#110- If…

Quick recap: A private school in England is filled with cruel prefects and delinquent students who later take their revenge by murdering a ton of people. It’s a jolly good romp!

The guy on the right looks about 40, but I vowed to not let it bother me.

The guy on the right looks about 40, but I vowed to not let it bother me.

Fun (?) fact:  Malcolm McDowell had a crush on his female costar and and asked the director if there could be a nude scene for her. The directer said yes, but only if the girl (Christine Noonan) said yes. Her reply? ‘I don’t mind.’

Before clothes came off. They pretended to be tigers or something? I didn't really get it.

Before clothes came off. They pretended to be tigers or something? I didn’t really get it.

My thoughts: I wasn’t really sure what to expect going into this movie. It was rated X, which I think is my first on this list and is listed as an allegory as well as satire. Okay, then. I was so excited to see Malcolm McDowell as the lead role because I loved him in A Clockwork Orange, where he also played a delinquent teen. The first scene is of him arriving to school in a *gasp* mustache! That’s… kind of delinquent? The British have a much different view of what ‘rated x’ means than I do, apparently.

The movie switches back and forth between color and black and white, which led me to spend the entire time trying to figure out the symbolism. This is an allegory after all, so I knew there was some reason. My first hypothesis was that the black and white was fantasy and the color was reality but towards the end it seemed like the opposite might be true. I finally looked up the answer and it turns out that there is NO reason at all. The director just wanted random shots of black and white to distort the viewer. Great job, because I was totally distorted.

My main issue with this movie lies in the fact that it is supposed to be a satire of private schools and yet nothing really seemed over the top. One of the punishments involved making the boys stand in a cold shower for two minutes which sounds bad but not what I would consider cruel. My bias might have to do with the other massive amounts of pop culture depicting private schools in England being hellish. The prefects are mean but to be fair the three main boys spend their time getting drunk, stealing motorcycles and having sex on the floor of a coffeeshop with a random girl. And then there’s the mass shooting. I guess it comes down to the idea that I was supposed to root for Travis (Malcolm McDowell) and the other boys, but I didn’t much care for them.

If.. is supposed to be seen as a link between realist films coming out of England at the time, to the zany British humor we all know and love today. The scene where the boys kill the priest who later pops up in a box to be apologized to was reminiscent of some of the scenes in Brazil. Overall, though, I either didn’t get the satire or I have seen it done much better.

Final review: 2/5. Seriously, if you have to switch between black and white and color, make up a reason!

Up next: Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which I’ll be watching at the Alamo Drafthouse. Can’t wait for this one!

#108- Sergeant York

Quick recap: This movie is the real life story of Alvin C. York, a young wild Appalachian turned Christian turned war hero.

real life Alvin C. York

real life Alvin C. York

Fun (?) fact: Alvin York agreed to a movie of his life on 3 conditions- 1) profits would go to a Bible school he wanted built 2) no cigarette smoking actress would play his wife and 3) only Gary Cooper could play him.

So directors went with a real life 15 year old to play the wife and kiss a 40 year old.

So directors went with a real life 15 year old to play the wife and kiss a 40 year old.

My thoughts: Before I start my snark on this movie (and believe me, there will be snark. SOO much snark), let me just say that the real Alvin York is a badass. He led an attack during World War I that killed 23 Germans and captured 132 of them. And he did this with help from only 7 other men.  He’s a hero, plain and simple. Now, onto the snark!

My issue with Sergeant York lies solely with Gary Cooper. That Gary Cooper that I absolutely fawned over last time. It surprised me to learn how many people consider this movie his best role because I thought it was awful. Maybe my ire is directed towards Cooper because of his god awful redneck accent or his portrayal of a simple minded man, but I think the biggest problem with this role is Cooper’s age.

It happens all the time: actors playing characters much younger than themselves. Sometimes it works, but most of the time it’s just creepy. And for me, when the age difference is so big, it distracts from the entire movie. The real Alvin York was 30 when he fought in the war but Cooper is over 40 and he looks it.The first scene with Cooper has him in overalls, running all over the countryside like an idiot. We are supposed to believe he is in his 20s but the effect is more of something like Forrest Gump, who you just feel sorry for.  It should be noted that many people who made the movie also thought Cooper was too old to play York but York refused to sign over the rights to his story unless he got to choose who played him. Which is fair, I suppose. If anyone made a movie out of my life  I’d choose Jennifer Lawrence. Or maybe Betty White because she is hilarious.

Annex - Cooper, Gary (Sergeant York)_01

The movie itself is your typical patriotic war movie. Sergeant York was released in 1941, right around the time of Pearl Harbor. There are reports that after watching the movie, young men ran and signed up to serve in the war effort. The story follows the American Dream perfectly: a young, poor wild man finds God and with divine intervention, becomes a war hero. The only thing that would’ve made this movie more patriotic would’ve been a bald eagle in every shot.

Final review: 2/5. be forewarned that if I have to sit through this movie again, I’m just going to end up yelling , ‘He’s, like, 40!’ for two hours straight.

Up next: The Harder They Come or Winter Light

#96- Moonstruck

Quick recap: Loretta Castorini is engaged to mild mannered Johnny and that’s cool and all until Ronny (played by Nicholas Cage) steps into the picture and she falls in love with him. Also, Loretta’s father is cheating on her mother and there’s a part about being cursed and then [insert every Italian stereotype here].

This might get weird.

This might get weird.

Fun (?) fact: No one really wanted Nicholas Cage in the movie except for Cher, who threatened to walk out if he wasn’t hired.

funny-nicolas-cage-photoshop-meme

My thoughts: Romantic Comedy. Two words that, when put together, can strike fear into any sane person. Add to that, Moonstruck is a romantic comedy starring Cher. I knew I was in for a rough night.

As mentioned above, this is the movie should’ve won some sort of Guinness World Record for most Italian stereotypes crammed into 90 minutes. When the characters weren’t making dramatic hand gestures or using a thick Italian accent, stereotypical Italian music could be heard in the background. Another fun fact: the original opening played the score from ‘La Boheme’, but testing audiences felt like they were being roped into an art house film and we wouldn’t want that, of course. So instead, the crew went in the opposite direction and chose ‘That’s Amore’ so that you wouldn’t forget your were watching a movie about an Italian-American family, even for a second.

That’s not to say I found anything wrong with being so heavy on the Italian references. I’m sure there were families all over the US that related perfectly to the characters, but it wasn’t something I was all that familiar with. Watching Moonstruck felt like taking one of those Buzzfeed quizzes that I stumble upon at 3 in the morning, unable to sleep. Could be something like, ‘Which English boarding school best describes your personality?’ or ‘How many of these indigenous beetles did you encounter in your trek across Africa in the 1930s?’ Either way, I felt left out.

Chris-Shen-cage-michael-jackson-590x350

As for the plot, it was a little confusing. Not confusing in the sense that it was hard to understand because come on, Nicholas Cage is one of the main actors. More confusing in its message. The film centers around Loretta cheating on Johnny with his brother Ronny. We are supposed to root for her, especially when she does the romantic comedy makeover trope. When Johnny comes over at the end of the film to break off his marriage, that is supposed to signal that they all lived happily ever after. That’s all well and good until you factor in Loretta’s father, Cosmo. He too is cheating, but this is a bad thing for some reason. Maybe because he has been married for so long? He and his wife don’t seem to get along very well and maybe he could’ve found true love, just like Loretta did with Ronny. The wife, Rose, also briefly considered a fling with a handsome professor but at the last minute backed off and went home to a man who’s feelings had obviously changed. It was more depressing than romantic or comedic at that point.

Final review: 2/5 I knew I was in trouble when I found myself fully relying on Nicholas Cage to get me through this movie. And he certainly did.

tumblr_myue5axCHc1qfrkf9o8_r1_250

Up next: L’Age d’or

#94- My Night at Maud’s

Quick recap:  A devout Catholic runs into an old friend, who identifies himself as a Marxist. The two decide to visit a recent divorcé (Maude), where they spend a night discussing philosophy.

maud

Fun (?) fact:  Want to host the most boring movie marathon EVER? My Night at Maud’s is the 3rd movie in a series entitled ‘Six Moral Tales’. 

Is philosophy really that exciting? No. No, it is not.

Is philosophy really that exciting? No. No, it is not.

My thoughts: Oh, France. I came into this project with some very stereotypical views about the French: Whimsy? Check.   Corrupting of youth? Check.    Existential art film? Check.  A story in which a penniless writer falls in love with a can can dancer from the Moulin Rouge? Check. And now add to that list a pretentious film, where every single bit of dialogue is stuffed with references to philosophy that some people might get, but I sure didn’t. Fact: If you have to spend more time researching what you just watched in order to understand the basic point, it’s not worth it.

The entire film is based off of the ideas of Pascal, who wagered that since it’s impossible to prove God exists, you might as well believe. If you live a good life and God does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do good and God doesn’t exist, then at least you didn’t waste your life.Vidal, the Marxist, likes the idea of Pascal but his friend Jean-Louis, the Catholic, does not. Jean-Louis doesn’t agree with his view on Christianity for several reasons I never understood. When the two friends end up at Maud’s, the conversation turns to Jean-Louis and his love for a woman he has never met. At some point, Vidal leaves and he is left with a choice: whether to sleep with Maud, who he clearly has an attraction to, or a random woman. Maud, for her part, is trying really hard to get Jean-Louis into bed. He is able to hold firm to his convictions until the middle of the night when he crawls into bed with her to get warm. In the morning, she rolls over and he embraces her. My first reaction was approval at his logic. But then he ultimately rejected her advances, and maybe that was for the best. When Jean-Louis meets his dream girl the very next day, he is seemingly rewarded for not backing down. The two get married and live happily ever.

My husband came up with the idea that Jean-Louis bet on meeting the girl of his dreams and, even if she had never appeared,  made the right choice not to sleep with Maud. I’d think about the movie further, except it has already exceeded the time spent watching the movie and so I am obligated to stop.

Final review: 2/5. My brain hurts.

Up next: Who knows?