yrussell Reviews

Clerks III (2022)

This is more fan service than a real movie. Enjoy it for what it is.

[7/10 · 29 April 2023]

I have mixed feelings about this. I saw the original Clerks in the cinema with my girlfriend (now wife) in 1994, with us being the same age as the characters. We saw part 2 on video, but for part 3, we went back to the cinema, making a special occasion out of it. We did enjoy it and had a great time. My wife said it was emotionally satisfying, and, yes it was. Yet, reflecting on it further by myself, I feel it's an inferior sequel to both parts 1 and 2. I wish it could have been a straight-up continuation of part 2, with Becky still alive and we catch up with Dante age 50 (after all, we're still the same age as the characters), perhaps having a mid-life crisis of some kind and finding solace in his life-long friendship with Randal and the love of his family. Well, that doesn't sound hilarious, but it would have been very meaningful to us (in fact, I felt hurt that Becky was killed off - that in itself ruins the memory of the very satisfying ending of Clerks 2). Instead of the movie I hoped for, we get a highly self-conscious meta-movie which spends far too long celebrating the minutiae of Clerks 1 and not enough time giving us a real story. Yet, I can see why Smith did it this way. The reason Clerks 1 was so vibrant and hilarious is because of its authenticity. Clerks 1 very much reflected the lived experience of Smith at that time. When I first saw Clerks 1, I had recently resigned from working at 7-11 (a convenience store chain), so I absolutely loved that someone made a movie about that kind of life. Now in 2022, I believe that Clerks 3 is a true reflection of Smith's life in 2022. He's a million miles away from being the real-life convenience store clerk who got lucky making a film on a shoestring budget. Today, he's a guy heading a durable and lucrative entertainment franchise (in fact, multiple franchises in the "View-Askew-niverse"). Nowadays, his job is providing content and pleasing his fans. In Clerks 3, he dishes out call-backs in huge volume, as if he's laying out a buffet for hungry fans. That's what this movie is all about. If Clerks 3 is a complicated mess, maybe that's because middle age is a complicated mess. If you look at some of Smith's other "meta" movies of recent years (e.g. Jay & Silent Bob reboot), Clerks 3 is equally shambolic as those. Just accept that Smith is not the same man as he was in 1994 and be thankful that he put in the effort to give his fans a heartfelt gift in the form of Clerks 3. And, finally, I just want to mention that Brian O'Halloran is a seriously good actor in this film.

The Square (2017)

Just sit back and enjoy the weirdness

[8/10 · 26 April 2023]

Some of the reviewers of this movie seem angry because this isn't their style of comedy. To each, their own. Personally, I enjoyed this a lot because it was so unpredictable. It's a dry black comedy, full of uncomfortable situations. Our protagonist is a man named Christian who has reached the top of the art world in Sweden, as head curator of a very prestigious art gallery in Stockholm. Despite his high position, he's a mess... acting recklessly, needlessly damaging his own career and personal life. Early in the film, he appears to be a victim of a scam. In response, he goes about tackling the scam in such an incompetent way that he ends up making a further mess. Beyond the shenanigans of Christian, this is also a satire of the upper crust of the art world. I'm not a member of that world, but I could appreciate some of the jokes. Some of the targets include (1) incomprehensible art-writing, (2) the aggrandisement of poorly-made art which pretends to be socially conscious, (3) the desire to be provocative for its own sake, and (4) the vacuity of performance art. In regards to performance art, there is an incredible sequence where a man (very accurately) behaves like a chimpanzee during a prestigious banquet. That sequence alone is worth the price of admission. Indeed, I believe this whole film is a piece of performance art. It's not just a satire and a comedy about a loser, but I think the filmmaker is deliberately messing with the audience. We want our protagonist to be a hero and he isn't. We want the mystery to be solved, but it isn't. We want the film to make sense, but it doesn't! Perhaps there's a lot of deeper meanings that I missed, but that's why I'll watch it again.

Papa à la chasse aux lagopèdes (2008)

Running from the law, stuck in show, eating ptarmigan, thinking out loud...

[7/10 · 29 March 2023]

Interesting low-budget Québécois film about a wealthy but youngish white collar criminal who goes on the run after his crime was discovered. With his story all over the news, he takes off in a car, carrying a huge quanity of cash, escaping into the wintry highways of northern Québéc. He is aiming to meet a guy at a remote airstrip who will help him escape to the Bahamas. The whole thing is shot as a video diary to his young daughters, whom he fears he might never see again. This movie is mostly a one-man show as he addresses the camera, trying to explain his crime to his daughters, telling them stories, and expressing a wish to see them again someday. Once he arrives at the airstrip in the middle of nowhere, things don't go quite as planned and he encounters a few hardships (even contemplating turning himself in). I won't give any spoilers, but I'll say that the ending wasn't what I expected. We're left guessing about what happens to the man after the story ends, but, as we've journeyed with him, we can't help but feel some sympathy for him, however misguided he's been.

The Welfare King (1996)

Heartwarming Christmas tale

[10/10 · 5 July 2022]

This is a hidden gem! Yes, it looks rather low-budget and some of the actors seem inexperienced. Yet, this film has a heart of gold. This is a story about urban poverty, centering on a single mum and her two kids. It's the two kids - an older sister and a younger brother - who are the main characters of the story. Seeing that their mother is unable to scrape up enough money to celebrate Christmas that year, the two kids set off without their mother knowing. Are they running away? No! In fact, they want to help their mother. So, they embark on an epic journey across the city to look for the mythical "welfare king"... an old man who was famous for having previously been poor but then, winning a great deal of money in the lottery, he became known for generously giving his money away. The welfare king is reputed to live in a mansion in the wealthiest part of the city (aptly called "Tuxedo") which is the opposite end of the city from where the kids live. Unable to even afford the bus, the kids spend the whole day walking across the city. It's December and the city is bitterly cold and the snow is piled high. Even worse, the inner city is full of crime. When the kids finally find "Tuxedo", the welfare king happens to be sitting on a chair in front of his own house! At first, he refuses to give them any money (he's gotten jaded because too many people have taken advantage of his generosity)... but it turns out that a mugger has been following the kids from the inner city and she proceeds to mug the old man! Shaken from that experience, and touched by the kids' determination and good hearts, the old man later sets up a trust fund for them. Happy ending, then! Well, I suppose one could argue that getting a donation from a rich man is not the way to solve poverty in society. But, in the end, this film is a Christmas fairy tale, so the happy ending is appropriate. The filmmaker has done an excellent job in highlighting the too-often-hidden issue of urban poverty.

Tuktuq (2016)

Powerful message in a quiet movie

[10/10 · 5 July 2022]

This was filmed in Nunavik (the arctic part of Québec, Canada). Our protagonist is a man who spends his days deep in the forest, in places where no humans are seen. He is one of those quiet men that people never notice. Yet, he is highly skilled in his profession as a hunter and photographer. He receives a telephone call out of the blue, from the Government of Québec offering him a temporary job in Nunavik doing photography and video recording. Going so far north is a rare opportunity, so he jumps at the chance. During his time up north, he has a series of phone conversations with the same government official (a charismatic yet jaded older man, an old school corrupt politician, skilled in the arts of deal-making and manipulation). Gradually it dawns on our protagonist that he is being used as a pawn for the government: they wanted to hire a man who was an apolitical "nobody" to make a record of the arctic village in which he is staying. The reason they need a "record" is because - unbeknownst to its inuit residents - the government plans to wipe the whole village off the map in order to build a mine in its place. The whole reason for his job is to produce video that makes the village seem like a horrible place (giving the gov't a justification to kick all the people out). Yet, the scenery is stunningly beautiful and the village is thriving. Our protagonist (who was instructed not to get "too close" to the people) begins to develop a sense of guilt about the scam in which he is participating. Yet, he finds himself utterly helpless to change anything. When he points out the absurdity of the plan (e.g. They found valuable resources under the village because that was the easiest place to look -- they prefer to wipe the village out rather than look just outside the village), his concerns are casually brushed aside. Some reviewers didn't like this film because it was too "quiet"... yet, I think, in its quietude lies its power. There are incredibly long takes showing the scenery, wildlife, and cultural practices. That is the perfect way to convey how it would feel to be quietly living alongside the Inuit people for many months, observing everything without being a direct participant. The fact we're watching a slow motion tragedy only sinks in gradually, through the series of phone calls. This well-acted and well-written film illustrates the subtle ways in which the aboriginal people of north america continue to be mistreated.

Nocturne (II) (2002)

Empty streets, traces of human activity

[10/10 · 18 April 2022]

The simplest way to describe this film is that it's nothing but street scenes in London. There are no recognisable landmarks. All of these scenes are the back lanes behind buildings, the necessary little by-ways that nobody is fond of - and nobody knows about, unless for some reason you need to go there. At first glance, these are nondescript scenes. These back lanes could be seen in any large British city. In "Nocturne", no human beings are visible. All we see are bricks and glass, lampposts and parked cars, the night sky, the yellow double lines, pieces of litter on the street, and doors that lead to unknown places. Yet, watching this film is utterly mesmerising. Although it appears like "nothing" is happening, the filmmaker has created a sense of deep moodiness. Somehow, I felt emotional during every scene. Yet, the most interesting part of all is that I couldn't pinpoint the emotion I was feeling. Was it sadness? Was it longing? Was it the mental labour one feels when a scene reminds you of something... but one can't quite retrieve the specific memory? Does the dark alley reminds me of a long-ago night, when I walked along such a street, happily chatting to people I once knew, but with whom I've lost touch? Does the dark alley reminds me of a moment walking alone, when I observed the buildings around me and wondered what was in them? Or, maybe it just looks like a place I've walked through countless times on the way to somewhere else while paying little attention to my surroundings. The filmmaker provokes the emotions further through a constellation of tiny movements. It takes a while, but eventually one realizes that the "static" scenes have actually been filmed in accelerated motion. Does it seem that "nothing is happening" on the streets? Look closely, and you see distant apartments blocks with lights switching on and switching off. Parked cars are present, and then suddenly disappear. The drivers that take them away are unseen, but we know that the drivers were there. Here and there, a flash of light alerts us to some human activity. The minute movements makes the viewer realize that this whole film is about being on the fringes of human activity, but never establishing contact. In later scenes, we see car traffic in the background, flitting past with merciless speed. We know nothing of the stories of the people inside the cars. We see only their lights, come and gone within milliseconds. Similarly, in a later scene, we see trains, also on an elevated thruway. Somewhere, on the left of one of the scenes, we see the floor-to-ceiling windows of an office with its lights on. An office chair, unoccupied, sits near the window. Sometime later, the office light switches off. Once again, we have seen evidence of human activity, but no humans. On the sides of the street, we see doors that never open. Some of the windows are covered with a metal security grill. Other windows, up high, with lights on, are more inviting - but we are never allowed to get close to the people inside. Perhaps this whole film is about the fact that one can occupy a crowded city, but still feel distant from people. Well, that's one interpretation. To me, this film has endless fascination because underneath the apparent plainness of its imagery is, in fact, a fertile garden of sensation that stimulates unexpected reveries.

Petrolia (2005)

Whoever thought that oil rigs and oil refineries could be so fascinating?

[10/10 · 18 April 2022]

Petrolia is a series of time-lapse videos depicting the various mega-structures of the oil industry, as observed in the Scottish North Sea: tankers, oil rigs, cranes, refineries, and the many small boats that assist their movements. In this film, we view everything at a distance. We hardly see any human beings, except sometimes as tiny dots wiggling and bouncing like tiny fleas upon the decks and platforms. Even though this film is 20 minutes long, I was glued to the screen. Because we're watching the scenes in accelerated motion, we see distant clouds rapidly churning, dusk rapidly turning into night, the slowest of tankers racing across the water, and those massive cranes (that sit atop oil rigs) waving around like little hyper-active robot arms. A feeling of speed is heightened even more when we look at the sea. The waves (which are fairly fast at normal speed) are - here - insanely speedy. At one point (around 09:00), my son and I (he's 9) had to stop the video because it looked like a shark had swam past! When we played it in slow-speed, it was actually a motorboat. There was a cool moment, though. However, the most fascinating moments of all were when the film was showing the oil refineries at night. This produced an astonishingly alien effect. There was something about the combination of architectural convolution in metal, the superabundance of bright lights, and the aggressive emission of smoke illuminated against dark skies... it produced imagery that evoked memories of having seen countless science-fiction movies about majestic alien civilizations. Yet, all of the pictures were entirely real. Amazing.

Redshift (2001)

Beautiful

[10/10 · 7 April 2022]

Have you ever sat down by the sea at night, awestruck by the beauty of the reflections of the light on the water, and the stars in the sky? In real life, the world moves in slow motion. The stars rotate across the dome of sky, their ancient movements imperceptible to one's eye. Distant ships inch their way across the sea's black horizons. The waves crash against rocks in perpetuity. The hue of the sky seems to pulsate, round and round, from a light blue, to a dark blue, and finally towards some unnameable colour approaching, but never quite reaching, pure blackness. If you sit long enough, you perceive the changes in the slow-moving scenery - but only by noticing that something has moved, not by seeing it moving. In this film, "Redshift", time is sped up, cramming time into a narrow window, liberating the viewer to experience the undulations of the nighttime world at a pace that our heart and mind can instantly embrace.

The Pest (1922)

Good comedy overall, but with some unforgivable flaws

[5/10 · 6 April 2022]

This is a rather lively silent comedy starring Stan Laurel only a few years before he teamed up with Oliver Hardy. Anytime I see Stan Laurel pre-Hardy, it's a weird experience because he is not acting the Laurel and Hardy character. Although he looks mostly the same (but with slicked-down hair instead of the sticking-up hair), his character isn't the same. In this short film, Laurel plays a kind of hapless hero who eventually saves the day. There are some scenes which were genuinely hilarious. Even the scenes where he's running around in a bizarre animal costume are good fun. I would give this film high rating... BUT unfortunately, there are a couple of racist things that come up in the background, and those really ruined the film for me. Laurel himself was no racist (I've watched most Laurel and Hardy films, and there was never a hint of racism in their films), but in 1922 there were some things in mainstream films which were "normal" which thankfully are not allowed anymore.

Armchair Theatre: The Chocolate Tree (1963) Season 4, Episode 87

Devastating portrait of the human side of racism, hatred, the delusions of empire, and the legacy of colonialism in Africa

[8/10 · 5 April 2022]

This drama really has teeth. Don't expect something genteel, just because it's an old black-and-white TV show. First and foremost, this is a story about racism. And I'm not talking about casual racism where you say the wrong thing because you're a bit insensitive. I'm talking about the kind of racism that allowed the British empire to invade Africa and destroy African cultures and kill Africans. That's a fierce, angry, cradle-to-grave kind of lifetime of racism that basically viewed Africans as savages and white people as the "civilized" world. Many viewers may immediately find this episode off-putting because the N-word is freely uttered within the first few minutes and all the way through. But stick with it. This episode is worth watching. Usage of the N-word in this drama simply shows how normalized it was to live and breathe racism back then. Of course, the 1960s (when this episode was released) were a highly transformative era in Africa. Many African countries became independent during that time, and that's what severely curtailed the influence of the old imperial powers like Britain. This episode - "The Chocolate Tree" - does not take place in Africa. In fact, it is the story of an upper class wealthy family in Britain called the "Strangs" - a family with a long and "proud" history (going back generations) of building their business empire on Africa's Gold Coast. Despite their refined upper class mannerisms, it is clear that the family had been ruthless and brutally violent during their long history in Africa, vastly enriching themselves at the expense of the African people. This drama takes place at the point when the family loses control of the business and are left with nothing. Clearly, the writer didn't intend for us to feel sorry for the Strang family. Yet, this episode is actually an intimate human drama, showing us the way that the family lives in their day-to-day lives. Perhaps as a reflection of their diminished status, there's only four of them in the family. First, we have Israel Strang, the grand old patriarch, elderly and frail, a veteran of the Boer war, a man who loves to sing the songs of his glorious wartime past and his "glorious" family history. All that, and he's racist to the core. He seems to be the character that's most resistant to change. Yet, as the story progresses, we see his vulnerability and - there are occasional moments of remorse that crack through his façade of gruff imperiousness. We even learn that, despite his racism, he fathered a child with an African woman (but the culture forbade him to marry her). Second, we have Peter Strang, middle-aged son of the patriarch, and much more soft-spoken, diplomatic, and even-tempered than the old man. Third, we have Rachel Strang, second wife of Peter. As a daughter in law to Israel, she's the one who spends the most time taking care of him. Despite the old man's rough edges, she clearly loves him. She sings his songs, she remembers his old friends who have passed away, and she is his shoulder to lean on. Finally, we have Stephen Strang, grandson of Israel, son of Peter, and step-son of Rachel. Openly racist just like his grandfather, we nonetheless see the subtleties of his character as the story progresses. Early on, we can perceive a thinly-veiled sexual tension between the step-mother and step-son. In a scene where both Rachel and Stephen are alone, we learn that they had a sexual relationship in the past (before she married his father). In their intense conversation in a darkened hall (roughly from 16:00-22:00), we have one of those most beautifully written scenes that I've ever seen on television. It seems that actors weren't allowed to talk explicitly about sex back then, so they talk in riddles, evoking passionate imagery and romantic longing using highly poetic and well-chosen words. In the end, Rachel resists his charms.... but the scene has told us much about the dysfunction of this family. In the middle act of this episode, we have two visitors, William and Jacob Jones, two black men. One of them, William, actually had a white father.. he is Israels's son! Both of the black men represent the African interests that will cause the Strang family to lose their fortune. The Strangs are obnoxious, openly contemptuous and outrageously racist towards the pair. Once they discover that William is a relative, there is a brief and painfully awkward attempt at rapprochement. But, just as it seems like they might create a bond (when Jacob sings a song and they join in), Stephen makes an animalistic racist outburst. It seems that getting friendly with blacks is just too unbearably difficult for a lifelong racist. However, by the end of the episode, the family is now forced to move out of their mansion. They learn that Stephen is moving to Africa to be an employee of William. The family implores him not to go. We realize that the whole family is racist - but it's Stephen, the youngest one - who adapts to the situation and, maybe someday, will manage to break free of his toxic family legacy.

Armchair Theatre: The Invasion (1963) Season 4, Episode 72

Clever allegory with a unique story construction

[10/10 · 31 March 2022]

You really need to watch it to the end to appreciate what this episode is about. It starts off quite jarringly with seemingly random elements thrown together... first, you have young adults frolicking around the country estate... second, you have two pompous older ladies - a Mrs. Clarissa Hedge-Hacking, and a Lady Corm - both of whom want desperately to be accepted as members of the upper class (there's also a husband, Mr. Hedge-Hacking, who is seen later). The two ladies arrive at the country estate due to the death of a distant relation who was a duke. They are determined to prove themselves as vital members of the duke's family by imposing themselves as organisers of the duke's funeral ...third, you have the new owners of the estate, a wealthy couple from London - Royston Land-Price and his wife Heather Land-Price - who have transplanted themselves from the city to the country ... finally, you have two sons, one from each family, listening to shortwave radio and trying to decipher what they think is the language of Martian invaders! For most of this episode, our attention is drawn to the interaction between the Hedge-Hackings and the Land-Prices... which begins with courtesy and civility despite a buildup of tension surrounding their disagreements about how to conduct the Duke's funeral in such a way that doesn't interfere with the Land-Prices' business retreat scheduled for the same day. It's quite fascinating to watch the tension build and build until finally the façades of both families break open and out flows a deluge of open hostility. Just as this reaches the fever pitch, we discover that the young boys were correct about the Martian invasion. In fact, the boys did try to warn their parents. In the midst of all of the class-obsessed squabbles between the two wealthy families, their sons would interrupt their conversations once in a while, pleading for the adults to heed their warnings that life as they know it will be ending imminently. And, so, the Martians do invade in the final brief scene and the wealthy families are dumbstruck, speechless... We realize that the young people running around the estate were actually the Martians who had already arrived in advance. Once you get to the final scene, the moral of the story is clear. We, as a society, spend far too much time bickering about things which are unimportant in the grand scheme of things. In doing so, we ignore the big catastrophic things building up in the background. Even though this episode is from 1963, this is a timeless message. The genius of this episode is that it actually gets the viewer deeply involved in the squabbling. This sets us up to experience the invasion through the eyes of the squabbling families, as an abrupt and shocking apocalypse that seemed to come out of nowhere.

Armchair Theatre: What's Wrong with Humpty Dumpty? (1967) Season 7, Episode 3

The story of a foolish man

[8/10 · 31 March 2022]

"What's Wrong with Humpty Dumpty?" is the story of a married man having a passionate affair with a younger woman. Spoiler... it all blows up in his face at the end. It might be an old story, but like many episodes that I've seen in Armchair Theatre, the story might not be unique, but the acting is so good that it elevates the episode into something highly engaging. Donald Houston plays David, the married man as a nattily-dressed loudmouth narcissistic jerk... but with some standing as a documentary filmmaker. His wife, played by Katharine Blake, is a highly accomplished author of children's books (at least, I think there were children's books... or perhaps something similar to Harry Potter). Despite being so accomplished, she chooses to take a backseat to her husband's ambitions, even contemplating the cancellation of her North American book tour just to avoid inconveniencing her husband. As the plot moves along, we discover that David, despite all his bluster, is actually a mediocre talent, lacking the competence to create a quality product (in one scene, we learned that is forced to reshoot an entire documentary because it was shot out of focus). It's his wife who is the real talent. Although she's not the least bit ugly (in fact, she's quite elegant), David prefers the younger woman, Caroline (played by a young Lynn Redgrave), who is starstruck by him, and is willing to meet up with him frequently for passionate trysts. This episode was really enjoyable in how it all played out. The ending scene, too, is actually quite funny. Of course, there is a serious message here. David was blind to how good his life was. His wife deserved better than him. And the young woman turns out not to be single either. So, like what happens with so many philanderers in real life, the cheating husband is destined to end up alone. What makes this episode better than simply a moralistic fable is that the characters are sharply drawn and three-dimensional. A pleasure to watch.

Armchair Theatre: Worm in the Bud (1959) Season 3, Episode 55

How well do you really know your neighbours across the street?

[8/10 · 24 March 2022]

At first, this appears to be a story of a nasty and bitter middle aged lady who develops an irrational hatred of the neighbour across the street. The neighbour is a little old man who avoids talking to anyone, and is seen doing "suspicious" things. Rumors start to spread that he's a murderer! A rookie policeman in her acquaintance decides to investigate. When we finally discover the truth, we learn that is episode is nothing less than a sad commentary on the madness of crowds. This episode may be from 1959, but the moral is highly relevant in our 21st century world where mobs of people on the internet indulge in the buzz of spreading unsubstantiated rumors about innocent people. And the nasty and bitter lady who started the rumors? She's totally unapologetic, and will doubtless turn her evil eye on some new victim very soon. Harsh, but very true to life.

Pear ta ma 'on maf (2004)

Fascinating

[10/10 · 2 March 2022]

This was filmed on an island called Rotuman, a remote part of Fiji that has its own unique culture. It is about a teenage girl who lives simultaneously in two cultures.. the ancient culture of their island and the new culture of the British. It takes places in the late 60s, and it shows her struggle to clear her father's name (he is wrongly accused of theft) and also her efforts to get into university (in the Fijian capital city, Suva), and leave the island. Most of the actors were locals. The director wanted to show his homeland in a way that represented the true life of the people... instead of stereotypes. I read that it was a real struggle to get the film made, and they mostly used local non-actors. So, you should be forgiving of the film's eccentricities. However, it is a surprisingly polished film (they had a professional production crew), with a compelling storyline and sympathetic characters. I really enjoyed this!

Armchair Theatre: Light the Blue Touch Paper (1966) Season 6, Episode 24

Interesting episode about political conscience

[8/10 · 26 February 2022]

In this episode, a housewife (in an excellent performance by Anna Massey), hears from an old friend (a man that she went to school with). That man, who she hasn't seen in years, asks for a reference for his new job. At first, she cheerfully agrees to it. However, is not long before she is visited by a rather intimidating government official, who rather imperiously begins to grill her with highly personal questions. She realizes that her friend is applying for a military job of a highly sensitive nature: specifically, the development of the most horrible weapons of war (such as napalm). She is rather shocked by this revelation, especially because she and her friend both had histories participating in antiwar demonstrations. Upon visiting her friend in person, we get a hint that they may have once been a couple (or at least had a sexual relationship). She walks away from his apartment completely disillusioned and heartbroken, and wondering whether she should refuse to give the reference. I really enjoyed this episode. Even though it deals with 1960s politics, the messages are still relevant today. How many of you, reading this in the 21st century, have found yourself, in recent years, shocked at the changed political views of someone with whom you were once close?

Armchair Theatre: Edward the Confessor (1969) Season 9, Episode 8

Entertaining

[8/10 · 26 February 2022]

This is a neat little episode. Wonderful to see such an early performance from Ian Holm, who plays a highly repressed and buttoned-down weirdo who seems to have a fetish for confessing to murders he didn't commit. The picture of stolid respectability (a professional man who conducts public opinion questionnaires), occasionally you see the façade cracking, allowing his emotions to bubble up to the surface (e.g at time 14:45 in the episode, you see a flicker of heartbreak when he recalls a past love). He lives with his landlady (played by Beryl Reid, in a performance that reminds me of a more repressed version of her character in Entertaining Mr. Sloane), who is clearly in love with him... but both of them are far too repressed to ever become lovers. However, his whole world is disrupted when his highly manipulative, bullying, childhood friend (played with cheerful menace by Alfred Brooke) decides to move into the house. Without giving spoilers, I'll say that things become very complicated... with the twists and turns continuing to the very last scene.

Armchair Theatre: The Cherry on the Top (1964) Season 5, Episode 2

Surprising, intense, romantic

[10/10 · 26 February 2022]

This episode really caught me off guard. It starts off with the seemingly bland story about a young woman who is unsatisfied with her job (working for the RAF as a communications officer). However, by the end of the episode, I was absolutely captivated by the emotion of the story. She wants to quit her job, but her superior officer (an unmarried older lady who has worked for the RAF for 25 years) refuses to allow her to quit. Consequently, the young woman feels trapped, knowing that she is missing out on the life she dreams about. She doesn't exactly know what she wants, but her life changes one day because of a chance meeting in an empty pub. In walks a salesman, an awkward and eccentric fellow, who unsuccessfully attempts to sell cherries and gherkins to the hostile pub owner. Sitting at a nearby table, she witnesses the salesman's fiasco (which includes him accidentally breaking some of his jars) and he ends up accidentally sitting beside her. They strike up a conversation which doesn't go particularly well at first... but, as some of the best conversations do, it takes both people in unexpected directions... In fact, a single conversation can change your whole life. Like I said above, I became captivated with how the conversation proceeded. The acting and writing is excellent. The two leads play such three-dimensional characters, eccentric, imperfect, insecure, but both with big hearts, and seeing something in each other that nobody else has ever seen. Without giving any spoilers, I just mentioned that certain complications occur, which leaves you in suspense to the very end about what is going to happen between these two characters. I also want to mention the wonderful performance from the young woman's superior officer. Despite not having that much screen time, she is a three-dimensional character, and you can see glimpses of her emotions underneath her gruff exterior (and hints of a life story, a mix of nostalgia and regret - perhaps giving us a picture of how the main character would've ended up). A wonderful episode which I highly recommend.

Armchair Theatre: Nothing to Pay (1962) Season 4, Episode 58

Good

[8/10 · 17 February 2022]

This is a well-acted drama involving a wealthy man from Wales who disapproves of his grown daughter's choice of boyfriend (her boyfriend being a Polish immigrant with a gentle character, but shady past). At first, this seems like a story about a father's intolerance, but, as the story unfolds, we learn that things are not what they seem. Don't be put off by the picture quality of this teleplay (it's a fuzzy black-and-white recording). This 1962 episode of ITV's Armchair Theatre is worth watching for its perceptive characterizations, especially that shown in the testy relationship between father and daughter. The father, in particular, is a kind of tragic figure. He's so accustomed to manipulating people by showering them with money and gifts. But - when he finds that money and gifts don't work anymore - he's helpless.

Pi (1998)

A film about madness

[10/10 · 28 August 2021]

There are so many reviews of Pi (1998) here on IMDB that I'm sure my review will get buried. Nonetheless, here I go. I've seen this movie twice, roughly twenty years apart. The first time, I just thought it was cool, full stop (I loved the B&W style and overall feeling of paranoid feverishess; and my partner loved the highly evocative portrayal of how migraines feel) -- but upon rewatched it in 2021, I've been thinking more deeply about it. When thinking about the mathematics, I guess there's two ways to look at this film. One way is that Max is truly on the edge of discovering something which will change the world and most of this film concerns Max's frustrations that people are stopping him from accomplishing his goals. The second view is that Max is simply mad, the so-called mathematical insights are just febrile delusions... and that this film is an amazing character study. This is the view I now have. Twenty years later, I'm now an academic, and I just rewatched this film. Nowadays, I know enough to realize that mad men locked in their apartments aren't usually the ones making world-changing discoveries. Instead, such discoveries tend to happen within cooperative networks of researchers in universities and the like. That's where scientists can give each other feedback and stop each other from going off the rails into wrongness. In this movie, Max has a PhD in mathematics (so... his credentials are solid), but it appears that he failed to establish an academic career (this actually happens to a lot of PhDs... there's simply too few academic jobs and too many PhD graduates). Yet, Max is still utterly devoted to his field and, now almost entirely self-isolated, is obsessive to the point where he even notes down the precise times for his actions and thoughts. I think that this overprecision is a sign of madness and depression rather than a sign of genius and intellectual rigour. Max still keeps in contact with Sol, his former PhD supervisor, now retired... but, as time passes, even Sol doesn't want to see him anymore because Max's ideas are getting too unhinged and angry. Personally, I think that Max was looking for some "magic system" which doesn't really exist. Sol was correct in telling him that he's sliding into numerology and, if so, that he can't really call himself a scientist anymore. Perhaps Max is a genius, yes... and perhaps he successfully predicts market crashes (as he appeared to do... or, was this a delusion on Max's part?). I think that Pi is the portrait of a genius succumbing to severe mental illness. The whole narrative is written from Max's highly paranoid and headachy point of view... he has this all-important mission but he gets "justifiably" furious because his mission keeps getting interrupted by people. This is where I find the film utterly fascinating. He wrecks what could have been a nice romance with his neighbour Devi... simply by ignoring her niceness (in one scene, she demurely expresses fascination with his "work"). Also, the fact that Max is being aggressively pursued by two sets of people - (1) big business, and (2) Jewish religious figures - is fascinating in itself. The business people buy into his numerology in hopes of making mountains of money for themselves. The religious folk also buy into the numerology because they believe that Max has discovered a numerological way of achieving their ultimate divine goals. In other words, big business and religion are just as deluded as Max is that one single set of "magic numbers" can solve all of their problems. Genius. From the "second view" I described above, the calmness in the final scene makes perfect sense. This is where Max is starting to heal.

Children of Chance (1930)

Early sound comedy

[6/10 · 10 August 2021]

I enjoy watching the earliest talkies, full of people who had been silent films actors until very recently. I watched this film around two weeks ago and already I've forgotten much of it. So, it's not the most memorable plot -- but I remember that it's a nice farce with some good peformances. I particularly liked Mabel Poulton as Binnie's spunky friend Mollie. Too bad Poulton's career didn't survive the transition to sound.

Bad Sister (1931)

Not bad at all

[7/10 · 30 July 2021]

Most people (including myself) almost certainly watched this film because of the early performances of future stars Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart. Indeed, their star quality shines through. Bette Davis (playing a good sister, in contrast to her later persona) delivers a beautifully understated performance. For example, in the moment after she gets kissed for the first time by the man that she had secretly loved, the expression on her face - a mix of astonishment, elation, and gratitude - speaks volumes within only a fleeting second. A beautiful moment. Humphrey Bogart, too, has such a distinctiveness that he steals every moment he is in. That said, all of the other actors were good too. And, really, it's more the story of the bad sister (Sidney Fox), and the interactions within the family while the two grownup sisters contemplate finding love. It all comes to a satisfying ending. Viewers who love that early 30's atmosphere in film should certainly enjoy this one.

Midnight (1934)

Becomes surprisingly good towards the end

[8/10 · 29 July 2021]

This film starts off slow and stagey, and you really need to get used to the early 1930's style of talkie where there is no soundtrack and the camera doesn't move very much. Yet, if you stay with it, and if you pay close attention to the actors' faces and the actors' words, then you will be rewarded. The story builds up slowly to a very satisfying conclusion. At first, the whole story seems focused on a woman's imminent execution and an elderly jury foreman's ambivalence in having been the man who facilitated the woman's death sentence (played by O. P. Heggie, who played the blind hermit in the Bride of Frankenstein). Then, at minute 49, the story takes a rather shocking turn and the story gets turned on its head -- causing a moral and philosophical dilemma which, at first, the old foreman is helpless to rectify due to his being so rigidly moral. "For heaven's name, man! What have you got in your veins? Milk???" utters a reporter who has inveigled his way into the foreman's crowded household on the night of the execution. The reporter (played by Henry Hull, of "Werewolf of London" fame) is, in that moment, trying to find a solution to the new problem. He convinces the old man to telephone the state governor (!) to help the situation. The governor comes to the house in person and turns out to be a father figure with the razor sharp intelligence of Poirot and ends up solving the problem! Not the usual portrayal of a state governor but quite entertaining. There's even a rather shocking moment (in the 63rd minute) where the governor bluntly asks a young woman if she's pregnant out of wedlock! I didn't think that was allowed to be said in a film in 1934. Humphrey Bogart is in this film, but - as other reviewers have noted - he's hardly in the film at all (but he plays a pivotal role in the story). The cinematography is mostly dull but there are two moments of surprising beauty. At minute 40, the condemned woman is photographed with her face partially seen over a priest's shoulder. Something about that shot reminded me of a silent film. The other beautiful shot is right at the end, where the reporter goes out to have a cigarette by himself to quietly contemplate the crazy events that he had witnessed that evening. Smoking by himself in the semi-dark, this brief shot is actually one of the most beautiful endings that I've seen in a film from any era.

Night Gallery: The Dark Boy/Keep in Touch - We'll Think of Something (1971) Season 2, Episode 10

"The Dark Boy" is a masterpiece: a touching ghost story about grief, loss, and closure

[10/10 · 16 May 2021]

This is a review of the first segment only, titled "The Dark Boy". As the other reviewers have described, this is a "western", the story of a widowed young teacher named Judith Timm, who arrives for a new job in a rural area (19th century Montana) to start a new job in a one room schoolhouse. There is an "extra" student in the class, a silent dark-haired boy that seemingly nobody else but she can see. It turns out that this boy is a ghost, having been killed in the school two years prior when he fell off a ladder and hit his head. He shows up in class, and then, when Judith is working in the evenings, he peers into the window at her, craving attention and affection, and eager to continue his education, even as a ghost. Later, we discover that one other person can see the boy-ghost: the boy's grieving father, Tom Robb (himself a widower, living alone on a homestead with his younger, surviving, son). Judith gets to know Tom, and realizes that behind his tough exterior is a sensitive man who loved his late son so much that he can't stop grieving and is repeatedly tortured by seeing his dead son's ghost. A romance then blossoms between Judith and Tom, and she helps him to finally attain closure by inviting him to follow them home. The final scene, where the boy (now unseen, but present in the distance through the trees) responds to the father's whipporwill calls with his own (something they used to do when he was alive)... that scene actually make me cry. As a big 48 year guy, I'd almost never cried at movies or films... but this ending made me sob. Maybe it's because I currently have a son that age and I can't imagine the grief of losing him. The Dark Boy is absolutely the most beautifully rendered episode that I've seen in Night Gallery. The cinematography, the music, the rural setting, and the very fine acting... in the end, it packs an emotional wallop. There are wonderful performances by old time character actresses Hope Summers and Gale Sondergaard... but it's the two central performances which really shine and deserve the most praise. Played with such emotional depth, subtlety, and sensitivity by two lesser known actors - Elizabeth Hartman and Michael Baseleon - their characters are grieving and lonely and we find ourselves emotionally invested and feeling their pain. This is definitely an episode that I'll never forget. It's a supernatural tale, but thematically it's very realistic because it hits upon the core of what it means to be human: to love and be loved. And the price of love - whether it's romantic, for family, friends, or a child - is to experience grief upon their passing that will never truly go away.

Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park (1978 TV Movie)

Highly entertaining

[7/10 · 3 May 2021]

I saw this when it was shown on TV in the late 70s. I must have been around eight years old. Back then, I thought it was the coolest thing ever. Despite seeing it only once, it remained in my memory all these years as an darkly glam epic adventure. Watching it some forty years later (in its original TV version), I'm struck by how shambolic it is. That's not to say it isn't highly entertaining. In fact, I still found some ability to regress into my eight year old self and enjoy the film on its own level. It helps that I love seeing the late 70s on film. As an adult, I found some interest in the story of the mad scientist. Somehow, I can relate to a frustrated scientist/inventor with a lot of talent but not enough funding. The actor playing Abner Devereaux provides the best performance in the film. KISS are interesting to watch. Surprisingly, they don't do very much. It's almost like they're disconnected from the main storyline for most of the film. Finally, near the end of the film, they take centre stage and fight their way to victory. I might rate this ten for enjoyment and five for quality... averaging to seven. I loved the spectacle of KISS shooting rays and Gene Simmons blowing fire, etc... The plot, however, has the cohesion of an undercooked casserole. Therefore, set your expectations low and just enjoy this unique piece of rock n'roll history.

Sleepless Nights (1932)

I don't want to go to bed

[9/10 · 27 April 2021]

Stanley Lupino was a consummate comedian, master of both physical, verbal, and romantic comedy. In most of his films, his character has a buddy or two -- and much of the comedy consists of the two characters playing off each other. In contrast, in Sleepless Nights (1932), it's Lupino who takes centre stage and provides nearly all of the funny moments. However, there is a bit of two-man comedy here, when Lupino plays off Gerald Rawlinson (who plays a nasty love rival, himself pulling goofy faces when getting hit on the head, consuming too much pepper, etc. No spoiler, really, to say that the villain gets his just desserts in the end -- last seen lost at sea in his underwear!). Some of the verbal comedy is really funny, as when Rawlinson angrily says to Lupino: "I live to dance on your grave"; and Lupino replies: "I hope you do. I'm going to be buried at sea." Ha! Overall, I enjoyed all the performances here and I never tire of seeing Lupino's masterful comic timing and facial expression. Obviously, the social mores portrayed in this film are really dated. It's hard to imagine a time that even being discovered in someone's bedroom, fully clothed, acting normally, with a member of the opposite sex, is enough to cause a major scandal. A lot of the comedy must have derived from the titillation of portraying behaviour that is right on the edge of being outright scandalous. While the scandal is more of a curio than titillating nowadays, the comedy is strong enough to make the film highly enjoyable.