#378- Rain Man

Quick recap: A selfish jerk kidnaps his disabled brother for money.

Fun (?) fact: It is in fact true that Qantas airlines has never had a commercial flight crash from 1921-today.

 

Thoughts and observations:

  • Director Barry Levinson did a great job painting Charlie (Tom Cruise) as the worst human being alive because I still believed it at the end of the film. He has to dress like that AND sale rare cars? You’ve gone too far, Levinson.

  • I was never able to fully appreciate Charlie and Raymond’s relationship mainly because it began when one brother kidnapped the other. I don’t care how many juice boxes you give, you can’t come back from that.
  • I’ll go ahead and skip to the ending to point out that ‘ I no longer yell at my disabled brother’ is NOT growth.
  • Why did this movie annoy me so much? I think it’s because Charlie tried to make the case that the group home was an inappropriate choice for Raymond with little to no facts. He barged in and assumed he could do a better job even though he had never heard of the term ‘autism’ before. He might have sweet memories of his brother when the two were younger but that doesn’t mean you will be a better caretaker.
  • And no, Charlie, using your brother to win money is not funny or a great bonding moment.
  • I’m not really sure what the lesson was here. Be nice to the Autistic because they may be worth a lot of money? No, you can’t keep your Autistic brother as a pet?
  • Dustin Hoffman did a phenomenal job so I won’t give this movie one star, even though I’d really like to. I think it goes hand in hand with my distaste for Inspiration Porn. The disabled do not exist as a way for you to feel good about yourself. They are not brave or strong. They are real people with real struggles and deserve human dignity. That’ what Rain Man felt like, one long Good Morning America segment about a brother being just a little less of a jerk to his brother with Autism.

Final review: 2/5 only because of Dustin Hoffman

Up next: The Last Picture Show

#376- Earth

Quick recap: A group of farmers get together to buy a tractor, which makes the landowners angry and then BOOM! Communism is formed.

Sunflowers are the gateway flower to other governments

Fun (?) fact: There’s a deleted scene where the villagers all gather and pee on the engine of the overheated tractor. It’s supposed to represent communism of course, but people thought the symbolism was a little heavy-handed.

Why yes, I do in fact have the score from Fiddler on the Roof stuck in my head now

Thoughts and Observations:

  • From what I can gather, the issue at hand is that these kulaks (landowners) realize that if they work together and share, they can be much more profitable. The other landowners decide against it and then get angry when collectivism works. Point: Communism
  • But I think at one point the villagers knocked down the resistant landowners’ fences, which just isn’t very nice. Point: Capitalism 
  • The landowners retaliate by having one of them murder the guy who bought the tractor. Point: Communism
  • The guy that was murdered was named Basil and he did this REALLY elaborate dance to show it to the angry landowners. Point: Capitalism
  • Basil’s father announces he is Atheist because of the murder and denies the priest the opportunity to officiate the funeral. Instead the villagers will sing songs about farm life and working. Point: Capitalism because that sounds boring as hell
  • The movie was very confusing because even the happy scenes were filled with ominous, angry music, like when the villagers used the tractor. I spent about 10 minutes thinking the tractor was evil because of the sound cues. Point: Capitalism, I guess.

Was title said in film?

Probably. The movie is silent with only a few cue cards so I’m sure it was muttered at some point, considering they are working the earth.

Final review: 2/5  capitalism wins again! But only slightly because if Communism had peppier music, I would’ve been all in.

Up next: The Ten Commandments

#375- The Ear

Quick recap: A Czechoslovakian couple finds their house bugged by the Communist party and they fear Ludvik, the husband, is about to be taken away.

No matter who is after you, there is ALWAYS time to pose

Fun (?)fact: You’d better believe this film was banned! 20 years actually, not seeing the light of day until 1989.

maybe it was censorship and maybe it was because the world wasn’t ready for newspaper hats

Thoughts and Observations: 

  • This movie was as if someone watched Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and said, ‘ This is fun, but what if we added Communists?’
  • But unlike that film, the couple in The Ear didn’t seem believable as a real couple and there were way too many mood swings to keep up with
  • On the other hand, their house really was bugged with listening devices which would add stress on any marriage
  • My favorite aspects of the film were the flashback scenes as Ludvik recalls every conversation he had, looking for clues that they are on to him. A simple question from a friend takes on an ominous tone and everyone seems in on the deception. But are they really?
  • Although listening devices were found, the end of the film has Ludvik being offered a promotion so I guess that’s a happy ending? It sure didn’t seem like it was.
  • And I still wonder if Ludvik was actually working against his party or if he was just really paranoid? He burned a lot of documents but he didn’t seem to know if they were incriminating.

Final review: 2/5. I liked the tension build up but there was so much talking and fighting that the action took a backseat and I became bored.

Up next:

Earth

#370- Pierrot le Fou

Quick recap: Ferdinand Griffon is tired of his bougie lifestyle so he takes off with ex-girlfriend, Marianne, who is maybe wanted by terrorists or something. Whatever the case may be, the two of them leave a trail of dead bodies in their wake and enough symbolism to last me the rest of this list.

I wish I knew how to quit you, French New Wave cinema

Fun (?) fact: Here is what director Jean-Luc Godard said about his film, in the most French way possible :  “it is not really a film, it’s an attempt at cinema. Life is the subject, with [Cinema]Scope and color as its attributes…In short, life filling the screen as a tap fills bathtub that is simultaneously emptying at the same rate.”

My thoughts: As I sit here drinking my canned wine after a full meal of hot dogs and potato chips, I cant help but feeling a little offended that Godard hates American culture. To be fair, it is American cinema he hates, although I doubt he felt anything sentimental towards the actual citizens. And so Godard set out to make a film that both satirized and showed his love for all things America. Which I think he did. Or did not. Hell if I know, actually.

Pierrot le Fou is the weirdest film to describe because although it has a linear plot about two lovers on the run, I never understood what they were running from or why they were killing so many people. But then I read up on trivia and saw that it was a satire and it kind of reminded me of the first time I saw Austin Powers. I thought the movie was hilarious but I only understood about 40% of it because I had never watched a James Bond film before. That’s what this movie is. If I had watched the films Godard was referencing, I think I would’ve understood what was going on a little better but since I didn’t, I just kept waiting for something to make sense. There are a few funny elements in the film but many of them are dark  I wasn’t sure if it was French humor or something else. I like to imagine audiences back in the 60s watching Pierrot le Fou and cackling every time Ferdinand reads a book or when Marianne pulls out her dog purse. But I felt left out of the joke.

That’s not to say that I was bored to tears or anything by this movie. The colors are gorgeous and so are the actors. I kept watching to see what would happen, even if I didn’t understand every little thing going on. The dialogue spoken was also confusing, like watching the Thin Red Line again. If I had turned off subtitles and just watched the action, I think I would’ve walked away from this with a much higher regard for Godard.

Final review:2/5

Up next: Toy Story