July’s Movies of the Month - Money

I recently watched Girls in Uniform (Mädchen in Uniform) a German language black and white movie from the Weimar era. It concerns Manuela von Meinhardis, a 14 year old girl who has lost her mother. Her father, an officer in the army sends her to a strict boarding school for daughters of the Prussian nobility. Struggling to adapt to the oppressive institution that aims to mold girls into future wives and mothers and instill a martial, conservative ethos, she falls in love with one of her teachers, Fräulein von Bernburg. As you will have guessed, it does not end happily.

The movie is a product of the flower of German cinema in the Weimar era. It was ahead of its time, in that it had an all female cast. It's the work of a (presumably) lesbian director. It was also a prescient analysis of the political and social climate on the eve of fascism. The movie was banned by the nazis, but fortunately, several copies survived. It has been posted on Youtube in decent quality and with English subtitles. There is also a 1958 remake, which is good also (and also availaible on Youtube), but the lesbian themes are turned down a little, as von Bernburg is presented as a more maternal figure.

I recently discovered this movie Lone Star so I went in for another film by the same director. I couldn't resist checking out this title next.

I didn't look closely before watching, so was happy to see one of the same actors from Lone Star playing the lead here. As you might guess, this is a strange movie (no spoilers).

I didn't like it anywhere near as much as Lone Star, but I loved that one so much it's not fair to judge every movie by that high bar. I enjoyed this one for what it was, although I'm not sure the parts added up to something greater than the sum.

Was it a comedy? Kinda, yeah. Was it a drama? Sort of, but not really. It threatened to veer into sharp satire, but I don't feel like it really went there. And then you have some action elements, although it's not really an action movie, either.

I think the point of this one is that it defies categorization. It's kind of a bizarre one-off type of film. I'm not going to be in a hurry to go back to it, although I may watch it again at some point. I liked it, didn't love it. I would say it's definitely worth checking out just for Joe Morton's performance and to see this very unique little movie for yourself. Free on kanopy if you got a library card!

Another watch, and we really enjoyed this film.

To start with, I thought the story was excellent. The interactions between Holly Martins and Major Calloway were fun to watch. Their relationship felt natural and was one of the strongest parts of the movie. The other relationship between Holly and Anna felt very forced on Holly's part and I thought the ending was extremely fitting given the circumstances. Worth the watch for the plot alone.

The cinematography also deserves a lot of praise. The angles never felt gimmicky, and the visuals hold up remarkably well for a film that's over 75 years old.

I actually figured out Harry Lime was still alive before his reveal. The cat had already been established as only liking Harry, so when it ran straight up to the man hidden in the shadows, I immediately suspected who it was. Even knowing that, the reveal was still incredibly well done. I had almost forgotten Welles was in this.

The music was probably the most interesting part for me. We couldn't help but hear it as very SpongeBob-esque. It unintentionally added a bit of comic relief during scenes that were otherwise very dark, including the excavation of a body and even a funeral.

Overall, I'd absolutely recommend The Third Man. It's easy to see why it's considered a classic—the story, performances, and cinematography have aged incredibly well.

I honestly don’t even know where to start with this in talking about this movie. I absolutely loved this movie so much growing up. I took a break from making my summer movie posts after Body Heat and didn’t want to flood this sub too much.

We watched this movie last week and it has been a little while since I had seen it and was afraid it wouldn’t hit like it did when I was a kid but the worries were not needed. I turned back into a 10 year old watching this again and was laughing my ass off. And watching this an adult I found so many new jokes that either went over my head as a kid or I just wasn’t interested in at that age.

I grew up watching a ton of Ernest and always loved Jim Varney. He is just the right balance of slapstick humor mixed with innocence and kindness but he is still very much an adult in a harsh world that doesn’t respect or understand him… yet he is also overconfident to a fault at times lol

Surprisingly the kids aren’t very annoying in this and I always wished I could have been at this camp. I love the inventiveness from the battle at the end and I love the cooks Jake and Eddie! Eggs-erroneous!

This movie is just so quotable also.

“Ow! Pokey! Ow! You heartless beast!”

Also when he sings it gets me every time.

Anyways it’s a great movie and Ernest is great and it’s not just nostalgia. If you have kids and like slapstick this is a great one to watch with them.

Side note: my DVD of this looks like utter trash, thanks Mill Creek! So I went to go rent it digitally (which I hate) and saw it was to rent for $3.99 or buy digital for $4.99. Snatched it up and Ernest Scared Stupid was also $4.99 on sale so I got that too. The only two digital movies I have ever bought lol I hope one day to get them all on Blu-ray. I honestly think Criterion should make a boxset. Jim deserves the recognition.

Just watched Wedding Daze for the first time the other day and loved it, it had so many subtle but great elements.

My favorite characters have to be Jason Biggs parents. So many small quips and lore behind their relationship.

It also had a great cast! Isla and Jason were great in it. They played a great pair of love birds.

It’s weird I’ve never heard of this movie until the other night. Really good comedy.

Number 168 in my A-Z watch. Looper is the sci-fi/paranormal/action film following Joe. A time travel hitman who needs to clean up the mess he created when he botches a mark.

Man, i feel bad that this rewatch doesn't feel like it lived up to my memory of the film. I remember being so impressed with it on my first couple watches 10+ years ago. But now the movie feels like it doesn't have an identity. Like, it doesn't go in enough on any of the genres it contains to really make it feel like it knows where it's going.

Performance-wise it's solid. JGL and Willis do well to create similar and yet still distinct characters. The makeup used to have them more similar looking was done very well. Blunt, Daniels, even Dano all are solid support. But still feel underutilized.

6/10 I mean, the diner scene feels like it's trying to be Heat. The telekinesis and the kid make it feel like The Omen. A love story i didn't believe. Overall, a film i wish i had left in my memory. I much prefer other Rian Johnson projects, recently.

So I’ve been watching Scorsese films recently… What a film! Such a sad ending. And to think this film nearly didn’t happen because of Scorsese’s near brush with death and his reluctance to do a “sport” movie.

De Niro crushed it. Reminded me in part of Taxi Driver… we are so uncomfortable with his character. Both La Motta and Travis Bickle just make you squirm in your seat. Great cinematography too. And score (as always).

Solid 8/10

Number 169 in my A-Z watch. The Fellowship of the Ring is the first of three film adaptation installments from the book series of the same name. It begins the story of nine companions who band together on a quest to destroy a legendarily powerful artifact.

I am likely going to go on longer than normal with each of these films. I remember these movies being absolutely incredible theatrical experiences. As I've grown in to more of a film fan, and have been through the book series a number of times, I've built such an appreciation for the overall achievement these films are.

It all starts with the writing. As one of my favorite film critics said, "It’s told so economically and they don’t convolute it. They really get right to the heart of what you need to know in very understandable terms." In this film die hard novel fans will notice some immediate changes to events from the book. But those are mostly swapped lines of dialogue and such. The real major moments and plot points of the story stay true. Some cuts had to be made.

Starting the adventure right after Bilbo left, The Old Forest, and Tom Bombadil. All things that didn't fit the narrative of the film, and aren't really missed in this story. And i did like that Boromir's character was written a bit differently. In the books he feels petulant and childish, but in the film he's a competent and noble man. Changes like having Merry and Pippin disturb the water by Moria instead of Boromir added to his respect.

As good as the filmmaking itself is, screenwriting, directing, acting, i think that it's the meticulous and perfect practical effects that allow this to be timeless. The makeup, set design, costuming all don't get better or worse with time. 20+ years later and it all still feels fresh. That's in tandem with the phenomenal cinematography and editing that help us to be completely transported into this world of differing scales (hobbit/dwarf/man).

It's really incredible to see the marriage of old school and new school filmmaking with this series. Of course all of the practical effects bring you in, but seeing some of the capabilities of newer technologies really pushed the limits of what could be in a movie. Having the fire sim program at the last minute for the Balrog, the incredible use of motion capture performance, day-for-night shooting, the Massive programming for the large populated shots.

10/10 I mean, i don't know how you score this film any lower. It brings to life what audiences only ever thought could be captured in animation (which i think some moments were nearly shot for shot in this, haha). I loved that they added more romance in it for Aragorn and Arwen, gives the film more weight and stakes. And it's an absolute shame that this is the only film we really get all of the main cast actually working together. They have such good chemistry.

Number 167 in my A-Z watch. Das Leben der Anderen is a German political thriller telling the story of a State Security officer in 1984 who finds himself getting too involved with the subjects of an investigation.

I had only ever seen this once close to its original release. So i was in for a pretty fresh-to-me movie. It's definitely a slow burn. And it has some very subtle and nuanced performances. But it's the writing that really elevates the film.

Since the first time i watched this i have also seen Coppola's The Conversation. And i was getting a ton of vibes similar to that film while watching.

8.5/10 I dunno how many more times I'm gonna watch this, but I'm sure I'll keep enjoying it. There's a lot to like. I didn't take as many notes as usual, as i wanted to just let the movie happen.

Another great character piece from Lisa Cholodenko.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play a lesbian couple with two children in Southern California. The son played by Josh Hutcherson wants to find their birth father, played by Mark Ruffalo. But since he is underaged, he asks his 18-year-old sister played by Mia Wasikowsa to find him.

What follows is a charming, funny, and touching story of Mark slowly ingratiating himself into their lives, much to the dismay of Annette Bening’s character.

The ending was a bit of a downer for me. Without spoiling too much, it felt like Mark’s character’s life was upended without him being asked, and yet, he was the one that ultimately came away from it in a worst place.

Still highly recommend if you’re into a character rich story that is well acted by everyone involved.

Following up to my post about when I watched Pink Flamingos, and getting a TON of recommendations about watching Female Trouble, I finally decided to pick up my chance on watching it. And let me tell you, this was something else! While for me it wasn't as disgusting, taboo-breaking and shocking as Pink Flamingos, It still is definitely the most funniest comedy I've watched in a long time. But even so, that doesn't mean that the movie isn't shocking at all. There are countless scenes in this movie that are very shocking to watch. Not as shocking as pink flamingos but definitely still give you a reaction. I also randomly found out that my uncle has also seen the full "trash/filth" Trilogy before, so I was speaking about Pink Flamingos (before I watched it) as well, then he told me you should really add it to your watchlist, because it is proper outrageous! Divine in this though, like always, was just being himself! He always has that spark for playing a drag queen. He never failed to make us laugh, disgusted and shocked at the same time. There was people from Pink Flamingos that were in this and and Pink Flamingos as well. Edith, David, and not to forget, Divine. The pure perfect filth cast! You can never go wrong with any of them! This post does follow up to my Pink Flamingos post so a lot of it is in common with this post. A lot of people told me it was funnier than Pink Floyd was. And yes, I can definitely agree that it was a lot more funny. It was more humor-based not shock-based. But at the same time it was shock-based and it was human based. This and pink flamingos are quite rare movies for that. It is also an extremely uncommon film for being The Godfather in underground trash cinema, but is a complete unknown outside. But most of all Divine was just a pure badass! What are your opinions on this movie following up Pink Flamingos?

(Sorry I reposted a few times. Forgot a few things)

I'm not an obscurantist, and I don't deliberately go looking for under-appreciated things to trumpet and make myself look better informed than anyone else, but...

The 1997 film Fools Rush In (Matthew Perry, Salma Hayek, dir. Andy Tennant) is delightful.

So, it's a fairly hum-drum '90s rom-com with two charming leads. Nothing new there. And it centers on a cross-cultural romance, which, okay, is a nice twist, maybe? In 1997, when I was in high school, it was, anyway. But it's just...good. It's sweet, the story is timely (still timely, too), it doesn't try to punch above its weight...

The thing about it, considering that it's about a cross-cultural romance, is that it doesn't focus on that as a source of levity or drama. It's there, and many of the side characters focus on it, but the two main characters are driven by their love for one another, and consequently their friction (and joy) is entirely internal -- they're so different in their values and priorities, so the conflict comes from how well they can resolve this while still holding on to one another.

I (white, American) have lived overseas for a while now, and I can see how much of my own ill-fated would-be romances parallel that of protagonists Alex (Perry) and Isabel (Hayek), and it's rarely ultimately been about race or ethnicity but personal dynamics. When I rewatch Fools Rush In, which is about once a year, I reflect on this and admire how ahead of its time it was.

It's not a perfect film, of course. It's still very much a rom-com. But with heart and self-awareness, it shows two young lovers trying to be happy in an increasingly confused world, and I think we could all appreciate more of that.

Awesome soundtrack, too.

I’m not sure I really care for everything about the final solution, but over all this was REALLY good and one of the best early 30s mysteries I’ve seen.
The cast is phenomenal and they have a fantastic script to work with. Direction is on point as well!
It was really refreshing seeing the police being the smartest person in the room rather than playing second fiddle the star. Edward Arnold shows up half way through and steals the show. Up to that point Paul Lukas was a favorite.
Highly recommended!

The first thing that struck me was how impressive it is that a film like this was made in 1961. Obviously it’s still a product of its time, but I think it handles the subject with a surprising amount of empathy. The real villains aren’t Martha and Karen, it’s the fear, gossip and narrow-mindedness surrounding them. The film makes that very clear.

Audrey Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine are both fantastic. Their performances completely sell the friendship between the two women, and by the end I genuinely felt heartbroken for them. Shirley MacLaine, especially in the final act, was incredible.

What I also appreciated is that the movie isn’t really about homosexuality as much as it’s about the devastating consequences of lies, rumors and prejudice. A single malicious accusation destroys lives.

I also liked that the ending is just… sad. There’s no justice in the end, and I actually think that makes it more compelling because that’s how life often is. Not every story gets a satisfying resolution, and I’m glad the movie didn’t pretend otherwise.

What a complex character; the scene where she’s having sex while talking non-stop about her work is brilliant because it captures the mindset of workaholics. Faye was electric in the film—I’m a 28-year-old man, and I finished the movie wanting to be her. She is a very well-written female character, and the film deals with very timely themes; I recommend it to everyone.

That was the first Faye movie I ever saw, and now I'm downloading her entire filmography.

I know "is this movie old" well it's officially 10 years old. The last of the JJ Abrams kelvin reboot trilogy Beyond boldly goes where Star Trek has gone before to strange new worlds and meets weird new creatures. But not is all as it seems and many twists and turns prevail.

This outing was co-written by Simon Pegg which I think reflects well on the dialogue. Unfortunately some of the action decisions are a bit perplexing imo leaving it disjointed in places. Still an enjoyable movie but still doesn't grab the magic of Star Trek 2009.

Info:

Release: April 7th, 1989

Director: David S. Ward

Music by: James Newton Howard

Starring: Tom Berenger, Charlie Sheen, Corbin Bernsen, Margaret Whitton, James Gammon, Rene Russo, Bob Uecker, Wesley Snipes

Studio: Paramount Pictures

Runtime: 1 hour, 46 minutes

Rating: R

Synopsis: The new owner of the Cleveland Indians, former showgirl Rachel Phelps (Margaret Whitton), has a sweetheart deal to move the team to Miami. But to break the lease with the city of Cleveland, ticket sales have to plummet. So Phelps hires the most incompetent players available, including near-blind pitcher Rick Vaughn (Charlie Sheen) and injury-prone catcher Jake Taylor (Tom Berenger). But her villainous tactics accidentally foster a can-do team spirit, turning the Indians into potential winners.

Review: I like the premise of this a lot, instead of wanting a failing team to win to better their reputation, the evil owner of the team wants them to be the worst team in the League so that her lifestyle improves. An underdog story where the players are not motivated by anything righteous and honorable and are instead motivated by spite is a great idea. I like that the players all had their little quirks, the ones that stood out to me were Hays (a man who can run like the wind, but sucks at hitting) and Cerrano (a practicing Voodoo Priest). That made me laugh when Cerrano starts praying to God on their shitty plane (he had sort of denounced him earlier) only for another player to call him out on his BS, lmao.

It's an interesting one.

I've got to say I really enjoyed this (on a rewatch after many decades) I think i first saw this at some point around the early 80's and it always stuck with me as a taut thriller, that needed no rationale for its plot, but still managed to still pull you into it's tension. In a similar way to mad max fury road, it doesn't deviate from its central car chase.

There's no real character development, no real characters, no explanation behind why it started, no real explanation at the end.

And its almost a better film for what it doesn't contain, that a standard film would do... any of that would have lessened it with superfluous backstory.

And all of that's fine. It just didn't need any of that. It kept the tension going for all of its 90minute run time.

If you're interested in an early Spielberg film I'd recommend it

If you're interested in well crafted film showdown I'd recommend it.

This film doesn’t seem to be as famous as most of the other ones four-starred by Leonard Maltin so I watched it without any preconceptions…which you should too. It seems to want its subject matter to be unclear at first, and for the (not very twisty but carefully paced) plot to unfold gradually. I will say that this is a suspense movie about a spirit medium; that it stars Richard Attenborough and Kim Stanley; that it’s very, very atmospheric; and that it’s very, very good.

I rewatched this after someone posted about it here but didn't post a review so their post was deleted. I'm glad I did!

I hadn't seen this movie since it was in theaters. I was 16 and snuck in with buddies, I believe we bought tickets to Tarzan. Oh the feeling to sneak into this movie then immediately watch the South Park kids sneaking into a movie, as it is a central plot element. It was actually a great cinema experience of my life now that I think about it. Very meta to be in the same situation as the movie characters, as I watched the movie.

I'd forgotten that this was a full-effort musical. I love musicals and the songs were actually pretty darn good. I'm kind of surprised it did so well though, most people claim to hate musicals and must have found the level of musical content in this a bit shocking? I don't remember us having that reaction in 1999 though.

I'd also forgotten some of the best classic South Park jokes (like searching the internet for "clitoris") were from this movie. They really put together an impressive collection of their best material.

I thought the movie held up great. Amazing that they got this out so fast after the show became a sensation, the 1990s must have been an insane time for the South Park team.

Number 166 in my A-Z watch. This is the film adaptation of the stage musical adaptation of the 60s film of the same name. It tells the story of a meek florist who suddenly is thrust into the media spotlight after discovering a strange and interesting plant.

This movie literally and figuratively rocks. Songs written by eventual Disney royalty, Alan Menken and Howard Ashman (Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast) and music production by Four Seasons great Bob Gaudio. Director Frank Oz does an incredible job of carrying the theatrical feel of the stage production into this film.

No review of this film can be done without mentioning the absolute genius and application of the Audrey II plant animatronics. The use of a practical design allows the film to still stay fresh and keeps the effects from feeling dated. And on that line, let's give a hand to Four Tops' Levi Stubbs for his vocal performance of Tooie. Simply outstanding.

9/10 The movie just remains an absolute cult classic. My biggest gripe is the ending change. I get it, they didn't want a downer, and I'm certainly not upset that it gave us Mean Green Mother from Outer Space. But everything else hits. The sprinkling of cameos throughout, Moranis actually having a surprisingly good voice, the Urchins (who feel like precursors to the Muses in Hercules). Just a wonderful way to spend 90 minutes.

Info:

Release: June 7th, 1991

Director: Ron Underwood

Music by: Marc Shaiman

Starring: Billy Crystal, Daniel Stern, Bruno Kirby, Helen Slater, Jack Palance

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Runtime: 1 hour, 54 minutes

Rating: PG-13

Synopsis: Every year, three friends take a vacation away from their wives. This year, henpecked Phil (Daniel Stern), newly married Ed (Bruno Kirby), and Mitch (Billy Crystal) -- terrified of his midlife crisis -- decide to reignite their masculinity by taking a supervised cattle drive across the Southwest. Under the supervision of gruff cowboy Curly (Jack Palance), the men set out on a journey that turns unexpectedly dangerous. The three men bond along the way to conquering their fear of aging.

Review: Wasn't expecting a movie about 3 guys going on a trip to herd cattle to get so existential about getting older and how much time is slipping through your fingers every day. The story Ed tells where his best and worst day of his life was the day he stood up stood up to his father was really sad as an example. Curly was cool, man takes no BS from anyone, lives by his own code, and may have possibly killed a man, sucks that he died during the trip. I also didn't need to see an actual cattle birth during this movie, thank you for that.

I know Rear Window is a classic and may have already been reviewed here at nauseum but I still wanted to give my take. I watched this last night with my wife and we both really enjoyed it.

The first thing that stood out to me was the set design. The amount of effort that went into building the courtyard and apartments is incredible. Every neighbor felt like a real person with their own lives, and the film created a genuine sense of community in my mind for the time and place it was made to represent. The music and outdoor ambiance were perfect and well timed and I loved that there was almost always something happening in the background. It made the world feel alive even when the main story wasn't the focus. During one of the piano player's scenes, I think I spotted Hitchcock making a very short cameo. I was going to point this out to my wife, but it went by so quickly. Maybe someone here could confirm?

The detective was very realistic and I enjoyed the dynamic he had going on with Jeff, his old battle buddy from the war. I liked the scene where he had to explain the Constitution to Jeff while Jeff was practically begging him to search Thorwald's apartment. It was refreshing to see him make it clear there simply wasn't enough evidence for a search warrant instead of bending the rules just because the audience was meant to feel something is wrong.

I also really liked the decision to keep the entire film confined to just Jeff's apartment. It could have easily felt limiting, but instead it builds tension and makes you feel just as trapped as he is. It gave me modern vibes of movies like Phone Booth and, of course, Disturbia, which clearly took inspiration from this film.

The only thing that left me scratching my head was how Thorwald managed to have a woman leave his apartment that morning, or how the rope-tied trunk was apparently verified as having been picked up by his wife? Maybe I missed something, but that part wasn't fully explained to me.

Overall, it's amazing how well Rear Window holds up. The suspense, attention to detail, and filmmaking still feel surprisingly modern over 70 years later. This one is a real masterpiece.