the world. The initial focus on religion and religious ceremonies, each more esoteric and pointless than the next: what god, I ask, would require padlocks to be kissed like that shown early on?

There are also scenes of industrialisation, of nature, including some great shots of volcanos (always a joy), and of civic places - most notably the giant cement car park that is Tiananmen Square - but only a couple of years after a bloody massacre. How strange and interesting that they let them film there then.

There are a lot of scenes of environmental destruction, and also noticeable is an overriding theme of the city life as a human body. Distant, sped-up shots of traffic flowing, with the underlying music sounding like a breath or heartbeat, shows the link between the people and the environments they are stuck in. 

One of the most interesting shots for me is a shot of a train station central plaza (probably New York, but it's not labelled), and it's shown for a long time in fast motion, people whizzing by, then not as no passengers go through, then a mass of people whizzing by, however, in this scene, there's a single woman who is next to a coffee kiosk, sitting, standing, moving from place to place over what must have been hours. It's a lovely thing to notice in all of the bustle.

Would you recommend this? I had seen the 'sequel' to this, Samsara, first, and it's an equally hypnotic piece of art. However, that movie leans into the environmental degradation and loss of autonomy of human work a little more. This movie has an extended scene of chicks being sorted - if they were male they're thrown into a blender, if they're female they're roped into a life of egg-laying after having their beaks blinted painfully. 

Animal treatment is shown in more detail in the sequel (where automatic milking is shown, for example), but you can sense the common theme. There's beauty in this planet, there's madness to the rituals which happen, but there's also sadness and inequality. Even in this movie there are still people scrabbling around in the dirt. It's interesting, but a reminder of the misery that so much of humanity endures daily.

Despite that, there's a weird waving and shouting frenzy in Cambodia (I think) where a group of men just danced and clapped and screamed around a temple, which was a lot of fun.

Final thoughts? As a snapshot of life on the planet at the time, this is very interesting and obviously its very well shot. You can tell that an awful lot of time has gone into every aspect of it. However, with all of these things, it does at times seem to appear like a two hours long HDTV demonstration in a department store's largest, crispest TV.

Despite that, it's an impressive piece of work and one I'm glad I saw. 

More of this nonsense can be found royt mhyuh