The Trouble With Harry (1955) REVISIT

I had never seen The Trouble With Harry before and nothing really prepared me. It is like no other Hitchcock film I've seen and is really more in the spirit of a Wes Anderson film. It's absurd, and romantic, and darkly comic. I spent the entire movie not believing what I was seeing.

A young boy finds a dead body in the woods on a lovely fall day and then the film progresses through a number of people stumbling across him, none seeming to be very upset he's dead, each perhaps believing they were the ones to do him in only to discover they weren't. They bury him, dig him up, and repeat that process. Along the way two couples fall in love and move on, all better off Harry is gone. 

There were moments I laughed out loud, more out of surprise at what I was seeing than in reaction to a real joke. But the film is quite funny in its way. But that's the thing about Harry, it's its own animal. It's not romantic like romantic movies. It's not mysterious like mysteries. It's not darkly comic like most dark comedies. 

The film with its technicolour pastoral setting and twisty plot remains absurd in its sensibilities. It is a strong shift from most of the director's work leading up to it, almost like he was trying something completely different. I understand the film wasn't a commercial success and perhaps that could be expected as film makers get boxed into a certain type and have a hard time breaking out. He had just made the masterpiece Rear Window and the romance To Catch a Thief. He would go on to remake The Man Who Knew Too Much and would go on to make his signature films Vertigo and Psycho. But in the middle he made this quirky, weird, oddball of a film and in someways that in itself is fascinating. 

The Trouble With Harry

Starring: Shirley MacLaine, John Forsythe, Edmund Gwenn, Mildred Natwick, Royal Dano

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Writer: John Michael Hayes

 

Fear Street Part One 1994, Part Two 1978, Part Three 1666 (2021)

Most of us have memories of watching slasher films as teens, with its cathartic unleashing of our fears and torments put into a palpable but safe format for us to exorcise. Each generation has theirs (Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream). They are a right of passage. Perhaps its fitting the latest entry into this legacy is a streaming series, the way the newest generation consumes movies. 

The Fear Street Trilogy is an homage to teen slasher films of the past from the 70s through to today. A group of teens are hunted by a knife wielding killer, some meet gruesome deaths, others become the heroes of the story, and there is a built in legacy element that usually develops over a series of films, here mapped out entirely as part of this experiment in tribute. And it's all packaged in a teen friendly, so not too gruesome with just the right amount of sex and violence to make it palatable, ready to consume, format that is all about the fun of the classic slasher genre. 

There's a good story here. None of it is dumb or silly (at least not any more than it is supposed to be). Director Janiak does a great job of capturing the tropes of the genre while investing us in the characters and telling us a fun, bloody story. Each chapter has its own feel, set in different times and capturing the magic of each era's conventions, but each contributing to the overall main story. Interestingly the progression moves us back through time so we get the most modern story first and the events of the past are revealed more slowly. 

In the first part, set in 1994, and featuring a soundtrack that won't let you forget the mid-90s, there are all the hallmarks one would expect. The opening sacrifice scene, the set up of the main cast who will be chased by the killers, especially the heroine (cause it's always a girl at the centre of these stories) who saves the day, and the twist and mystery that gives the story its edge. It is set in a suburban community where teens are tormented by a slasher, just like the classics of that era (Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer) evoking the nostalgia for that time. Plus there is just enough of a tease for the next chapter which will bring us back to 1978 and set us in the world of a summer camp terrorized by a homicidal maniac. 

Part Two 1978 has all the killer at a summer camp fun and hi-jinx one would expect. With its 70s soundtrack and wardrobe it is an adoring homage to the Friday the 13th style slasher films a generation grew up on. But it also connects quite nicely to the main story which started with 1994 and sets up the final instalment which brings us all the way back to the beginning in 1666... as any good middle chapter should. Now all that's left is to flash back to the past and the origin of all the evil in the final Part Three. 

The final chapter takes us back to  the 17th century and sets us right in the heart of the witch hysteria. The "twist" (not really hard to figure out) here is interesting because the slasher genre has already struggled with a kind of brutal but complicated misogyny that revels in brutality towards women, especially attractive sexually active young women, while also elevating one idealized woman to the status of hero. Witch trials are also of coarse based in hatred of women and the attempted control of women through violence. As the plot unfolds we discover the curses we have been following for the first two movies is based on patriarchal violence. The centring of queer women in the earlier films wasn't just a device but central to the story which explores this evil as a male domination which has to be overcome. All of this makes Fear Street not just escapist entertainment but a comment on how gender violence has been woven through American history so thoroughly. 

The point of the films is to bring us back to our memories and love of these films while also making it accessible for the Gen Z audience who is just discovering this genre. Fear Street is a love letter. It's not a spoof, doesn't go into being self-aware, and doesn't try to deconstruct the meaning of these horror films or our twisted society. Fear Street just embraces what it is for what it is. Like the book series its based on it attempts to create a very specific mood and tone. In so many ways it was a refreshing and surprisingly fun roller coaster. You'll scream. You'll giggle and be grossed out. You'll have the kind of cathartic good time that a good slasher film can provide, all within the safe boundaries of a PG-13 horror film. Generally it's a bloody good time. 

Fear Street Part One 1994, Part Two 1978, Part Three 1666

Staring: Kiana Madeira, Olivia Scott Welch, Benjamin Flores Jr., Julia Rehwald, Fred Hechinger

Director: Leigh Janiak

Writers: Phil Graziacei, Leigh Janiak 

No Sudden Move (2021)

For a film maker who was retiring Steven Soderbergh certainly makes a lot of movies. His latest, the classically themed crime noir No Sudden Move, is one of his stronger of late. For me his work is all over the map from the good, the bad, and the ugly. Fortunately this one is really good. 

No Sudden Move revels in the genres classic tropes in a way that feels fresh and alive. It's a loving homage and never feels cliche. Soderbergh starts his tale with a delicious intro which sets out the story, the stakes, and who the characters are, getting us into the heart of the tale. He doesn't waste time but he also doesn't rush. The film doesn't feel economical. It's just enough to submerge us into the narrative and the lives of its inhabitants. From there his film, drenched in rich colours and shot through a washed out palette with dim lights, runs us through its caper and we are along for the ride no matter what. 

This is a dream cast. Cheadle and Del Toro are the centre of it and they each bring their A game, and each has a wonderful A game. But the supporting cast, filled with some delightful surprises, all bring it home. The film achieves high levels of intensity due to how strong the cast is in bringing this story to life. The whole thing is just a joy to watch. 

I'm going to throw out a controversial take. This may be Soderbergh's best film (at least since Out of Sight). This is coming from someone who doesn't tend to enjoy his work. But in this case he hit all my buttons. And I can't recommend it enough. 

No Sudden Move

Starring: Don Cheadle, Benicio Del Toro, Jon Hamm, Ray Liotta, Brendan Fraser, David Harbour, Amy Seimetz, Kieran Culkin, Noah Jupe, Bill Duke, Julia Fox, Matt Damon

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Writer: Ed Solomon

 

The Tomorrow War (2021)

Many comments about The Tomorrow War focus on how it is visually spectacular and a great premise but the execution is lacking. I think the last part is true but I'm not sure about the first parts. I'm not sure the premise, people from the "present" being recruited to go to the future to fight an alien invasion, is really that great a premise. I'm not saying any of it is bad, it's just the film feels a bit lacklustre. Maybe there is a reason this one didn't get saved for the big screen. 

First the story. It's an idea and it works... enough. I would have liked it if the film had found more of a reason for its gimmicks. Instead it feels more like the idea playing out is the whole reason for the film and the story never quite lives up to it. There are "twists" but none of them can't be seen coming a mile away and mostly there are a lot of contrived convenient coincidences. Again it's not a terrible story, it's just never overly interesting. And it's long, too long for a story that its audience might not be totally invested in. 

In 2021 for effects to be "spectacular" they have to somehow impact in a way that doesn't distract from the story but really take it to the next level. I'm not sure The Tomorrow War gets there. Nothing in the visual presentation of The Tomorrow War blew me away. 

Pretty much everything about The Tomorrow War is just okay. It never wrestles with any of the questions it story brings up just by the nature of such a tale, instead looking for easy answers or just turning a blind eye to things. And, like a lot of films with time travel plots, it falls into some problems with the timelines that just are better not to think so much about. 

I guess I wouldn't warn people not to see The Tomorrow War. I just wouldn't recommend it if they were on the fence. It's a very surface level adventure and rather forgettable in the end. 

The Tomorrow War

Starring: Chris Pratt, Yvonne Strahovski, JK Simmons, Betty Gilpin, Sam Richardson

Director: Chris McKay

Writer: Zach Dean 

 

America the Motion Picture (2021)

For me the work of animation "it" guys Lord and Miller is hit or miss. While The Lego Movie and Into the Spider-Verse were minor masterpieces, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs and the recent The Mitchells Vs. the Machines were completely overrated disappointments. Well their latest experiment, an Archer-like irreverent take on the founding of the United States of America, with heavy doses of revisionist history, is a clunky, unfunny mess that often leaves you wondering WTF is the point?

The clear intention is to comment on Americana with a violent, sexually explicit, and expletive laden retelling of the founding of "America" which sounds great in principal but in execution ends up on the boring side. Little about the film entertains. The story seems focused more on getting from one over the top joke to the next instead of telling a story. There are weird developments like Lincoln and Edison being contemporaries of Washington and other anachronistic plot points. But the worst part is that its irreverence is limited to being silly and gross and never ends up clever or cutting. There is no critique in this film. 

For a project like this to work you need a point, a thesis, that the film explores about the nature of Americaness. America the Motion Picture doesn't say anything, well nothing interesting. Despite how many F-bombs it drops the film remains rather safe. And that is the biggest disappointment of all. 

America the Motion Picture

Starring: Channing Tatum, Simon Pegg, Judy Greer, Olivia Munn, Will Forte, Jason Mantzoukas, Andy Samberg

Director: Matt Thompson

Writer: Dave Callaham 

 

Rope (1948) REVISIT

The opening shot of Rope is intense although our modern sensibilities might miss just how much. Two men rapturously murder a man by strangulation and then hide him, almost in plain sight, while inviting over the dead man's friends and family. It is gruesomely powerful and defiant. It skirts our comfortable morals and pushes us to start considering the unimaginable. 

The film is about their attempt to pull off the "perfect murder," to justify their entitlement, and celebrate their accomplishment. It is a portrait and intellectual exploration evil, and one that almost convinces itself of its subjects point of view. The film is remarkably uncomfortable in how much it makes us fascinated in the killers' point of view. We become enthralled with Brandon's glee and Phillip's doubt. We come to these movies because of our fascinations with murder and Rope confronts us with that and makes us wrestle with our attraction to these stories. 

The other captivating aspect of Rope is the technique Hitchcock used to make it. He films in a series on long takes all run together to appear as one take. At the time a film real only allowed him to film for around 9 minutes so he structured his film in single shots of that amount of time giving the film an appearance of us being present at the doomed party. I find this trick works wonders. It grounds us in the centre of the story; we're trapped in it. So all of our complicated reactions to the killers and their plot keep us tightly wrapped up in the heart of everything. And the film literally breaks the fourth wall. The crew moved walls to allow the camera to smoothly follow its characters forcing us to see what constructed nature of the set and giving us an omnipotent point of view. All of this structure gives the film a feel like few others and sutures us into the story in ways most films don't. 

The film focuses on the passions and intellectual musings of the killers and their circle, especially their former teacher. Questions of morality are batted around, some more radical than others. It's all delicious and somewhat dangerous and the film's structure pushes it all closer to the surface that it might be otherwise. It makes us call into question our own feelings and whether we could also be convinced. While the film ends up reaffirming the values we are more comfortable with Rope quite effectively flirts with more disturbing impulses and plays with how much more curious we are than we want to admit. 

As with many Hitchcock films, there is a palpable queer subtext to the work. The film is about two fairly obvious gay men who are hiding a rather big secret in the middle of the room amongst all the people surrounding them. One is dying to just reveal the truth, to revel in it and rub it in their faces, while another is about to fall apart stressed about what will happen when the world knows what he wants to keep secret. In the middle of this is an older man who has nurtured and influenced the younger men and doesn't know exactly just how much of an impact he has had, and perhaps isn't willing to take responsibility for what he has inspired. In the end he has to recant and take back all his philosophical musings. Casting real life queer actors Granger and (likely) Dall plays double duty as both queer coding the villains while also bolstering the queer subtext of the film. There is even a moment Granger's character is called explicitly "queer." 

For me watching Rope is always a riveting experience. From that stunning opening moment through the building tension of the screenplay, through to the conclusion which forces us to reckon with our own complicity in the plot, Rope always grips me and doesn't let go. There are times I almost root for the pair to pull it off but I am always relieved by the conclusion. I appreciate how Rope indicts us in its own crime, as we should feel questionable about how we react to it. I always get a dark feeling watching Rope and . 

Rope

Starring: Jimmy Stewart, Farley Granger, John Dall, Joan Chandler, Edith Evanson, Douglas Dick, Constance Collier, Cedrick Hardwicke 

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Writer: Arthur Laurents

Good on Paper (2021)

I really enjoy Iliza Shlesinger and usually she makes me laugh out loud. Which is why it was disappointing how few good laughs are in this vehicle for her, written by her, in which she is in almost every scene. Good on Paper is a riff on rom-coms that gets underneath a lot of the assumptions of the genre but likely would have worked better if it was funnier. I mean Margaret Cho is in this and she's not that funny either. I know, that's hard to believe. 

The film was a weird progression, starting out about how a platonic friendship morphs into a romantic relationship even going so far as to ensure Hansen's character is "unattractive" and never establishes why she suddenly becomes so passionate about him. Then it moves into questioning whether he is who he says he is. Then it becomes a revenge comedy. But none of the parts fits well with the others. 

The film goes into over the top territory so that it feels more like a bit than a movie with a full plot. By the third act Cho and Schlesinger are just camping it up so much it is hard to take any of it at face value. And there is this weird Seinfeld gimmick where we constantly cut to her on stage doing her comedy that, like the rest of the movie, isn't often very funny. 

But it's not a total disaster. The film has a nice subplot that challenges the rivalries and competition between women. The strength of the film is the way it attempts to pass along a message of being true to yourself instead of needing a relationship. But the film is just generally clunky and not as entertaining as one would hope. 

Good on Paper

Starring: Iliza Shlesinger, Ryan Hansen, Margaret Cho, Rebecca Rittenhouse

Director: Kimmy Gatewood

Writer: Iliza Shlesinger