À bout de soufflé (Breathless) (1960)

Today's film is À bout de soufflé (Breathless).  I honestly did not like this film.  It begins with a car thief (Michel) shooting a cop and fleeing to Paris. He visits his sort-of girlfriend, an American named Patricia who sells newspapers on the street.

 Patricia  starts off with "boo hoo I think I might be pregnant but I'm not going to make sure or even mention it again for the rest of the film".  Wasn't she supposed to go to the doctor? You can't just announce something like that and not follow up later in the story.  What a cheap way to invoke drama!  This was obviously written by a man.

Besides, Michel is a really nasty awful person.  He keeps blowing smoke in her face and he never takes that nasty cigarette out of his mouth.  For someone who is supposedly his girlfriend, he tells her that she makes him want to puke and she's a scumbag.  He spends all his time on her phone in her house but doesn't show her any respect.

Patricia finally tells the police where Michel can be found.  When they catch up to him, they shoot him on the spot and he dies.  This doesn't shock me because police shoot people all the time, just watch the news.

I know many people must have liked all the random jump cuts, but I did not.  It was distracting and at times irritating.  Even the editor himself said it wasn't intentional during the film's shooting.  There's no deeper meaning to the jump cuts.  So many people look for a deep meaning for everything when there's really not.  The film itself was written on the spot by Godard (both writer and director) and it definitely shows.  I will give it a 3/10.

From Here to Eternity (1953)

Since this Sunday is the 87th Academy Awards show, I decided to watch a film that won best picture a long time ago.  So I chose From Here to Eternity.  I was very disappointed in this film.

There are different plotlines happening throughout the film.  We start off with Robert Prewitt who transferred into a new unit in Hawaii because he was passed over a promotion as a bugle player. He thought he was a better bugle player and left.  Yes, that is what we start with.  The captain wants him to box but he is like no way.  He blinded someone while boxing so that is understandable.

The captain puts him through all kinds of torture because he won't box.  So, all these soldiers do is drink, go to nightclubs with "hostesses" (whores), box, play around and do generally nothing?  This is what my tax money is paying for?

The only thing I knew about this movie was the makeout scene on the beach.  Turns out the woman is cheating on her husband, the captain, with his second-in-command.  She won't leave him but she sleeps around behind his back.  She uses him for his position and power.  She is a coward.  Even her boyfriend doesn't want to stay with her when she tries to manipulate him into becoming an officer.

Meanwhile, lots more drinking and whoring happens, and also a knife fight.  Because according to Prewitt, who refuses to box, stabbing is okay apparently.  He does box, once, however an obvious double was used as they don't even have the same hair color.  Also Sinatra is in this and he is terrible.  But he dies so there's that.  In the last ten minutes, the Japanese bomb the area so they all run around like chickens with their heads cut off.  Prewitt is wearing an Aloha shirt instead of his army clothes and gets shot for his poor fashion choices.

Prewitt's captain gets fired for treating him so badly because he wouldn't box.  In the book, he gets promoted instead.  However Hollywood was too chickenshit back then to insult the almighty government and maybe all soldiers and cops don't need to be worshipped.  The movie was a super sanitized version of the book. And who wants to watch that?  My disappointment makes me give this a 4/10.

Things to Come (1936)

Today we watched Things to Come today.  It was awful.  It was made in the style of a grainy newsreel, everyone spoke in those awful 1930's newsreporter voices, and the whole thing was just an anti-war film disguised as a film about the future.  This was probably the wrong choice for Memorial Day, espeically with so many of my family being veterans.  We will give this a 4/10.

It starts off in the "future" of 1940 when war is threatened to last forever and destroy the world.  Everyone says that war will stop progress.  And it does.  The world all goes to chaos.  Plus, an epidemic of the "wandering sickness" spreads, but finally stops when all the infected people are shot dead.  Which totally makes sense because everyone knows you can't catch germs from a dead person.

Then comes the real future of past-2014, when we finally go to the moon.  They kind of underestimated our technological advances here.  Then there's a lot of preaching about progress and Azalea and I kind of tuned out.  Then it was over.

The main thing I hated was everyone had that 1930's newsreporter voices that boom.  Nobody talks like that, ever, not in a conversational way.  It really took away from the movie.  The whole thing felt like a giant newsreel, and it only focused on the negative parts of the future.  So we decided to think about positive things that exist instead:

• More vaccines that can save lives.
• Microwaves to heat up noodles
• Crocs because they're comfy and people give us weird looks when we wear them and we don't care
• Cameraphones - Are they camera or phone?  They are both!
• Toasters.
• Publix - where shopping is a pleasure - possibly the best grocery store
• balloons
• air conditioning
• The internet that contains several lifetimes worth of knowledge yet I mostly use it to play games. The internet is also where we can make or watch educational or informational videos.  We're trying to make a video, but it's not going too well.
• Poptarts
• Pullups because they really help with toilet training - when she keeps all her clothes on, that is
• there's so much more we can think about, but it's almost 11 so we'll stop for now.

Vinyl (1965)

Today's film is Vinyl by Andy Warhol, the artist that paints soup cans.  According to my research, he made 70 films (including shorts) in his lifetime.  It is supposedly based on the book A Clockwork Orange but I wouldn't know it if I wasn't told.

About A Clockwork Orange: I tried reading it once, couldn't figure it out, and gave up.  I have seen Stanley Kubrick's version a few times, but let me tell you something.  I hate Stanley Kubrick. He destroyed The Shining, which was a terrifying book, and I will not forgive him for that.

The first four minutes are nothing but James Franco pumping iron while some woman smokes in the background. Then something happens at the top of the screen but I don't know what because no one bothered to move the camera.  James Franco then proceeds to read something off screen for a while and it's obvious this is the first time he has ever read it.

Then, he dances for a while.  Really terrible white guy dancing.  I imagine this is how my dad danced in high school.

This is what I really think: I think that a group of people at a party decided to put on a play, and agreed on A Clockwork Orange because they had to read it in high school but vaguely remember it.  Since it's a small apartment, the other partygoers sit around and drink and smoke but remain in the picture.  Somehow Andy Warhol was there to film it but didn't know how to move the camera.  Then some critics watched it while high and decided to make us watch it to complete a list so we could feel their pain.  I feel like I was trolled. There is no way I can take this "film" seriously.  I will give this film a 2/10.

Spoorloos (The Vanishing) (1988)

Today's film is Spoorloos (The Vanishing).  This is the first Dutch film I have ever seen.  If this is the best they have to offer, then I am not going to watch any more Dutch films than I absolutely have to.  I usually enjoy psychological thrillers, mind games, and mysteries.  But not this film.  It's dull, overrated and very predictable.

The sociopathic killer, Raymond, does everything a typical sociopathic killer does in every film or tv show featuring them and there are no surprises.  He kills for a reason that makes sense to him, but needs recognition for it.  That's why he meets Rex and all but explains what he did.  The film is like a long dull episode of Criminal Minds or any other law show people watch.  I don't know, I don't own a tv but I have seen a few episodes and I would prefer one of their stories over this.

That's how I felt watching this.  The worst was all this nonsense about fate and destiny.  Raymond tells Rex that he jumped off his balcony and lost two fingers.  Well that's bullshit because he had all ten fingers the entire movie.  Both of them strive to change their destiny by cheating it.  Well that just means your destiny was to cheat! Did they ever think about that?  Raymond's explanation for doing what he did was bonkers.  I am still trying to figure out his reasoning.  His daughter thought of him as a hero for saving someone's life.  So, he has to perform the most evil deed he can think of.  But to him, killing is not the worst thing.  We figure out what his "worst thing" is when he gets pulled over and he reveals that he's claustrophobic.

He even makes Rex drink coffee laced with sleeping pills.  This is the same thing cult leaders like Marshall Applewhite and Jim Jones (the poisoned koolaid people) did to their victims.  There is nothing original about this character or film.  Also this film is very heavy handed on symbolism, especially the golden eggs, which are the dream, the coffins, the two pictures in the eggs at the end, everything.  I'm giving this film a 5/10.

Zero for Conduct (Zéro de conduite) (1933)

Today's film is Zero for Conduct.  It's only 40 minutes long, but it's still not worth watching.  It's about a group of boys who return from vacation to school.  It turns out they don't like being in school.  Wow.  Who could have thought of that.  Little kids not wanting to be cooped up in school all day.

Every time the boys disobey, they get a zero for conduct.  It's a very repetitive movie.  Tiny things happen, the boys overreact, and they plot a rebellion.  For example, a teacher steals a student's hidden chocolate stash.  What does the student think will happen once he gets to high school?  That's why high schools have lockers!  If you leave your stuff out, it will be stolen.  They do have one cool teacher, though.  I think all schools have one exceptionally cool teacher.  The rest of the teachers are dull and overbearing.

Then, the boys complain that they are tired of having beans for lunch.  I can remember how horrible the school lunches were here.  But I never thought to plan a rebellion and run across the roof.

Yeah, that's their rebellion.  They all climb into the attic, hurl random objects onto the celebration below and then run across the roof.  And yet, I wonder what the point of this is.  I really got nothing out of this short film.  At least it's short.  I think there were large parts that were cut and didn't make it into the final cut of the film.  At lot of it seems jumpy or missing.  And the film itself didn't age well at all.  It's very grainy.  I will give this film a 5/10.

Slacker (1991)

Today's film is Slacker.  I think the point of this film is that is has no point.  Do films need a point?  I would say yes.  I will rate this film a 2/10.

The camera goes around town, filming people's conversations.  Each person says their piece, the camera will get distracted, and like a child, start following someone else's conversation.  These speeches range from conspiracies to philosophy to insanity.

I went to college in a tiny Southern college town much like Austin, where there is only the college and little else.  Nobody talks like this.  Yes, we did try to discuss philosophy and tried to see the world beyond ourselves and our future career choices, but not on this level.  We must have been focusing on our major and actually trying to accomplish something, which seems to be the exact opposite purpose of any character in this film.  Everyone seems to be having some existential crisis and are trying their hardest to express themselves.  I have heard more pseudo-zen bullshit in this movie than in both Matrix sequels.  I believe that they have much more time to ponder the wonders of the universe and the inner workings of political scandals since they don't have classes or a job.  Maybe they are hiding behind their big speeches because they are afraid of being failures.

Also, in an effort to promote realism, the filmmakers hired actors that didn't fit a standard Hollywood type.  I mean that most of these people are ugly as sin.  On top of that, they are forced to learn an incomprehensible script.  If the filmmakers were going for a realistic angle, I wish they would have put more effort into it.

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

Yes, My husband and I are from Alabama, and no, we have not read the book.  The first thing that struck me was the narrator speaking about how hot it was there. She also said that there was nothing to buy and no money to buy it with.  There's not much to do there. This is all true. That's why we had to pack up and find work elsewhere.

 However, she said they were also told they had nothing to fear but fear itself.  Really?  They were actually told these words? Highly doubt it since she said in the beginning of the movie that it was 1932 and FDR never said this speech until March 1933.  I HATE when people don't pay attention to details.

Times have changed in Alabama, especially in the cities and college towns.  After we left college, we moved into a small town of 5000 people, and it was very similar to the town in this movie. Well, not artificial, and clean.  There seems to be a lack of broken lawnmowers and junk in this movie. The attitude in Maycomb is very believable. In fact, if it were colorized and set today, it could easily take place in our real-life small town and it would have been the exact same. No one would have noticed that it was an old movie.

And what's with them calling their father "Atticus"? It is very disrespectful to call someone by their first name unless you know them very well. A child would never call any adult by their first name. If it's a relative, it's always Aunt so-and-so, never just the name. And when an adult insists on being called by their first name, we had to add Mr. or Miss onto it (doesn't matter if they're married or not). And this is present day. I can only imagine children in the 30's were more polite. But obviously not.

Let's talk about Atticus, or as he should be known as, "pompous father who thinks he is better than everyone else".  He constantly wears his three piece suit everywhere and all day.  It's always very clean, in contrast to the ignorant farmers who are always dirty.  Oh, because we owned a farm, that makes us dirty. It's called taking showers, asshole filmmakers. Also clearly no one in the costume department has ever been to Alabama, because if it's August, ain't nobody wearing a heavy warm suit all day long.  I understand wearing them in the courtroom, but not all day even at home.  This, along with his glasses, seems just to be a gimmick to further separate him from the lower-class individuals.  He is the only person in town that wears glasses, because if you wear glasses it means you're smart.  This is why no one else wears them, because he is clearly the smartest one of all.

Also, I'm not too sure about his accent. He definitely doesn't have an Alabama accent. He doesn't seem to have any kind of accent at all.  Everyone else has some kind of Southern accent except him.  Is he afraid that if he sounds Southern he won't sound as educated? That's what Stephen Colbert does and I feel sorry he feels like he needs to do this. My husband and I went to college in Alabama, got great jobs in our majors, and we will not tone down our accents one bit.

In the courtroom Atticus asks the witness if he can read or write.  This is a legit question to ask in a small town in Alabama seeing how none of my in-laws can.  Atticus proves that the victim's injuries were done by a left-handed person.  Then, he launches into a fucking ten minute long speech with the word "negro" stuffed in 50 times hoping to sway the jury.  It wasn't even a good speech.  Then the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, and I'm like, ha ha ha, your lame speech didn't change anything.  What a loser.

When Atticus comes back to the house, he says that Tom escaped during transport to another town. The deputy said he "shot at him to wound him and missed his aim and killed him". Of course Atticus believes him. I cannot believe how incredibly naive this guy is. Or that he thinks an appeal will help. It can take years to file an appeal.  His stupid speech didn't work the first time; what makes him think it will work again?  Then when his children are attacked by Bob and saved by Boo Radley, the first thing he talks about are how he can defend against Bob's murder in court. He at first thinks that his son did it. Yeah, like a tiny twelve year old (that is the smallest twelve year old I've ever seen) with a broken arm can kill a man.  The sheriff points out that Boo did it to save them and he won't let him be arrested because putting someone like that through the court process "would be a sin". He just wanted to spare Boo from Atticus's terrible defending.  So, by not arresting him and allowing Atticus to defend him, the sheriff saved Boo's life. So we know who the real heroes are in this movie. I'm giving this movie a 5/10.