1974: Phantom Of The Paradise, The (50th)

What else happened this year? Watergate? Yep. That's enough for now.

What is the plot - in one sentence? A young musician has some of his music stolen by a nightclub-owning, record-priducing bigwig, and seeks revenge.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? He's tricked into writing an entire opera, is disfigured, and spends time getting revenge - Phantom Of The Opera style - on various miscreants before he's able to get revenge on the bigwig, whose name is Swan. The Phanton has a bunch of swans's tapes destroyed, which are in 'Dorien Grey' style, keeping him looking young. He ages immediately, and dies, and it seems like the Phantom does too, but he's shown playing the piano in the end credits. Look, it's a rock opera, the plot doesn't matter.

What is the meaning of the title? The playhouse they're operating in is named 'the paradise' - so he's the phantom of that.

So here's Swan on the left, the Phantom on the right, and blurred in the background is the 'muse', a singer named Phoenix. That's also enough.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? It's really of it's time. I mean really. There's a bunch of stuff about casting couches played for laughs, and the guy who is hired to sing in the club is a 'tough guy on stage' / 'camp guy behind the scenes' which isn't funny anymore. The weirder thing is that this is like Rocky Horror Picture Show without the songs, or the sense of humour, and it's still regarded as a cult hit by people I used to be friends with.

Any thoughts? The bigwig, Swan, is played by an odd looking little guy. It seems that his life's ambition, as he's already an immensely powerful record producer, is to open a nightclub called the Paradise. When he hears a nerdy guy obviously miming to a song on piano, he quips to an underling that the music is what he's been waiting on for... all these years. The music is some generic, sub-Elton John dawdling. All of the music in the movie is uninspiring.

The original singer, the guy on the piano, finds his 'muse' while trying to find Swan for various reasons. He's sure that she's perfect for the role immediately. However, she's not a good singer, looks small and frail, especially when surrounded by models and more glamorous looking people, and dances like a freaking maniac at least 4 times in the movie. Seriously, she bobs her head and makes a chicken wing dance while people go crazy for her. She's played by the same woman who was in the original Suspiria. for the record, and she's not very convincing here. Something similar happens when they find the 'Frankenstein' guy a singer who is to perform instead of Phoenix, that Swan chooses because of his talent - he plays with what would be referred to as camp sexuality - but his songs, and his singing, are mediocre at best. You wouldn't choose that guy.

Wikipedia tells that the music for the movie was written by the guy who played Swan. He's  who I know as the writer of 'Rainbow Connection,' a song made famous by Kermit the frog. He's apparently written many other songs and is genuinely famed, but in this movie the music is pretty generic, and not very entertaining. This is a real shame for a musical, as it puts a limit on how good the movie can be. 

 The Frankenstein guy, who I think is played for laughs but isn't funny, is electrocuted on stage by the Phantom - who is allowed to just roam around despite the fact that Swan is a control freak and has security cameras everywhere. The crowd, stunned at this literal death on stage, calms and then goes berserk for Phoenix who comes out and sings a soppy ballad. It's just a generic balled played out by someone who's not a great singer. The same three guys act as singers in three different bands, a send up of rockabilly, the beach boys, and sort of goth metal, but none of the songs is good, and as a satire, it's not very biting.

There's a lot of cocaine logic in this movie, and that's a problem. For example, we only learn quite late on in the movie that Swan's habit of recording everything is what keeps him looking 'young' and he's unable to be killed without a magic video recording being destroyed.

As for the phantom himself. He's robbed of his music, falsely imprisoned, and then squashed in a record player when he escapes. This squashing causes him to wear a mask and his need for vengeance means that he continues to cause havoc around the heavily-surveilled club until swan gets his comeuppance. The comeuppance is ill-explained even by rock opera logic.

Would you recommend this? No, I didn't enjoy this one. Perhaps coming so soon after Tommy, which was much more interesting. The logic wasn't sound, the performances not great. As a rock opera it was just pretty interesting, while as a 'comedy' rock opera it wasn't funny. I couldn't tell whether it was supposed to be one or the other, and I don't see why it's so highly regarded.

This is directed by Brian De Palma, and features the use of split screen to show two things happening at once. It's used in most of his movies, and only works sometimes. For example, Carrie is shown getting ready for her prom, while those other guys are shown getting ready to pour pig's blood on her. That makes sense. The uses here don't. I don't like that method and find it annoying at the best of times, and this wasn't the best of times.

Final thoughts? I've increasingly realised that 'cult' movies need to be viewed at the right time in life, at the level of sobriety or drunkenness, and a few other factors. They may even need repeat viewing to be appreciated. I think I was at the wrong level for all of these, and didn't enjoy it much. I'll suggest Rocky Horror, or Tommy,* which I didn't even particularly like, but that was much better at what this did.

What was Swan's plan? to perform an elaborate, live stage show every night at enormous expense? Isn't he already vastly wealthy? Would people we willing to pay huge amounts of money to watch a pretty shoddy Rocky Horror Knock off? Let's say yes and move on with our lives.

 This is the 50th one. I can;t believe it either. My dreams are coming true. The rest can be found right here.  

 

*this movie pre-dated Tommy.  I stand by everything else.

1935: Mutiny on The Bounty, The (49th!)

What else happened this year? While I'm sure there was 'build-up to WWII' stuff going on, I couldn't name anything specific. A surprisingly lengthy online search agrees with me.

What is the plot - in one sentence? The tyrannical navy captain Bligh of the HMS Bounty is overthrown on the way from the UK to the Pacific Islands, leaving the mutineers on a tropical paradise.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Bligh and his loyal crew are cast adrift, but miraculously reach land, and are able to return to where the Bounty is, for justice. At the end, a few of the mutineers are executed, one is allowed to be an officer on other ships, and the main crew of them get to some godforsaken island and sink their ship.

What is the meaning of the title? The ship is called the Bounty, they mutiny on it. God bless the 1930s and their literal movie titles. 

 

Clark Gable, mutiny leader, and 'the other guy'. Like most movies of this era, the two main male characters o through the same motions and beats of a romantic relationship and break-up. This romantic lagoon-side scene is given the beard of having two attractive Polynesian women hungry for them.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? It's all relatively well done seeing as there's a long period where some Victorian age Englishmen are on an island of Pacific island tranquility - but it is largely respectful (I'll admit a bunch of the 'natives' on the boat don't seem too happy about being dragged to Pitcairn at the end of it, but the main pacific island people at least seem brown enough to pass for it, the one worry might be the leader of the nation - a bloke called hiri-hiri, who I'm not sure what colour his skin is, what I am sure about is that he had a huge mole on his upper arm which needs to be looked at.

There's also a lengthy scene where, in a fit of hunger, some of the sailors go fishing and catch a shark. It's very clearly a dolphin they catch. A modern remake might identify what type of animal it was.

Any thoughts? So, this is based on a true story, methinks, and it usually comes in three acts: The conditions on the Bounty are unpleasant, and the captain (Bligh) is the most unpleasant of all. A mutiny is made to seem like the right idea. Secondly, the island paradise has to look like a real alternative for the men who've mutineed, and the last part deals with the repercussions of the mutiny. All three of these are done pretty well: the captain is ghastly, played by a fleshy-faced English fucker. His acts include stealing food, flogging a corpse, and other irrational punishments on his crew. He and a band of loyalists are set adrift, but amazingly find their way to land, which allows for the third act.

The island seems very nice, it's populated by nearly naked people, some pretty women, and a banana leaf barbecue that looks great. The central pair of the movie, Clark Gable (with no moustache, as the lead mutineer) and some other guy, both end up with native wives, which mild research shows is one of Marlon Brando's real-life wives. He knew how to pick them, as she's a dish. It's also very heavily implied that others are out and a-bonin' the native women.

The last bit, where the mutineers flee and end up on a rock, Bligh ends up in high command, and others are hanged, rightly or wrongly, is a bit bittersweet, even if it's not that historically accurate.

Would you recommend this? It's suitably 'grand' and epic, and an interesting version of a pretty well known story. I'll say this one is better than the Anthony Hopkins version I watched a while ago, and it has a really nautical feel. The one thing that dates it very badly is the in focus head-shots, particularly for the two main characters. It's jarring. they'll be having a very earnest conversation, and then it'll close up to their head and have a fuzzy surrounding to it. Other than that, this was enjoyable, entertaining take on an old tale, and it had a truly despicable Bligh, which is nice.

Final thoughts? The other guy, a young officer who had fallen in love with Clark Gable, ends up escaping punishment, evidently because of his class. He seems very chipper to be back on board at the end, despite having seen some of his old, much less blameworthy, friends hanged.

Anyway, this a very confident, modern-feeling movie, I'd recommend it.

Here we go! 49th one done. The others are all right here, waiting for you.

1952: The Big Sky (48th)

What else happened this year? Let's see... we'd be in Korean war times... Other than that, for me 1946 - 1966 is 'cold war stuff' which is very vague, but very right.

What is the plot - in one sentence? In 'The West' two (definitely not gay) guys seek adventure and their fortune, traveling with a bunch of French trappers, diplomatically protected by a beautiful Native American princess.

I don't have time for your nonsense, just spoil it for me? They overcome some obstacles (though not a bear, which I would have assumed from this) and are saved by the princesses tribe. She arranges to marry the least Kirk Douglasey one of the two men, and they have sex in a tent, but then leaves. After a while, he turns back, saying he'll see the rest of the men when they return for more trade next year.

What is the meaning of the title? They mention that out here in the frontier-lands, you get a really big sky, a few times.

Here's a scene from the end of the movie, where the two on the right have just had tee-pee sex. It goes: Uncle, Kirk Douglas, nephew of uncle, and princess. You watch this many movies, you don't need character names.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? Hmm... what's aged badly? There's a drunk-and-simple-minded-but-excellent-fighter of a Native American called 'Poor Devil' who is played by a guy whiter than me, but I guess that's how it was then. Surprisingly, the tribes seem to be played by genuine native american people, and the princess is very pretty, in fact she looks like an Indian-Caucasian friend of mine. A very brief look at any page says that this was the only movie that she was in, I can see why she made that decision, she's treated like that cat who's persued by Pepe Le Pew.

Any thoughts? This is a very episdoic piece of story, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it did feel a bit kitchen sink-ish. The two: fight, make friends, head to town, end up in prison where they meet one of their uncles, who leads them to a boat, where they fight a fire and some attackers, get into a battle with Native Americans (twice), hide in a waterfall, get back to the boat, defeat a bad guy called Streak (twice, once by outsmarting him), get shipwrecked, then end up back at the princesses camp. That's fine, it's a lot of events, but there's not really much in the way of character development or anything, it is at least it's fun to watch it all happen. You will agree though, that it's a great lot of danger and peril for what one of them to get laid by Native royalty, and the rest of the gang to rip off the rest of the tribes and getting some pelts to trade.

This is another of the great Western movies where there has to be a female to romance because it would be too gay if she wasn't there. This is particulary notable as the princess is close to being the only woman in the movie, and she doesn't say a word of English (she does have some adventures of her own though, and manages to get help to save everyone at the movie's climax).

There's also the addition of Streak, a guy with a streak of white in his hair like a skunk, who pops up a couple of times as the representative from a different company, he's the villain of the piece and a real asshole. The crew of the boat is a bit more fun, they include a few reprobates and a giant Frenchman who was almost definitely a wrestler or something.

Would you recommend this? So, after a short time, the two join a French pelt ship, and head up into uncharted territory. They have some adventures, and disembark from time to time to new adventure. If that description has hints of Aguirre: Wrath of God, and Apocalypse Now to it, that's fair, but it's not as good as those (though that's no crime).

Final thoughts? This was fine, it was certainly entertaining. A few extra thoughts:

Kirk Douglas and some other guy (tm) are in competition for the princess, and she chooses 'the other guy' at the end (they have sex in a tent, then he leaves, only to return - you can't blame him). But in this movie, Kirk Douglas is the nicer guy, and she probably should have fucked him, not that it's up to her of course.*

We first meet 'the other guy' whistling like a bird, something which gets a callback later on to help him get out of trouble - it would be too specific not to get a callback.

This movie also suffers from that most Western of Tropes: inexplicable narration. This time it's from the uncle of one of the boys, who gets them the job with the French boat, but I really don't know why the narration occurs. See also: handwritten notes or letters explaining what's going on, often in beautiful script, from presumably illiterate cowboys.

 

 

That's it! 48 done - I'm going to take a break at 50 because it's impacting my enjoyment of these movies. Anyway, this one and all others will be a click away.

2015: Brooklyn (47th)

What else happened this year? Brexit was about to happen, Trump was about to happen, but what actually happened? Oh, Australia beat Korea to win the Asian Soccer championships - despite not being in Asia. Politics wise? No idea.

What is the plot - in one sentence? It's the 1950s, and a girl moves to Brooklyn from Ireland, and is starting a life there before she returns 'home' following the suicide of her sister.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Her mother guilt trips her into staying extra time there, and a 'suitor' is brought out for her to ogle. But... it's only Domnhall Gleeson, and she had secretly married a really nice guy in America. She eventually heads back, guilty and excited to leave home for her other one.

What is the meaning of the title? It's where she ends up in New York, nothing very obscure there.

The weird looking one on the left is a divorced woman who lives in her boarding house.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No, on account of it being made recently and set in the past, it's not really able to age that badly. No one gets slapped around, either, which is noteworthy.

Any thoughts? I've mentioned nepotism of actors a few times in various things I've written. I'll use Domhnall Gleeson as the prime example of someone who has made a career because his father was an actor too. His character is meant to be a nice, Irish guy who is a good match for her, but he's just not convincing. It's no choice to choose between a pretty simple but nice guy you married, and a nice guy you haven't anyway. Making that second category ' Domnhall', you always choose the other guy. I'm glad she did.

Anyway, this unfolded a lot like a romantic movie, in essence it is - she ends up making the right choice and being with her new husband, who seems a very genuine and pleasant person. However, because of the movies I tend to watch, and the life I've led, I was expecting something hideous to happen - a rape, a murder, her boyfriend being abusive or something else awful, that it was a relief that the 'big turn' in the movie was the sister's suicide and the crux of the story being that she'd be guilt-tripped by her Catholic mother into staying in Ireland. It's life changing, sure, but not as graphic as I'd anticipated. I had a similar experience with that kid's movie Ponyo, where I was sure people would be dying in that.

Anyway, this is a nice, well shot and well depicted of the era of the growth into confident adulthood by Saoirse Ronan, who gives a really nice performance. The main theme is the guilt she has of travelling overseas and making a name for herself, but there would also be guilt in staying in Ireland. The movie also captures why you would want to leave Ireland at the time, you can see the appeal of the new world. As someone who's moved around a lot myself, I sympathise with it.

Would you recommend this? It was a very well done movie with a calm confidence about it. I liked it much more than I thought I might. There is however, a lot of time attending and talking about dances, which is something I've brushed over. 

Final thoughts? When she arrives, she's all nervous and lives in a boarding house for young women, but her confidence grows over time. There are two, more confident girls there, who comment on how ugly she is, but the fashion of the time means that everyone is ugly. That's my final thought.

 Here we go 47th one finished. - I hope you can't tell how much anguish this is causing me. The rest are here.

2018: Sisters Brothers, The (46th)

What else happened this year? Jamal Khashoggi gets hacked up in a Saudi embassy in Turkey in yet another reminder that Saudi Arabia is a shithole. For the record, I spelled that name correctly first time.

What is the plot - in one sentence? In 'The Old West,' two assassin brothers are charged with killing a scientist who may or may not have the secret to getting a fortune in gold.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Their boss is known as the Commodore; another man sent to find the scientist has fallen for his philosophy, and these two are joined by the brothers to find gold. After a mishap with the chemistry, the other two die, and the more unreliable brother with only one arm, they head to kill the Commodore. Finding him dead, they head to their mother's house where she bathes them.

What is the meaning of the title? The Sisters Brothers, Eli and Charlie, are the stars of the show.

Here they are, and there's attribution at the end in case wikipedia's lawyers come after me. Also 'Brothers By Blood. Sisters By Name' makes it seem like it'll be a comedy, not a harrowing tale where a horse loses an eye from a bear attack. [source]

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? Na, too recent for that, and though the movie features almost no women at all, the one they do talk to seems to help them. Good news. Actually, I just thought of something: a British-Pakistani bloke is playing a German fellow in America, and I think that someone, somewhere will find a problem with that.

Any thoughts? John C. Reilly and Joaquin Phoenix are the two brothers - the more reliable one, and the more talented killer, respectively. The scientist is a Riz Ahmed, and the other guy working for the Commodor was Jake Gyllenhall. The scientist is meant to be very charismatic, and talks about his desire to start a commune, and has a certain pull to him. The first person pulled to him is Jake Gyllenhall, which gives the whole thing a much more homo-erotic aspect than it would with another actor. Nothing wrong with being gay, but if that guys straight, I'm sober.

The brothers seem to be famous, they are known everywhere they go, and have a hinted at charisma and draw of their own. Their traumatic past is hinted at too, one of them tells the scientist that the other one killed their abusive father, and they took a job as it allowed the less reliable one to earn a living while being drunk all the time. Joaquin Phoenix, playing the drunker brother, spends a lot of time crying in the movie, and the other brother spends a lot of time looking out for him.

The whole thing does get a little episodic: they escape from a brothel where everyone wants them dead, have run-ins with assassins, deal with snake bites and bear attacks, but nonetheless it's an enjoyable movie.

Would you recommend this? I haven't read the book it's based on, but I can see that being good. This was fine, I enjoyed it, but I think that the extra characterisation that a book would potentially make it a bit more enjoyable.

Final thoughts? The Commodore is only seen in passing at a few stages until you see him in his coffin, but it was nice that it was Rutger Hauer, who has now gone to his own coffin, sadly.

I'm pretty sure though, that the science of the movie doesn't hold up - they pour a volatile liquid into the water, which makes gold gleam up to be (quickly) picked up - it doesn't seem to be scientifically sound and causes horrific burns to those who handle it too much. Just as well it's only a movie.

 

OK, there we go, 46 down - the other 45 can be found here, and ones I write after it will appear there too. What a great idea.

1957: Run of the Arrow, The (45th!!)

What else happened this year? So, I was surprised to find that a virus escaped from China, spread around the world, and killed hundreds of thousands. I'd not heard of something like that before, and certainly hope that it doesn't happen again. [here's a link, there was also another in 1967].

What is the plot - in one sentence? An inexplicably 'Irish' Confederate Soldier leaves the U.S. To live on the wild.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? He does, eventually he becomes the 'translator' for a Native tribe, but after some betrayals, there's a battle, and he realises that he is neither American nor Native. He's certainly not Irish. The movie has the fucking gall to end with 'The end of this story can only be written by you' on the screen.

What is the meaning of the title? Running the arrow is a ceremony where you're executed... but with a chance to survive. They fire an arrow, and let you run towards it without shoes on, once you reach it, they chase you down, with shoes on, so they get you. It happens twice in the movie, and probably never else in history.

So the bloke on the left is an Irish sharpshooter who goes native. He looks about as convincing as you'd imagine. The bloke on the right is apparently native American in the movie, but his wig, and his legs, are fake in this - he was an amputee in real life. 

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? I'd argue that the whole thing hasn't aged well. But most of the problems today would be around race. A very strange scene happens when a guy pretending to be Irish is bathed by a Spanish woman pretending to be a Native American, in order to sweat out a fever. 

Any thoughts? 'This is the exact same plot as Dances with Wolves', you may be thinking. And it is. The Dustin Hoffman pre-cursor is played by some fat guy pretending to be Irish, in one of the worst Irish accents you've ever heard. It must have been embarrassing to have to do scenes with him, even if you're a white guy in brown facepaint. 

There's also a movie coincidence that is too coincidental even for movie logic. The guy the Irish man shoots at the beginning heals and becomes the enemy of the tribe that the Irish guy joins. This, and the conflict at the end, feels tacked on like no one's business. They agree to build a fort somewhere, they decide to build the fort elsewhere, there's a massacre.

There's a few things here to note, but not of note. There's a deaf and dumb kid that he adopts, who gets stuck in quicksand, something which was only ever problematic in old Western movies. There's also a very ripped Native Chief who looks and is named suspiciously like Charles Bronson. The final battle also features blood effects instead of stomach-clutching, so that's a step towards more realistic violence.

On the whole though, this pretty much sucked.

Would you recommend this? Na this was a pretty shitty 50s western movie, there are plenty of those, and plenty of ones which are good, too.

Final thoughts? Pretty forgettable. So forgettable in fact that I had to read up what the plot was. Despite watching this sober only a few days ago.I might have to watch some European movies for the rest of the 50s, as I'm getting might tired of this Western stuff. 

Let's hope there's more enjoyment from the next movie, the others can be found here.

1968 Hour Of The Wolf, The (Aka Vargtimmen) 44th

What else happened this year? Riots, riots everywhere. Which changed nothing.

What is the plot - in one sentence? On a Swedish island, an insomniac artist and his harried wife deal with what may or not be visions and hallucinations which plague them.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? It's unclear - perhaps the wife has been shot dead, perhaps just shot once in a graze. He's seemingly abducted by the forces on the island, and she tells of how she watched him deal with demons, and wonders if she'd loved him more, or less, would she have been able to help.

What is the meaning of the title? He very helpfully tells us that it's the hour of the night which is hardest to stay awake for, and the night when most people die, or are most likely to have night terrors. Something similar with witching hour. He's an insomniac, and seems to be most frightened by this hour, also.

Here are the two main characters, he's obsessing over something, she's quietly fretting, neither of them sleep well. They probably wonder why their son doesn't visit very often.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No, other than the whole haunting thing the only thing which really hasn't aged that well is a shirtless Max Von Sydow drowning a child, he's shirtless and it looks a little more sinsiter than it would have back then. Simpler times. 

Any thoughts? This is a weird, sppoky little movie with a lot of hidden depth behind the ominous atmosphere. It's eveident that this had a large influence on the movie 'The Shining', as it features a couple in isolation, he's an artist, and they're haunted by sinister upper-crust types who may or may not be there). That, and the axe scene being taken almost directly from 'The Phantom Carriage', it's amazing how much of that movie was influenced by Swedish cinema.

There's a lot of ambiguity about who is and isn't there in the movie. Is the wife hallucinating too? Is she a ghost? Is the child that he kills actually there? Is the flashback to his old lover real or not real? It all adds to the atmosphere, which peaks when they attend a very creepy dinner party, and are serenaded by a tiny, living puppet. There are also allusions to the creatures on the island being either werewolves or vampires.

Would you recommend this? Yes, every time I've seen a Ingmar Bergman movie I've been afraid that it'll be too deep and droll, but this was to the point, pretty spooky and pretty entertaining on a superficial level. There's other levels to it too, but those can be ignored or have attention paid to them if you'd like - for example, him being made-up by a Dracula figure suggests what? Allusions to various operas too, suggest something more than the more obvious vampire and werewolf allusions.

Final thoughts? Every time I've been impressed by his work. Every time it's been put off because I'd think it was too intense, and it isn't really - even the seventh seal. I'll check out more, happily.

There you go, 44 down now, the other 43 are here.

1994: Serial Mom (43rd)

What else happened this year? Forget politics (there's something Serbian here, sure, and was 1994 when Rwanda was kicking off? - yes it was.), I went with a representative team to play some kids from out of state and pacific islands, and we lost one match 104-4.

What is the plot - in one sentence? Kathleen Turner is a seemingly content urban housewife, with a family she loves, a house she's proud of, and a secret.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? The secret is that she very quickly becomes a murderer, killing a number of people to protect her family and then for basically no reason at all. She's captured, and becomes a celebrity during her trial where she defends herself and is set free, seemingly to continue killing.

What is the meaning of the title? She's serial killer second, mom first. She's called 'serial mom' by the press who look to deify her during her trial, in another pretty tame satire. Is it a pun? If it is, it doesn't quite work.

Here's the family, still going to church despite being ostracised by the town. There's Matthew Lillard, Kathleen Turner, That bloke who's in everything, and Ricky Lake. There's also a white section at the bottom that I'm too lazy to cut out. I quite like it now.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? She's referred to as 'a mental' which I don't think you can do these days, but the sentiment is right - she does at very least need significant mental health attention. She does a lot of murders which just aren't possible in this day and age of constant surveillance. and that's both a shame and a joy.

Any thoughts? Look, this wasn't great. In the John Waters universe, it's safe to say that while Kathleen Turner, gets it, as does Ricky Lake as her horny daughter, the rest of the cast aren't quite up to it.

She's a seemingly normal woman, but she's got a secret life as a murderer, she first murders to help her family - killing a cheating boyfriend, for example - but by the end she's just out of control - killing for someone wearing white after Labour day, for another example - but in the meantime she's become a celebrity. It's meant to be a satire, but enough time has elapsed that it's not very cutting anymore.

One of the deaths involves pushing an Air conditioning unit from a higher floor onto someone's head, in a scene that Fargo the TV show would steal a mere 25 years later. She then defends herself in court while the TV crew who are making the TV movie about it watch her actively, and the family sells books about the ordeal. It's satire, but pretty tame by today's standards, it's also not very funny. There's a chance that the reasons that this is such a cult classic will become evident on re-watch, but I don't really want to do that right now.

Would you recommend this? John Waters is a subversive force. It's great to see someone genuinely subversive given a chance at mainstream stuff, However, this wasn't great. As a satire, this is pretty tame. As a comedy murder movie, it's also pretty tame.

Despite a few surprising cameos - Patti hHurst is stabbed next to a payphone, L7 play as a band with visible labias, Brigid Berlin the Warhol Star is there too, it never really kicked off. It's a cult classic, but a lot of cult classics require a need to be rewatched to get jokes which have been missed, I don't see myself rushing off to watch this specifically again.

Hmm... It was ok though. If you want to see a satire of suburban life by John Waters, that isn't a gross-out, see Polyester, which is a million times better than this and is both stupider and more clever than this.

Final thoughts? This is a straight movie made by a subversive person. That's it. I've been going out of my way to watch movies that are already on the list, because I'm tired of writing this, and I think that's very evident here. I'll take a break and come back refreshed. I'll say again. I love you. 

 

The rest of this century of cinema ordeal that I'm subjecting myself to, can be found...

 

Here. 

1950: All About Eve (42nd)

What else happened this year? The Korean War started. By whom? It depends on who you ask. But let's recognise that today Korea is a pretty cool place to go to, while North Korea is a hellscape.

What is the plot - in one sentence? The titular Eve is a young wannabe starlet who ingratiates herself to an established star (named Margo), gaining some fame and exposure for herself.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Despite Eve's 'aw shucks' naivety, she's really crafty, and manipulates her situation and Margo to become very famous and renowned. When he discovers the truth about her past (something about an affair with her boss) an unpleasant reporter binds Eve to him, as he's able to make or break her. Eve, without the friends or support group that Margo had, is in a much worse situation than the established star Margo. At the movie's end, a new wannabe, a teenager fan of Eve's, breaks into Eve's house and says the same things that Eve did to Margo in the first scenes.

Probably also telling is that this is a tale about the friendship between two Middle-aged women (Margo and her best friend), which is unusual enough today, as they are still probably underrepresented in the arts

.

What is the meaning of the title? Eve is the newcomer star in the show, and the tale we get is all about her.

 

So, Eve is on the Left, Margo on the right, have a bit of a tiff. Margo's boyfriend (the one who looks like Phil Hartman) is behind her, while her friends are the visible ones on the stair. The one's obscured by Eve are the seedy reporter type, and Marilyn Monroe, If you want a better picture of everyone, you'd have to find someone less lazy than me.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No. Weirdly, though the thing takes a really sinister turn when the reporter tells Eve that 'You belong to me'. He also gets to nail Marilyn Monroe, who is in it for a little while, so we can assume he's been doing the same thing to her?

Any thoughts? This was really good. All of the central performances were excellent, and it was a very interesting, well done movie. What's interesting is that Margo, a theatre actor, is 40, but is engaged to a 32 year old director. But because of the era and the fashion, he looks way older than she does. The couple are supported by their friends, and the relationship between both couples, and the tides of it seem very genuine. 

The central conflict of the movie seems to be between people who value people, and people who want to manipulate them to their end. We can contrast the genuine friendships between the Margo, her boyfriend, and her friends, with the support they offer each other to their lives and careers, with the lonely misery and manipulation that the reporter and Eve herself show. They may have success, but at what cost? The cyclical ending, where Eve gets her own hanger-on, is pretty telling too.

Would you recommend this? Yep. Even if this isn't something you think you'd like, it's worth a watch. It's central performance by Bette Davis is regal, and filled with emotion: pain and joy, and is very strong without being melodramatic. It's all ably supported. This was excellent.

Final thoughts? This is worth checking out. I hadn't seen the Eve character in anything before, but a quick Wikipedia search says that she's the granddaughter of Frank Lloyd Wright, which is kinda cool I guess.

Here we go, 42nd one down. I'm racing through it. Thank Christ I don't have any kids to look after. If you have some free time and want to read more inane thoughts, check here.

1987: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (41st)

What else happened this year? For something so recent, all I really know for sure is that Thatcher was elected, and maybe that Master Of Puppets Came out. [Edit: was right on both counts]

What is the plot - in one sentence? So, after the events of the First Nightmare on Elm Street, the one surviving girl is now a psychiatrist for a group of teens in an asylum who suffer similar night terrors and have to deal with the dream-invading monster Freddie Krueger.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? It turns out that all of the teens there were children of the vigilante group which killed Freddie Kreuger. Using some hypnosis and the skills of one of the group, they are able to enter a dream together and fight Freddie. A doctor at the asylum is given hints by a very spooky nun on how to defeat Freddie (hint: burying his body) and that eventually happens. All is well for the survivors, but a sequel is hinted at, and then delivered a little while later.

What is the meaning of the title? They go into dreams to fight Freddie, that's fair enough. It's also the title of a very bouncy song at the end of the movie.

Tongues for the memory. 

 

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No, surprisingly, though it's VERY of its time, generally everyone is treated pretty well. The final three to survive of the gang are a black guy and two females. There's a very strange scene where a nurse seduces a young boy, getting out her boobs and then appearing with Freddie Kreuger head, but... hey, I liked that. There's also the fact that Freddie Kreuger's mum, as a ghost-nurse, tells the doctor about how Freddie was conceived (she was locked in an asylum over a weekend and raped repeatedly) - the nun being a) Freddie's mother and b) a ghost are up there as among the least surprising plot twists of all time.

Any thoughts? There are some really inventive deaths here, and the whole thing is impressive. There's a death where Freddy is a puppeteer sending a guy to commit suicide, and another death where a TV-obsessed girl is sucked into a TV which is a great set piece. The whole thing is a lot of fun, with a few scares, and some cool special effects. It's not high art, but it's a lot better than I would have expected.

It also features a lot of things which you think are something changing into something else by magic, which is always unsettling: a girl changes to a skeleton, an attractive nurse turns into Freddie Krueger, and a couple of other times. It worked on my drunk ass.

Would you recommend this? I have seen the first, and I like it. I have seen that one from the mid 90s where they're making a movie about nightmare on elm street, but it starts affecting all of the actors in it. That's a good one (Wes Craven's New Nightmare), but I haven't seen any of the others, and I'm happy to have it that way.

The only downside is the is the main woman, Nancy. She's really annoying in this movie, which is weird because in the other two that I've seen, she's not bad. But here, as a young doctor's assistant (?) she's really annoying, and her relationship with the doctor is creepy and unconvincing. Oh, John Saxon fights CGI skeleton and it looks like shit, but other than that this is about as good as a 3rd part of a horror series can be, I'd rather watch it than the Exorcist 3, for example, and that's a good movie.

Final thoughts? Patricia Arquette is cute in this, she's essentially the star of the movie, though I don't know how old she was when it was filmed. But on the whole this is not bad, with a few frightening bits, Lawrence Fishbourne in a fun role, and I was happy to find that the old lady doctor who ends up firing the two other doctors, is still alive at 97. Actually, was Nancy meant to be a doctor already? It was only a year or so since the end of the first Nightmare. Weird.

Here we go, that's 41 down, if you want more of my disconnected thoughts, check this.

1925: The Lost World (40th!)

What else happened this year? 1925? I really struggled to think of anything. That was 'my struggle' - Mein Kampf was released, and so was the Great Gatsby. Two books which hint at the future.

What is the plot - in one sentence? A group of people look to prove a scientist right or wrong - he's laughed at for claiming he's found a 'lost world' filled with dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? They find a plateau which has plenty of them. They muck around there for a while, a couple fall in love, and then they all head back with one dinosaur, which rampages around London before setting off to sea (to drown surely, it can't swim that far). Amidst all the chaos, the couple get married, some reputations get restored, and it's a happy ending?

What is the meaning of the title? Pretty simple this one, it's a lost world that they find.

I found this allosaurus' legs to be needlessly provocative. This lockdown has gone on too long. 

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No, but a solid proportion of the movie is reaction shots by the 'one woman' in the group - her father had go lost with the original scientists group. There's also 'ape-men' who are obviously in black face, and a white guy pretending to be an Indian slave, both of which lead to people shitting kittens today. Speaking of kittens, there's a scene where a stork is thrown on screen and looks really uncomfortable, it probably wouldn't happen today. Before we see dinosaurs, there are monkeys, parrots, crocodiles, bear cubs, and peccaries; but after they get to the top of the plateau, it's all stop motion animals except for a helpful monkey they 'befriend'.

Any thoughts? The notes on the 'lost world' are presented by the pretty daughter of a guy who went missing there. A team is dispatched to find him and that world, and it's led by a survivor of the same voyage. He's also the world's angriest man. He's shown to be absolutely psychotic, it seems that his fake beard seems to be itchy. He's declared a liar, is vindicated, but it's met with shrugs by the skeptics in the group because he's such a grouch. No wonder he's angry.

Anyway, this rushes along. After assembling the crew, they're on the Amazon after 25 minutes, and at 37 minutes, a pteranodon is there and dropping rocks on them. It's a lot of stop motion dinosaurs after then, and on the whole they're good.

Despite the unnecessary sexy legs of the allosaurus, the stop motion is entertaining. It's great for the time and also pretty violent. Necks are bitten, and others are gored with horns, in extended fights. I'm not joking when I say this is more entertaining than Kong Island fights, which are weightless and despite taking a huge amount of time and knowlege, never fully convince.

Anyway, after some dino-fighting, there's a volcano, they get free with the use of a monkey carrying a rope, they bump into some other explorers (of course) and are saved by a monkey they have enslaved to help them with a rope, they bring a dinosaur back, it all happens pretty quickly. It's a hell of a tale.

Would you recommend this? It was fun and not particularly taxing - a nice spectacular piece of entertainment. No problems there. It was much more entertaining than Kong Skull Island, despite looking like shit with hindsight it's got charm that Kong just doesn't have.

Final thoughts? There's a tacked on romance in there. A skeptical scientist who is there to prove the contrarian view, brings along a young man he's friends with for no reason stated. He's handsome, the one woman is pretty (in a 1920s kind of way), and before too long, they end up in a cave, where they have implied cave sex, and declare love for each other despite not talking before. There's a subtitle that basically says 'whatever happens on the plateau stays on the plateau,' but they marry at the movies end, which is nice for these fictional characters. Anyway, this is based off that book, which I may have to check out. I love adventure books from that era.

Here we go. 40 of these done, the other 39 are here. If you're reading this later on, there will be even more there, but this will still be 40th.

for the record, the version I watched was about 90 minutes long.

1993: Falling Down (39th)

What else happened this year? Czechoslavakia broke up. There was also some trouble in Yugoslavia. Break-ups are always difficult.

What is the plot - in one sentence? A hard-working dad is having a bad day, and tries to get home to see his wife and kids, at any cost.

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? Trouble is, he's not a hard-working dad, he's an abusive lunatic. He heads to his 'family' despite them having a restraining order on him. He tries to make it there, leaving a trail of destruction behind him, but he's gunned down by an old detective on his... last day before retirement.

What is the meaning of the title?I have no fucking idea. He literally falls down from a pier at the movies end, but I think it's a metaphorical 'falling' of him from 'society'

He was told to 'get off my lawn' in this instance by some gangsters. He didn't like that, but he'd be happy to say the same to them if roles were reveresed. Here's the source.

  

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? The whole thing is VERY of its time. Michael Douglas' character is an abusive husband, but doesn't get to slap his ex-wife around on screen, but he is shown to be abusive. So... that's something. Meanwhile the policeman, played by Robert Duvall, is utterly henpecked by his own wife.What a pair they are.

Any thoughts? I have a good mate who really likes this movie and always talks about it. After seeing this, hat is a concern. Michael Douglas, seemingly at the end of his tether, just gets out of his car which is stuck in traffic and heads through the city, picking fights and pointing out foibles of modern life.

However, I couldn't get whether he was 'pointing out things he hates about modern life' or just showing himself as an asshole. He holds guns to peoples heads, asking them rhetorical questions. Yeah that ought to get some genuine answers, Mike. From this vantage, it looks suspiciously like a Boomer rage: why can't I get a breakfast in a shitty fast food place when it's lunch time? Why is coca Cola so expensive now? Why are there so many beggars around? Why does everyone speak Spanish, I thought this was America? Why has my wife left me? He's just a Trump voter, before Trump voting was an outlet.

I also wasn't a fan of Robert Duvall's character or situation. He's a hen-pecked husband, retiring that day (!) who is being moved to Arizona against his will. We're also told that he's never once fired his gun in anger during his long career. You'll be as susprised as I was when that changes by the end. 

You'll be more surprised that he tells his wife to piss off, which ought to be a good alternative to the therapy / divorce that she needs. He also gets his job offered back to him by his boss, the same boss he told to fuck off live on a TV interview. I can only assume that at the end of this, he'll have to go to Arizona alone, as he'll have lost his job, and his wife is so fragile that she would have commit suicide by his 'outburst.'

The police force is another whole story. I guess because of the 90s, and I guess also because it's LA cops just a year or so after those riots, but they're a real pack of assholes. Aside from one friendly cop, who acts as the 'daughter' figure for Rob D, the rest are some real dicks. You'll be happy to hear that despite the obvious drawback of being shot with a sawn-off shotgun, she seems to be fine at movie's end. 

The other police guys won't listen to Robert Duvall's character because they're too smug, coked up or stupid, which means he's got to solve the case on his own. ACtually how did they not stop him on his journey? He was only walking everywhere, they'd have caught him in two minutes. 

Anyway, smug detective in a suit pisses off, a couple of cops who say that they can't do anything because of budget cuts, and some of the worst police work ever seen in a movie means that at the end it's Robert Duvall vs Michael Douglas. Michael Douglas is eventually suicided by cop. That would have been Robert Duvall's last day, and it was his first time shooting his gun. He was THIS close to retirmement, can you believe it?

Would you recommend this?Not really. It was overlong in that 90s action movie style, there were a lot of dumb cliches, and in essences it's a boomer rage movie. There's enough of that. Also, this was done better (albeit later) God Bless America, which is this done a bit better, with the obvious mental illness gone: Michael Douglas' character is obviously deranged.

Final thoughts? This wasn't very good or fun. It wasn't quite as 'on the pulse' as say 'God Save America,' and wasn't even as enjoyable in a 'normal guy turns badass' like John Wick Style. Move on, and reconsider friendship with anyone who tells you otherwise.

Ready for more of this? I'll not lie, it's dragging. More are here if you want 'em. Take care!

1928: The Man Who Laughs (38th)

What else happened this year?A bunch of Soviet era stuff, while in America, they continue to party and sit on flagpoles, while they watch... Amelia Aerhart flying around. (mostly right, - Amelia was flying around then, and the other two predictions were mostly vague enough to not be wrong either).

What is the plot - in one sentence? A man who was mutilated as a boy to have what looks like a permanent grin, and the blind but beautiful woman he is with, travel around as part of a freakshow in wig-wearing-era France*

I don't have time, just spoil it for me? So... it turns out that the boy was mutilated as a political punishment for his dad - a nobleman- 's betrayal of some royal or other. This is discovered when he's a now-mutilated man, and after some political wrangling, he's made a lord and forced to marry some evil noblewoman. However, there's some civil unrest in the city, and he's a figurehead against the unfairness of the society, and he's able to use the crowds to escape on a boat with his mates and his true love, the blind gal.

What is the meaning of the title? It's a mildly ironic thing- as although his face is permanently in a grin, he's often very sad, and he's rarely laughing.

This is his 'permanent smile' - and he reminded me a little of Lin-Manuel Miranda. However, our grinning man wouldn't be so cocky to cast himself in a movie he's directed, so I prefer him.

Anything that's not aged well? Does a woman get slapped around? No one gets slapped around, but this is another appearance of a blind person. There have been a few on this list already. I wonder why it's so prevalent in movies? I'm also too lazy to put any more thought into it now. The whole thing has aged pretty interestingly, which I think is because it was already pretty weird when it came out.

Any thoughts? It starts off with the torture of a nobleman, and the promise of the mutilation of his kid. Cut to a mutilated kid shuffling around in the snow, abandoned by his people. He passes a few corpses, takes what must have been a bone-breaking tumble, and picks up a girl from the corpse of her mother. That child will be his love interest when they are adults later on. They are lucky to meet a kindly freakshow operator or they'd have starved and frozen. It's a hell of a start.

The hero of the story, the smiling-man, known as Gwynplaine, has been hacked up to be in a permanent rictus smile. This is something which evidently brings him great shame and which he hides whenever he can. For whatever reason though, audiences find it hilarious. 

Be it in a freakshow, or in the 'House Of Lords' when he's installed there for various reasons, the audience is besides themselves laughing at him. Weird reaction there guys. He's taken from the freakshow to high society for reasons too French and stupid to even consider here, but the division between the 'freakshow' / carnie crew who care for each other, and the backstabbing, hate-filled affair-having upper-crust is an obvious one. 

 Later on, the same midget from the Unknown arrives. I hope that he had a good life, and wasn't just forced to be in a bunch of movies against his will.

So, let's ignore the fact that Gwynplaine and the baby he adopted when he was a child (she's called Dea), are probably too close to marry. If they've been together since birth in her case, that would be a brotherly love by the time of adulthood, surely? And let's instead focus on the fact that her job in the fair is to be both pretty and blind. She's also acting (their father figure guy is a playwright), but no one is there to see her act. She is pretty, in a 1920s sort of way, and reminded me of Celene Dion, but prettier.

 Gwynplaine worries that Dea doesn't love him because of how he looks (ignoring the closeness of their relationship anyway), but as a blind woman, she would neither know what he looks like, or care about it if she did.

Contrasted to Dea is a horrible Duchess who Gwynplaine eventually has to marry (seriously, there's a load of bloodline, betrayal and inheritance and coincidental meetings in this movie which I, and it seems the movie itself, took no interest in). She looks weirdly like Madonna (before all the botox), and in a surprising moment, we see a sliver of her buttocks while she bathes. In an even more surprising moment, she, heartbroken at something or other, and weeps on a pet monkey for a very long time. She's meant to be a villain, but seems a little crushed by the system she's been born into.

Would you recommend this? Read the previous sentence about the monkey. That's a yes already. Anything else was a bonus, as this was a very strange, though overlong, little parable. There were a lot of freaks, a lot of weird intrigue - I've not mentioned the 'comedy' scenes in the royal court for a reason, they were a drag, but quite entertaining.

With the plot involving intrigue, coincidences, bloodlines, and interlapping with a human drama about a young couple trying to get by, it was quite intersting. The performances were quite affecting and effective. I was very happy that it all ended well, with the main villain drowned and mauled by a dog.

Also interesting is that this movie (according to wikipedia) added a few sound effects to it, to compete with 'the Jazz singer' which was released a year or so before. There were sounds of crowds and background noises built in - once to trick a blind girl into believing that her true love was still alive when they think he's dead - which wouldn't have been possible before, instead we'd have had to listen to some orchestra, or some bozo playing a piano. It didn't make much of a difference to my viewing here, and I wonder if it would have at the time.

Final thoughts? The wolf in this, who is shown to be a particularly large and loyal dog, is called 'Homo' - and title cards with his name in it never failed to make me chuckle. The dog belongs to the kindly freakshow operator / playwright / warlock who takes the two main characters in, and adds them to his stage show. He's just another unsung hero in art who took in foundlings and seems a genuinely good guy despite his humble life. The contrast to the main bad guy, who isn't well defined, but has breeding and wants our main characters dead, is also clear. Anyway, this movie goes out of its way to show that Homo the dog could get back on the boat that they're escaping on, and that makes it a happy ending in my book.

Also, I just found out that the main, grinning guy was also in Casablanca as that German officer who gets ratty in the bar, and the main skinny bloke from the Cabinet of Cagilari. Amazoing to think they're all the same guy. Amazing.

Anyway, hope you're enjoying these. If you want more, click here!

 *American movie, based on a French novel, seemingly set in England - let's split the difference and move on with our lives?