Movies, Mom & Me

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    I've been looking forward to watching this movie for a long time, mainly because, well, I just can't imagine ...
    When I decided to obtain the movie, in large part because it was on stupendous sale, I'd read no reviews, nothing about it's reception, and, despite the fact that I now know it was universally lauded, didn't know anyone who'd seen it and can't remember ever noticing it in theatre line-ups locally. Of course, we don't have very many local theatres, but, even so ...
    I did know it was based on a novel, and that put me off, a bit, the thought, you know, that this kind of thing never really happened ... except it did. This article exposes the truth on which the novel is based, which is even more horrifying than the novel/movie by Emma Donoghue. Once I knew this, I was even more eager to watch the film, perhaps, even, read the book.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Brie Larson	Joy "Ma" Newsome	Jacob Tremblay	Jack Newsome	Joan Allen	Nancy Newsome	William H. Macy	Robert Newsome

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2015
    Directed by Lenny Abrahamson.

Labels: §3, father-daughter-dynamics, haunting3, horror2, mother-son-dynamics1, violence4

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    I saw this movie decades ago, on TV, I think. Although I enjoy Diana Ross' voice and, here and there, enjoyed songs released by Diana Ross and the Supremes, I never bought their records. Although I had quite a record collection back in the day, The Supremes were so ubiquitous on radio that I never felt the need to own theirs.
    I was, however, intrigued that Diana Ross was playing Billie Holiday, some of whose music I did own, I'm embarrassed to admit, by accident, when I "inherited" a collection of old recordings from someone who was leaving my vicinity. I found them provocative and played some of the 78s over and over and over. Finally, I was seduced by a clip from one of the tragic, emotional scenes from the movie. Long story short, much to my surprise, not only was I not disappointed by the movie, I have remembered bits and pieces of it for decades, which is why, when given the chance and presented with a stupendous sale price, I snapped up this movie. I expect to sit back and enjoy this movie for decades to come.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Diana Ross	Billie Holiday	Billy Dee Williams	Louis McKay	Richard Pryor	Piano Man	Virginia Capers	Sadie Fagan Holiday

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1972
    Directed by Sidney J. Furie.

Labels: §4, biography3, haunting3, musical2, tragedy2

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Jessica Chastain	Molly Bloom	Idris Elba	Charlie Jaffey	Kevin Costner	Larry Bloom	Michael Cera	Player X

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2015
    Directed by Aaron Sorkin.

Labels: §4, biography3, dramaF, economic, historical4

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    This is yet another movie that warranted two dedicated write-ups at Roger Ebert's website [the first review is linked to the title of this post, the second is immediately previous to this bracketed phrase] and several mentions in further articles about festival nominees and winners.
  
  
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Frances McDormand	Mildred Hayes	Woody Harrelson	Bill Willoughby	Sam Rockwell	Jason Dixon	Abbie Cornish	Anne Willoughby
  Lucas Hedges	Robbie Hayes	Željko Ivanek	Cedric Connolly	John Hawkes	Charlie Hayes	Peter Dinklage	James

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2017
    Directed by Martin McDonagh.

Labels: §4, detective1, john-hawkes

• 
  Commentary:  Iconic movie. Iconic acting performances. Iconic sets. Iconic lines. Iconic set pieces. Iconic photography. Despite PC quibbles throughout the years from feminists and LGBTQ activists regarding Foster's and Levine's characters, this movie has been assured, as well, an iconic role in filmography for the ages. It set standards for a variety of production values in film entertainment that, in many cases, haven't been superceded.
    Myself? I found it even more involving and enjoyable than any previous viewings; that's right, I'm not sure whether I've only see it once before, or more. There have always been bits of it I haven't been able to release from my mind, though, which is why I finally obtained the movie and am glad I did. To me, this is one of those one-of-a-kind productions that I refer back to when watching other movies of the same genre. Although, come to think of it, as far as the horror genre goes, there is one other that stands alone, for me, and to which I compare others in this genre: Midsommar. In my mind, these two movies stand, side-by-side, atop sub-categories in horror all their own.
    What a delight it was to watch this movie again! What a delight it will be to know I can watch it, yet again, any time I want!
    I thought I remembered a final scene in which Lecter is on a plane seated next to a young boy and shares some liver pâté with him, presumably from his latest victim. Missing this scene in this movie bothered me so much that I looked it up. Turns out, it's in the sequel to this movie, Hannibal, a 2001 production, and it wasn't pâté Lecter shared, it was brains, presumably Krendler's. I watched this movie and, as well, enjoyed it, but not enough to be driven to obtain it. At least, though, I solved the mystery of my memory of a "missing" scene.
    In 2001, Roger Ebert reconsidered his 1991 3.5 star review of this movie, rewrote the review, recalibrated it to 4 stars and assigned Silence of the Lambs Great Movies status.
    This edition features a second disc loaded, I mean, loaded, with special features, including a three part documentary with Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster about several aspects of making the movie. Way to steal my heart! I can't wait to go through them!
  Update: 4/27/2022:  BTW, I haven't yet cracked the special features on the second disc of this particular dvd presentation of this movie. If there's anything noteworthy that I'm provoked to write about, I'll add my comments, later.
  Update: 4/28/2022:  I watched all the special features for this edition last night, well over two hours of material. Many of the special features were recorded a decade or more after the initial release of the film. All the special features were worth a watch. Many of them focused on the relationships between the actors as they worked, including their surprise at and appreciation of their colleagues' bit tricks, so to speak, and their ability to encourage each others' performances with these acting tics. There was also quite a bit of eye-opening, appreciative comment on Jonathan Demme's process and procedure, as well as detailed commentary on his adaptation of the book into a movie. I love special features like this, that delve into the techniques used by actors and crew during the filming of movies. If you've got the "Collector's Edition" of this movie and you're fascinated by movies, don't ignore the special features about this movie!
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Jodie Foster	Clarice Starling	Anthony Hopkins	Hannibal Lecter	Ted Levine	Jame Gumb	Scott Glenn	Jack Crawford
  Anthony Heald	Frederick Chilton	Brooke Smith	Catherine Martin	Diane Baker	Ruth Martin	Chris Isaak	SWAT Commander

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date:1991
    Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Labels: anthony-hopkins, detective1, dramaF, gender-bender, horror2, mystery2, neo-noirB, psychological2, suspense3, thriller2, violence4

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    I haven't received this movie, yet, but it's on its way (from North Dakota, no less) and I should have it by Friday.
    It's funny, because, recalling what I said about the last movie I entered in here, Serenity, regarding how I was really excited about seeing that movie, well, the truth is, I feel the same about this movie and the last four I've listed. I obtained them all through a sale featuring movies that featured strong female roles, actors and/or directors and other crew. I've never seen a sale like that. It will probably be a long time before I see one like that again. I want to mention, though, for anyone "listening", there's an excellent chance I would not have obtained any of these five movies had they not been presented in such a format. Kudos to whomever thought of it. Sterling idea! More, please!
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Viola Davis	Veronica Rawlings	Michelle Rodriguez	Linda	Elizabeth Debicki	Alice	Cynthia Erivo	Belle

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2018
    Directed by Steve McQueen.

Labels: §4, dramaE, neo-noirC, political5, revenge1, tragedy2, violence4

• 
  Commentary:  Under construction.
    I'm unusually excited about watching this movie, which is why I obtained it. I don't think it's going to be a typical space-opera. The initial information I've read on this movie indicates that it might be a bit prescient about what's going on in the world, now.
  
  
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Nathan Fillion	Malcolm Reynolds	Gina Torres	Zoë Alleyne Washburne	Alan Tudyk	Hoban Washburne	Chiwetel Ejiofor	The Operative

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2005
    Directed by Joss Whedon.

Labels: §4, action4, adventure4, neo-noirC, political5, science-fiction2, space-opera, violence4, war3

• 
  Commentary:  This movie created quite the buzz, initiating no less than four dedicated articles on Roger Ebert's site and a further flurry of mentions in compendium articles there. It also caught the eyes of many awards organizations and won more than a few of its nominations.
  Update 4/21/22:  I watched this movie last night, 4/20/22. Yeow! I was glued to the screen! Superbly watchable movie, very involving, no false performances or sloppy plot schematics that I could detect, subtly presented, expertly framed the protagonist's journey into revenge and, ultimately, horror! A wonderful job done by all, notably writer/director Emerald Fennell. Now, I'm curious about her other work, some of which, as an actress, I've seen. Really looking forward to more of her work in all categories of film making!
    Of note, this movie has also inspired me to add another label category, "revenge". Turns out, another movie I recently acquired with this one also fits this category, so I've started out running. I'm about to add a third, an old one that clearly fits into this category. I'm sure I'll find more in my collection to which "revenge" applies.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Carey Mulligan	Cassie Thomas	Bo Burnham	Ryan Cooper	Alison Brie	Madison McPhee	Clancy Brown	Stanley Thomas

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 2020
    Directed by Emerald Fennell.

Labels: dramaE, female-director3, feminist, revenge1, violence4, women's-movie2

• 
  Commentary:  [4/25/2022] I just finished watching this movie. I'm sure I've watched this movie before, but much later than its release date, as I was only eight years old when the movie was released and was aware neither of religion nor of the Catholic Church nor of nuns.
    My introduction to the Catholic Church and nuns took place when our family moved to Guam (and remained there for thirteen years) when I was nine; that's right, a year after this movie was released. Guam was (and, likely, still is) a thoroughly Catholic island. I had many Catholic friends. I had several teachers in public schools, from elementary through college, who were nuns. The last nun I had as a teacher was Dr. Margaret Stumpf at the University of Guam. She was a habitless nun (as many nuns became, once the Church necessity for habits was abolished). She was also one of my favorite college teachers.
    I was surrounded by the practice and pageantry of the Catholic Church, even though I neither believed in nor practiced Catholicism. By the time I was in junior high I knew the rosary, both the standard version and the special stations-of-the-cross version, because every night of our lives, from 5:45 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. (5:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. on holy days) we were exposed, at home, on television, to "The Rosary Hour", featuring Father (then Bishop, then Archbishop) Flores droning through the rosary prayers before KUAM's entertainment programming began. When I was in college and my younger sisters were in high school the word "nun" became a humorous pejorative indicating that the person (either male or female) to whom it was applied was, well, a bit of a dit (which, itself, meant, a kind of low-brow, unthinking, unintending asshole). At any rate, Guam was so saturated with Catholicism that I was, too, despite not ever becoming Catholic or wanting to.
    Curiously, though, I do remember wondering whether I might like to become a nun. This was probably the time that I saw The Nun's Story, likely on television. I think I found the cheery dedication of the nuns I knew inspiring, although I gave little thought to what would be involved in becoming a nun, especially considering that I was not only not Catholic, I was raised in a kind of Protestant hot-home full of religious discussion but lacking religious practice. It often occurred to me, during this time, that I was not alone in this day-dream, that, in fact, quite a few of my female friends considered exactly the same possibility for exactly the same reasons as me. Thus, I had a keen interest in this movie when I obtained it a few days ago. I think I may have wanted to refresh my memories of my jumbled, ahem, "religious upbringing".
    The first thing I noticed is that once Sister Luke (played by Audrey Hepburn) arrives in the Congo, a lot of the movie is filled with what I can only describe as National Geographic video footage of African tribal life (minus the bare breasts; I guess the producers of this movie felt that what teenagers, in their bedrooms in the late 50's and early 60's, slavered over in the glossy pages of National Geographic, a "family" magazine, was not fitting fare for a 1959 movie screen). The second thing I noticed is the depth of the interpersonal soul-scouring conversations between Dr. Fortunati (played by Peter Finch) and Sister Luke. The third thing I noticed is that the characters of the nuns and their relationships amongst one another were portrayed with a seriousness and delicacy that I hadn't remembered.
    I thoroughly enjoyed watching the movie again. Frankly, I had not retained much of it, so it was rather like watching it anew. I'm glad I had the opportunity to add it to my collection. I agree with someone I read on this movie, I can't remember who, that, although dated, in part, it is likely Audrey Hepburn's best performance, and she was supported by actors who were also at the top of their game. Oddly, my favorite performance in the movie, a bit part, is that of Mother Marcella (played by Ruth White) the nun who urges Sister Luke, in order to address a difficult relationship involving wrestling with humility with one of her fellow nuns, to fail her upcoming final exam at the School of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp. Ruth White absolutely nails the portrayal of this cruel nun who is, obviously, lacking in humility, herself. The performance was so good, so chilling, that I looked up Ruth White and bookmarked her to remind me to seek out more of her video work.
    A miscellaneous note: On February 3, 2020, the America - The Jesuit Review published a review of this film by Nadra Nittle, who praised this film. The Wikipedia article (to which I've linked, below), in mentioning Nadra Nittle's article, tacked on the following sentence: "There is no mention of the magazine's late literary editor Father Gardiner and his support for the source material and involvement in the adaptation." I'm not sure why this sentence was included, unless to attempt to create a tempest in a teapot. At any rate, Nadra Nittle isn't a Jesuit, there is no mention of whether she's Catholic, and I think this one sentence observation underlines a problem the author of the Wikipedia article has with the Catholic church, rather than a problem with the movie or Nittle's review. At any, rate, Nittle's article is far from the only review of praise for this movie. Although Roger Ebert did not review this film, I've linked the title of this write-up to an interesting and far from negative review of the movie by Glenn Erickson, DVD Savant.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Audrey Hepburn	Sister Luke	Peter Finch	Dr. Fortunati	Mother Marcella	Ruth White	Niall MacGinnis	Father Vermeuhlen

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1959
    Directed by Fred Zinnemann.

Labels: biography3, character-study, coming-of-age2, dean-jagger, dramaF, religion2, spiritual2

• 
  Commentary:  This movie turns on Sarah Tobias' (played with verve and extraordinary competence by Jodie Foster) dance in the game room of the bar she was in the night she was raped. The dance is joyously energetic, celebratory, expressive and, yes, seemingly provocative, except that it is clear she wasn't trying to provoke anything, she was merely expressing. That dance, more than anything in the movie, is what defines the criminal injustice in what happened to her next. The idea of rape was clearly present in the minds of the watchers even before the dance took place. The rapists were simply waiting for the opportunity to do the deed. It didn't matter on who they perpetrated the rape. It could have been any of the women in that bar. It just happened to be Sarah. It was Sarah because, if you notice, all the other featured women in the bar left as the rape took shape in the minds of the rapists and onlookers or as it commenced. This movie is, in my opinion, a brilliant commentary on male society's perspective on rape. To men, they are not the perpetrators, women are, for simply being, well, women. Although a dance preceeded this rape, rarely does anything objectively "provocative" preceed most rapes. Thus, the presence, or absence, of a provocative dance is not up for question. The movie clearly underlines that rape isn't something women, or men, for that matter, provoke, it's something that men perpetrate upon weaker members of the society, women, primarily, but not exclusively.
    I initially saw this movie a long time ago, possibly on television, but I can't be sure. I'd forgotten about it until it popped up in a sale of film products featuring female actors and other crew. Suddenly, I was remembering the extraordinary effect it had on me. It did not make me afraid, so much, as disgusted at the shenanigans through which the legal system put this case. It smartened me up right quick, as they say in the trades. I've never had to participate in such a case, and hope I never do, but thinking, yet again, about this movie still kindles a sense of righteous anger in me.
    Let me state this clearly: As a woman, and, only, as a woman, I neither like nor trust men. I learned this, first from my father, not explicitly, but implicitly, ambiguously. Even when some man, somewhere, says or does something with which I concur, which is often, I am guarded. I am always thinking, in the back of my mind, that at any moment that particular man is going to say or do something else that will completely undercut any act of seeming fairness or support. That's just what it is to be a woman in this society, and many others. It could be different but, in 1988, when this movie was released, and now, in 2022, as I just completed watching it for the second time in my life, this remains true. And, men wonder why in the world some feminists want to separate from, or get rid of, men.
    

  Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role	Actor	Role
  Jodie Foster	Sarah Tobias	Kelly McGillis	Kathryn Murphy	Bernie Coulson	Kenneth Joyce	Ann Hearn	Salley Fraser

  
    Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
    Release Date: 1988
    Directed by Jonathan Kaplan.

Labels: 20th-century-chick-flicks1, character-study, dramaE, feminist, legal, violence4

  I've decided to make sure I've watched all my titles at least twice. As you can imagine, there are several I've watched well over twice, but many more I've watched only once. And, yes, even if some of the newer entries have no write-ups, as of this date (and time) I've watched everything listed on this site at least once. That will change, this Friday, when I receive five new movies that I've never watched, but, believe me, it won't be long before they've joined the ranks of the watched.
  At any rate, I want to make mention of the [RW] designation before it appears next to many more titles. I decided to signify that I've re-watched movies in my collection as an appropriate way to decide, over time, whether I'd like to do any more collection thinning. As well, if I know I've watched a particular title two or more times already, I'm going to re-watch it, again, just to satisfy myself that I want to keep it. The task won't be hard. If you haven't yet guessed, I love watching movies and shows, and, if I favor them, I love watching them repeatedly!
  So. That's the strategy. And, yes, if I decide to pass any particular title on to the library, or somewhere else, its title in the Alpha Index will be changed to that golden-yellow color.