The Petrified Forest - 1936

 FUCK! I guessed one year off. 

I'm going back to Bogie. We just don't have actors like him anymore. To jump into that,  I'd say this: this role is almost expressly written to go unnoticed. He barely has any dialogue, and almost all he does is de-escalate the situation. He is dry and sarcastic,  a real dick and killjoy. But he stands out from the postcard Hollywood of everything else in this movie,  practically popping in like someone from now being all like eh... this shits kinda lame and wack, doncha think? Bogie annihilates the role,  no wonder he got noticed.

Based on a play, we get one of my fave things: minimalism. We got one set and mostly one room,  actors talking and yes, it's very entertaining. 

British lad Alan is wandering Arizona when he finds a hole in the wall restaurant where Gabby works but has bigger dreams. They hit it off and fall in love immediately. Meanwhile villain Duke and his boys are escaped convicts and radio broadcasts tell of their trip through Arizona. The criminals meet up with the star crossed lovers and the other shady characters in this nowhere town. 

Funny,  witty, but also simultaneously cliche beyond all words,  this is something to behold. There's meditations on fate,  love,  destiny, dreams,  reality, and everything in between. There's racial commentary. There's gramps, who's just thrilled to be there and wants to watch the bloodshed. It's all over the place. 

I had seen it before but not reviewed it,  and with rewatch it holds up. I love this movie. 

Nymphomaniac - 2013

 This is in fact the entire Nymphomaniac, parts 1 and 2, just didn't note it in the title. 

I have elevated Lars Von Trier to one of the most human directors in my head recently. After Melancholia, The House that Jack Built,  and Antichrist, I jumped into Nymphomaniac while I digested a weed edible. No I did not see all those movies in one day. 

Nymphomaniac actually got a theatrical release,  a bit,  and probably chopped to all hell here in the US.  It's on Hulu currently in the unrated (read: graphic AF) directors cut,  which is what I watched. 

The plot is very simple so let's just say it. A man finds a beat up woman in the street and brings her home. Her name is Joe and she begins to recount to him her life story as a self diagnosed Nymphomaniac. Her story begins "I first discovered my cunt at age three" and if you don't like that turn it off,  cuz that's what you're in for. 

The fascinating thing about this movie is first of all the novelty even in a porn obsessed culture to find fascination with the sexual acts,  but also the underlying humanity,  emotion,  and connection or lack thereof. Joe is a complicated,  vengeful,  dynamic and thoroughly understandable person with wants and needs, cruelties and loves.  If anyone thinks this was a great way to see nudity and went as a teenager,  I wonder wtf they thought when they walked out.

Part one is Joe's promiscuous youth,  loss of virginity and anal virginity,  getting into the real world,  and falling in love. Part two is her attempt at normalcy,  discovering submission, and a lesbian relationship which crumbles.  Both of these parts are told to asexual intellectual Stellan Skarsgård, who occasionally comments or asks questions but mainly acts as an audience surrogate. 

Shia LaBeouf is her love interest, Mia Goth is her childhood friend,  Willem Dafoe is in a small role,  and otherwise it seems to have very real people,  and depict very real sexuality. This is not a sexy movie,  though,  I would argue. I think there is a deliberate choice to have the actresses not seem very pleased and blown away by their orgasm and to not seem like sexpots as we might expect in the traditional way. They act like an alcoholic might with a beer,  he drinks it without noticing,  without desperation or joy. Detuned, in a pattern,  unaware. This movie is not lascivious. It is merely about a process,  one which it views as akin to any other process. 

This is one which will sit with you for a long time if you get it. The ending is very important and quite unexpected,  and I wasn't sure I liked it. But I've been sitting with Part Two and digesting it,  and overall there's just a LOT to talk about with this movie. 

This movie is why film is important. This is art, this is designed to make you think,  this is a challenge and it is about something we don't talk about enough, the human Condition. Or to put it another way,  Soul. 

I loved it and I give it 5 stars. 

Copycat - 1995

 The year is 1995. Se7en comes out and changes thriller cop films and ushers in a new Era of extremist grungy 90s aesthetic. But what ELSE came out in 95?

Copycat is by all definitions "some thriller movie" that most people don't acknowledge and which was certainly glossed over that year in favor of Se7en, which beat it to release,  but according to Wikipedia Copycat had some success and good reviews. 

Sigourney Weaver,  post Alien 3, stars as an agoraphobic psychologist or something,  and she helped stopped killer Cullum. Now a new serial killer is active in San Francisco and once again Weaver is tapped by cops Holly Hunter and Dermot Mulroney to help. Soon enough Weaver discovers their serial killer is copying well known killers from history,  and that he is somehow connected to Cullum, who she stopped years ago. Thus, the new killer may be after her. 

It's a solid cast,  and the dynamics of Weaver and Hunter together are nice. I guess originally Hunter was to be a male and love interest for Weaver,  glad they lost that angle. The new serial killer Foley is the weakest link,  and this definitely leans into the uber genius/ mega stylist way that all killers in modern media are depicted.

It's fine! It's solid. It's forgettable. It made me wonder,  though,  which completely forgotten nothing movie would be funniest to get a sequel now. The movie would have to be in no way well known, not very successful but not a complete bomb. No impact but large enough in scale to where it actually was released. I guess I'm saying Copycat here is a good candidate. I would go see Copycat 2: Copykill. Everyone is still alive. Cmon Hollywood. 

I'll give this 3.5 stars

The Stunt Man - 1980

 Wow.  I was way off on my guess of the year this one came out.  Feels a lot more 70s to me.

The Stunt Man is a relatively well known cult type film, one a bit off the general radar but still well within the overall realm of these kinda things.  We got Steve Railsback and Peter O'Toole in a genre which is kinda gone, one which I sorta forgot about...  This is the "whoa dude Hollywood is so wacky and crazy and there's drugs and girls and you'll make millions or it'll destroy you...wow dude" 

What was the last one of these types of movies?  Immediately I think of Boogie Nights and sort of Almost Famous.  Movies wherein its kinda a dramatic comedy, I guess, and its about the disenfranchisement of someone discovering their dream is not what they thought, or its a riotous romp about the insanity and audacity therein.  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not count, because it's about the Manson family stuff more.

The Stunt Man starts with a criminal, Railsback, escaping the police and bumping into a film crew.  He gets tapped to perform stunts by the directer, O'Toole, who takes an instant liking to him.  Railsback is promised to be protected and make money if he signs on to perform stunts in the movie, and soon he discovers success and happiness in this new niche group.  But things, naturally, are not all they seem.

I could easily see why this is in the cult realm, and I can easily see why people might really like it.  It has wackiness, silliness, and incredible stunts.  Its all real, and it shows some of the golden age of Hollywood insanity which truly must've been fun and fucking fucked up to be a part of at one point.  

It moves a bit slow and it really plays up the drama in the last part, which also highlights some of Railsback's relative inexperience as a film actor.  I hate to say it, but he just is not right for this part, or maybe its the writing I don't know.  Sometimes in the end its kinda amateurish.  But it's also bogged down by weird and convoluted writing and its sorta a who knows general feeling.  So, it doesn't stick the landing and that makes me give it about a 3.5.

By the way....  My guess for the year was 1974.  This is straight from Wikipedia: " The script was first written in 1970 when the rights were first sold. The film was shot in 1977 with post-production conducted in 1979. The picture had trouble getting distributed until 20th Century Fox picked it up and released it in 1980."  I fucking knew it wasn't 1980.