Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 3 Comments

#286 In Cold Blood

Watched: December 6 2020

Director: Richard Brooks

Starring: Robert Blake, Scott Wilson, John Forsythe, Paul Stewart

Year: 1967

Runtime: 2h 14min

Source

Perry (Blake) is a slightly simple ex-con who dreams of fame and fortune. He breaks his parole so he can return to Kansas in order to meet up with old cell mate Dick (Wilson), who can offer him a sure thing. Monetary wise, that is. Not a date or anything.

If you can think of a single date idea which would require a trip to the hardware store in preparation, we’d like to know. Then, leave your contact information and the number for your local police.

Source

Another old prison buddy has told Dick about a hidden safe in the basement of a farmer, and the pair plan to get their hands on it. However, what could have been a simple burglary soon turns into a bloodbath…

“Bubble bath. I said I wanted a BUBBLE bath. You need to get your hearing aid fixed.”

Source

We don’t want to reveal too much here even though it’s a 50 year old film based on an even older book based on a yet older real crime… Suffice to say investigators are soon on the criminals’ trails. But what really happened? And who pulled the trigger?

Also, who wore the easily identifiable shoes to a crime scene???

Source

This movie is amazing and you should watch it. We loved the build up to the crime and the fact that we then skipped neatly to the aftermath without seeing it play out. It is excellently structured, well acted and overall really well done. The 2+ hours fly by!

Like the lit-up club, casino and hotel signs in old-timey montages! Imagine “Mas Que Nada” playing in the background.

Source

Now, Dick is a dick from the beginning. Perry is perhaps a bit more sympathetic, but they both share the same anger issues. They are disenfranchised young men with a murderous streak and little left to lose.

They are also traumatized by abusive childhoods and war. Sorry, it’s hard to make hilarious captions about this story…

Source

As the movie plays out, you keep forgetting that Perry and Dick have killed an entire family – probably because you don’t actually see them do it. Which is somewhat unsettling and uncomfortable when you find yourself giggling at their shenanigans and sort of hoping they’ll get away.

On the other hand, we’re also introduced to this ridiculously wholesome family, who certainly did not deserve their fate. Our loyalties are torn, is all we’re saying. And we guess that’s sort of the point…

Source

Real question though, are trials in the USA that revenge-driven, or are they just that way in movies? Because for us rational (some would say cold and unfeeling, we prefer logical and Spock-like) Norwegians, emotions and ideas of revenge are not what should decide the outcome of a trial… Just a thought there, America.

What we learned: American trials are insane… Also, sometimes things just don’t make sense.

Next time: In the Heat of the Night (1967)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#285 Dont Look Back

Watched: November 23 2020

Director: D. A. Pennebaker

Starring: Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Albert Grossman, Bob Neuwirtz, etc.

Year: 1967

Runtime: 1h 36min

Source

We have a confession to make. We don’t really care that much about Bob Dylan…

Sorry ’bout it, Bob

Source

I mean, sure, we know the hits, we know the face and we get the general gist of his appeal, but he was never really our cup of tea. Or coffee for that matter. Still, we thought, we’ll give this a go. Perhaps it will be our come-to-Jesus-moment?

Real question: would Jesus amass the same following if he played the harmonica..?

Source

For those not in the know, Dont Look Back is a documentary covering one of Dylan’s UK tours. It’s an interesting look into the folk music scene in the ’60s, the “proper” establishment versus the young, rebellious musicians, fame versus artistry, and it’s probably a perfect film for Bob Dylan fans to enjoy together, preferably with a couple of beers and loads of cigarettes.

Why yes, Bob, that would be the ideal place to host such a gathering.

Source

Esthetically, it’s very pleasing as well. The black and white photography is beautiful, the start is very cool, the music is of course excellent, and the style works very well with the contents. Also, the negotiation scene is surprisingly intriguing, and overall we enjoyed it.

What’s that Bob? What are you trying to say? Did Timmy fall in the pig pen?

Source

However, Dylan himself comes across as an arrogant, argumentative prick. Which isn’t really the best way to win us over as fans, reported genius aside. In fact, we found him quite annoying… Which probably wasn’t the intention, but that was the unfortunate result, and we tend not to like artists who are argumentative bastards, no matter their cultural importance.

Perhaps it is, Bob. Perhaps it is. But is it ours or yours..?

Source

In conclusion: esthetically, filmatically, culturally and historically, this movie is definitely worth watching and you get a fantastic sense of the 1960s. Personally, it’s hard to like Bob Dylan in this – sure he’s cute and charming, but he’s also fucking annoying and arrogant. Then again, he was 23 years old and everybody worshipped him, so can you really hold it against him..?

You know, you’re right. You should dig yourself. Way too many people are too hard on themselves. All we’re saying is that there’s nothing wrong with being nice to other people even if you think you’re better than them.

Source

What we learned: We’re the wrong audience for this movie.

Next time: In Cold Blood (1967)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#277 Seconds

Watched: September 12 2020

Director: John Frankenheimer

Starring: Rock Hudson, John Randolph, Frances Reid, Murray Hamilton, Salome Jens

Year: 1966

Runtime: 1h 46min

seconds

Source

Arthur Hamilton (Randolph) is a middle aged, middle class banker who is tired of his unfulfilling existence. One day he receives a phone call from a deceased friend with promises of a whole new world.

seconds1
“A whole new wooorld! A new distorted point of view…”

Source

He seeks out the address given to him on a train and before he knows it he is pretty much blackmailed to go through with “rebirth” – a faked death, a new name, a new face, and a new life.

seconds2
“No point in screaming ‘no’ – you’ve nowhere to go! You’ll wish you’re only dreaming!”

Source

However, what could seem a dream to many in reality turns into a nightmare when Arthur, now Tony Wilson (Hudson), struggles to adjust to his new existence.

seconds3
“A whole new world (each new face a surprise!)”

Source

Seconds is tense, uncomfortable and unsettling. Tony’s decline and his ultimate fate are completely out of his control and very brutal.

seconds4
“A hundred thousand grapes to squeeze (get undressed, you’re a pagan)”

The film gave us a bit of a noir-vibe, possibly because of the way it is shot. We were gripped throughout though very uncomfortable, especially for the last 30 minutes or so. You can see where it’s going, but you still can’t look away.

seconds5
“Stop shouting who you are – you’ve gone too far!”

Source

The only weakness here is in the script – possibly the original book: we would have thought it even more impactful if Arthur/Tony chose to go through with the rebirth. As it is, he was tricked into it, which makes the message somewhat less poignant. In our opinion.

seconds6
“Now we’ll take your whole new world awaaaay…”

Source

All in all, if you want a depressing and disturbing sci-fi film for a rainy Tuesday night, go for Seconds. You can do a lot worse.

What we learned: Don’t believe the hype! (Except the hype about this movie. That’s all true.)

Next time: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 1 Comment

#276 Persona

Watched: August 31 2020

Director: Ingmar Bergman

Starring: Liv Ullman, Bibi Andersson

Year: 1966

Runtime: 1h 20min

persona1

Source

Actress Elisabet Vogler (Ullmann) stopped speaking after a performance of Elektra, and nurse Alma (Andersson) is tasked with looking after her and, if possible, bring her back to the world.

persona2
“I was sure I heard the doctor say you should take care of me, not just stand around posing in the background…”

Source

The two women retreat to an isolated summer house for some R&R. Soon, Alma bonds strongly with her patient – to the point where she starts finding it difficult to distinguish between herself and Elisabet…

persona3
“OMG, I can’t even tell us apart anymore! #twinsies!”

Source

So far, this might be our favourite Bergman, and not just because Liv Ullmann is from our city (sort of. Technically, she was born in Tokyo but our local cinema has a whole exhibition about her which is irrefutable proof that she’s officially from Trondheim). As regular readers will have gathered, we love psychological horror dramas with strong female characters and beautiful cinematography, and Persona checks all the boxes.

persona4
If anyone’s wondering what to get us for Christmas, this entire outfit, luggage included, would not go amiss. Make a note!

Source

We loved the Un Chien Andalou-esque opening, the performances of both main characters, the very explanatory exposition scene at the beginning (we enjoy a good tell-don’t-show-scene), and the Swedish language (this might be considered treason, but Swedish is perhaps more beautiful than Norwegian, despite sounding a tiny bit whiny..).

persona5
Just a second – you’ve got something on your face.

Source

It is quiet and violent at the same time, beautiful and repulsive, impossible to understand (although Bergman claimed it’s very straight forward and simple), and thoroughly fascinating. It is also a very probable inspiration for Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019) – the two might make a good, though emotionally exhausting, double feature. Definitely recommended!

persona6
Say cheese!

Source

What we learned: Ingmar, your idea of “simple and straight forward” is very different from ours…

Next time: Seconds (1966)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#271 Cul-De-Sac

Watched: June 29 2020

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Donald Pleasence, Françoise Dorléac, Lionel Stander, Jack MacGowran

Year: 1966

Runtime: 1h 52min

For our thoughts on Polanski in general, read this.

cul

Source

Two injured gangsters, Dickie (Stander) and Albie (MacGowran), come upon a castle on a tidal island where they are stranded due to the tide. The castle’s inhabitants, George (Pleasence) and Teresa (Dorléac) are taken hostage and pulled into a powerplay with Dickie.

cul4
“We may be in a hostage situation, but it’s important to make time for bathing and bonding in between the threats of violence.”

Source

We were very excited about the concept of this, and it was definitely beautifully shot. We loved parts of it and other parts were a bit meh. For instance, we loved the opening credits, George’s bad paintings (they were supposed to be bad, right..?), the horrible Horace who came to visit, that one clearly fake seagull, Donald Pleasence, and the setting.

cul3
“I sure hope no hardened criminals decide to invade us while we’re playing dress up. Like my wife, they will never take me seriously as a man.”

Source

However, we didn’t quite get the humour in this comedy… Which probably says more about us than the film itself, but there it is. The dinner party and the grave digging were fun scenes, and Pleasence was a joy to watch, but otherwise we weren’t that into it.

cul2
Alas, poor Albie. We didn’t know him well.

Source

We also found Teresa a bit confusing as a character. First off, what woman who’s a victim of a home invasion will proceed to sleep naked when the (male) invaders are still in the house? In addition, we’re very much over women in movies/books/etc. who cry rape the minute a prank or seduction goes wrong. Considering the director as well, it left a bad taste.

cul5
Pictured: perfectly normal behaviour for a woman captured in a bad marriage and an ACTUAL HOSTAGE SITUATION! Not gratuitous at all.

Source

It’s a great concept and beautifully shot in black and white. There are also good performances by all the principal players. But we don’t think this one will stay with us the way many other movies have done. To us, it became a bit forgettable. Perhaps we’re just too biased against Polanski to really enjoy his work..?

cul6
It’s pretty to look at though. So we guess that’s something.

Source

What we learned: Dames! Also, if you want to come visit, have the courtesy to telephone in advance. Especially if you’re bringing your brat…

Next time: Daisies (1966)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#268 The Knack… And How to Get It

Watched: April 24 2020

Director: Richard Lester

Starring: Rita Tushingham, Ray Brooks, Michael Crawford, Donal Donnelly

Year: 1965

Runtime: 1h 25min

First off, we do apologize for the sporadic posting – it’s partly to stall for time until we can get our hands on the next movies on the list (apparently, some are on their way!), but also partly because working from home actually turned out to be more time consuming than going into work, so we’re sort of a bit swamped… We will do our best though, and hope you all can be patient with us in these strange times.

Now, for The Knack… And How to Get It.

knack

Source

Basically, an incel (Crawford) and a sleezy philanderer (and potential rapist) (Brooks) live in the same building, the former being driven a bit cray-cray by the latter’s long line of conquests. And also by the young girls in the school he works in who play netball in short skirts. The harlots!

KNACK, THE
Philanderer sure has a type. And a sweet ride and a sweet tie. But nothing else to recommend him. Well, maybe the cool hair.

Source

Things change when artist Tom (Donnelly) moves into their spare room, and Female Character/Object Nancy (Tushingham) arrives in town. Tom and Colin (incel-dude) meet Nancy while she’s looking for the YWCA and bring her home to be victimized by Tolan (rapey-dude). However, after some really weird stuff goes down, she decides she’s attracted to Colin instead.

knack5
Personally, we would have left them all way behind! Well, Tom seems sort of alright. Apart from his obsession with painting everything white. OK, you have a problem with brown, but white??? You can do better, Tom!

Source

Don’t get us wrong, there were things about this which we liked. The bed moving sequence is epic, we loved all the gags with doors opening and closing, and we really enjoyed to pace of the dialogue and the Greek choir of judgy people in the background commenting on everything that happened.

knack2
Very Jules et Jim, with hints of Bande À Part

Source

We also kind of have a little sort of girl crush on Rita Tushingham. But we were a bit let down by her character. When she was first introduced, we thought she might be at least slightly sharp – the way she saw through the shop clerk and mocked his insincere flattery. However, once she started actually falling for Tolan’s crap even after she was CLEARLY very uncomfortable with his attention, we gave up. She wasn’t a person after all.

knack6
And we had such high hopes for you and your crazy eyes!

Source

That being said, the scene with them in the white room was very good, if only because the interaction between Nancy and Tolan was so very, very uncomfortable and rapey. Not that Colin is much better. Tolan and Colin are just misogynistic in different ways – none of them seemed to see women as people, just objects to be desired and earned.

knack4
Note to all: this is not the expression of someone who enjoys your attention. And if that’s not evident, you might want to work on your people skills.

Source

Overall, this gave the impression of being set in some weird fantasy world, the rules of which we were not informed. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing – we tend to enjoy being thrown into those worlds. It’s just that this one didn’t engage us. There are good gags and a good pace, but otherwise this struck us as a bit rapey, incely, and dated. Is it possible we misread it? Of course! But we’re still not sold…

knack7
Lots of good gags involving doors (or lack thereof) though.

Source

What we learned: Mods and rockers. Also, why don’t “friends” call douches like Tolan on their crap??? “No one is raped unless they want it” my ass!

Next time: Batman (1966) if the postal gods are merciful. Or possibly a bonus: Dr Terror’s House of Horrors (1965). Time (and the postal service) will tell.

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 1 Comment

#261 Simon of the Desert

Watched: February 23 2019

Director: Luis Buñuel

Starring: Claudio Brook, Silvia Pinal, Enrique Álvarez Félix, Hortensia Santoveña

Year: 1965

Runtime: 43 min

As attentive readers may have noticed, we have now skipped a few numbers. That is because Edgar has recently edited the list and added a few more movies to the earlier years. Hopefully, we’ll get around to watching them and adding them as soon as the Corona crisis is over. However, for now the library is closed and we just have to work with what we have. That also means that we might have to skip a few upcoming movies as well since we can’t get our grabby (and quite possibly infected) hands on them. Not to worry though – we’ll make up for it as soon as we can. For now, were just happy that the Norwegian government are taking precautions and doing their best to keep us all safe.

simon

Source

Disclaimer done, now on to the good stuff! Simon of the Desert is a weird one, which should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody considering Buñuel’s earlier works. Basically, Simon (Brook) is super pious. Like, really incredibly pious. And humble. Let’s not forget it. In fact, he’s so pious and humble that he disowns his own mother (Santoveña) because he needs to concentrate on God and being pious and humble.

simon2
“Bar none I am the most humblest. Number one at the top of the humble list.”

Source

Still, you can’t walk around being as humble as Simon without drawing the attention of the devil him/herself (Pinal). Once you set yourself on a literal pedestal as the best person in the world, Satan will want to get in on this action and prove you wrong. But who will win? The fallen angel or the oh so pious man?

simon3
“Don’t judge me. I was going through an identity crisis when this was filmed, wanting to be Jesus and stuff. So embarrassing now…”

Source

This was amazing. We loved the skipping brother Matthew/Matías (Félix), the inner monologue, the mix of time periods, the incredibly unsubtle Satan, and the coffin. Don’t ask. The film looks beautiful and some of the close-ups reminded us a lot of the gorgeous The Passion of Joan of Arc.

simon4
Also, very topically, Simon practised social distancing before it was cool. Well done, Simon! You’re doing your part!

Source

Besides taking one for the team by socially distancing himself from everyone though, Simon’s pursuit of holiness and divinity seems extremely selfish and self-indulgent. He’s not really trying to save the world or anything, just himself. That being said, he does perform miracles which the villagers surrounding him take for granted so maybe he was just fed up with not being appreciated. At least Satan gave him something to focus on – Pinal is very entertaining and a lot more interesting than Simon. But then again, that is always the case, isn’t it?

simon5
Seriously – who would you rather party with?

Source

What we learned: Get thee behind me Satan! And keep your distance – we’re trying not to get infected here.

Next time: The 10th Victim (1965)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 1 Comment

#254 Repulsion

Watched: February 9 2020

Director: Roman Polanski

Starring: Catherine Deneuve, Ian Hendry, John Fraser, Yvonne Furneaux, Patrick Wymark

Year: 1965

Runtime: 1h 45min

repulsion

Source

So, here’s the thing. We enjoyed the movie. We loved Catherine Deneuve. The story is intriguing, and the men are sleazy and disgusting. However, watching Polanski-movies is difficult in light of, well, him… (And yes, we know this might seem a bit hypocritical seeing as we actually did review Knife in the Water. We have just given it a bit more thought since then. And sure, there are probably lots of other problematic directors as well, but in this case there is so little doubt and it is so well publicized that it cannot be ignored.)

repulsion3
Also, he’s clearly just ripping off Beauty and the Beast

Source

It’s the continuous debate of whether one can truly separate the artist from the art. Considering that he still goes free and is even rewarded (and awarded) despite being a rapist piece of shit, viewing and reviewing his movies is conflicting. Especially when they involve sleazy men trying to take advantage of mentally ill women. But, like, sexy mentally ill women. So that makes it ok, apparently…

repulsion2
Cause as we all know, nothing is sexier than a spiralling woman. She probably just needs a penis to set her straight.

Source

We’re not going to tell you whether to watch this or not. It’s entirely up to you. The film itself is intriguing and beautifully shot, but it is also problematic in oh so many ways.

What we learned: Watching (old) Polanski movies is difficult…

Next time: Simon of the Desert (1965)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog · 1 Comment

#251 Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Watched: December 18 2019

Director: Russ Meyer

Starring: Tura Satana, Haji, Lori Williams, Sue Bernard, Dennis Busch, Stuart Lancaster, Paul Trinka, Ray Barlow

Year: 1965

Runtime: 1h 23min

faster

Source

Go-go dancers Varla (Satana), Billie (Williams) and Rosie (Haji) like it fast. Fast cars, fast men, fast living. While joyriding out in the desert, they run into young couple Tommy (Barlow) and Linda (Bernard). Varla challenges Tommy to a race, and afterwards kills him in a fight.

faster2
“Unfortunately for you, I am both a sore loser AND a sore winner! You never stood a chance.”

Source

After the murder of Tommy, the girls drug Linda and bring her along on their road trip. A chance encounter with and old man (Lancaster) and his son “The Vegetable” (Busch) at a gas station lead them to their farm where the three women plan to rob them and the other son Kirk (Trinka).

faster5
“A deltoid and a bicep, a hot groin and a tricep, makes me – Ooh! – shake!”

Source

The crippled old man is rumoured to have a hoard of money. Unfortunately, he also has misogynistic and murderous inclinations which he has passed on to his son. With feigned friendliness, Varla and the old man start a power struggle over lunch, both plotting each other’s demise.

faster6
Buns of Steel vs. Wheels of Steel. The Showdown™

Source

This movie is glorious, campy fun. We absolutely loved the diversity and blurred gender roles – the women are as badass and as bad as the men! The plot is filled with twists and turns, the dialogue is amazing and the music is fantastic. Also, Linda’s bikini is totes adorbs.

faster3
“I really should be in a sweeter movie”

Source

In fact, we loved every boobyliscious and swinging go-go outfit the women wore. And we could watch angry, violent women fighting misogynistic, violent men all day every day. We’re simple that way.

faster4
“Yay! Sexy violence!”

Source

What we learned: Russ Meyer was definitely a boob man! Also, don’t mess with women.

Next time: For a Few Dollars More (1965)

Posted on by 1000filmsblog

#250 Darling

Watched: December 30 2019

Director: John Schlesinger

Starring: Julie Christie, Dirk Bogarde, Laurence Harvey, José Luis de Vilallonga, Roland Curram

Year: 1965

Runtime: 2h 08min

darling

Source

Diana Scott (Christie) is being interviewed for “Ideal Woman,” telling the story of her life. And what a life! From a “normal” life and a normal marriage, she becomes friends, and later lovers, with reporter Robert Gold (Bogarde). The two of them move through in the London art scene in the swinging sixties, partying and being adored.

darling1
“My career goals? Model, actress or princess. Yes, I’m a grown woman. Why do you ask..?”

Source

They both leave their spouses for each other and move in together. However, Diana becomes very jealous when Robert goes back to his ex to see his kids. In fact, she decides to have her own child, but changes her mind when it becomes a reality.

darling5
“You know what they say – bringing a baby into a troubled relationship always saves the day.”

Source

Diana, bored with Robert who likes to stay home and write, continues to seduce and be seduced to further her own modelling and acting career. She moves up in the world one man at a time while not playing very well with other women at all, all of whom she sees as threats. But what does she really want from life?

darling3
“Oh, I’m just like any modern woman trying to have it all. Loving husband, a family. It’s just, I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade.”

Source

Darling is fascinating and engaging, and the contrast between Diana’s words and actions is very interesting to watch. The stories we tell ourselves and others are clearly just a version of the truth.

Darling2
“Did I leave the iron on..?”

Source

We loved the clothes, the decadence and hypocrisy, the out and proud gay people, and all the fake books hiding vices throughout the movie. Julie Christie and Dirk Bogarde are wonderful as Diana and Robert, with both good and bad qualities.

darling6
“Just think of all the ways we could eventually hurt and devastate each other!”

Source

Thematically, there are parallels to Bitter Harvest, but Diana is treated much better than Jennie. Jennie is pretty much a victim, while Diana is the author of her own destiny – for better or worse.

darling4
“Bitch, I’m fabulous!”

Source

What we learned: If you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else?

Next time: Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965)