Well, it’s been a while, hasn’t it? I’ve been a bit busy. Plus, I’m lazy. Okay, it’s mostly the lazy thing.

I think it’s time for me to revisit the Essentials Project. But before I get started in earnest, here’s a quick round-up of the movies from The List that I just so happened to have watched over the last few months.

Mad Max (1979)
Directed by: George Miller
Starring: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne
First Viewing

It’s kind of odd watching Mad Max for the first time, because it was obviously shot on an exceptionally low budget, and actually has very little of what you’d expect from a Mad Max film (the monstrous, souped-up cars, the outlandish costumes, etc.). In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to describe the setting as post-apocalyptic at all, which is odd considering that this film is considered to be of the essential films in that genre. I think that everything that Mad Max has become known for, aesthetically speaking, actually comes from the sequels — I also watched Mad Max 2, and it’s all there: the desolate wasteland and the memorable cars and costumes. But what about the film at hand? It wasn’t bad. It drags a bit, but it definitely has its moments.

The Thin Red Line (1998)
Directed by: Terrence Malick
Starring: Jim Caviezel, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte
First Viewing

Thus far, my experience with the films of Terrence Malick has been one of admiration, but little more. I liked Badlands and I liked Days of Heaven, but aside from the gorgeous visuals, they weren’t films that stuck with me for very long after the credits rolled. Imagine my surprise, then, that between this, Badlands and Days of Heaven, this was my favourite film by far, despite the fact that it is probably the least regarded of the three. It feels like this material is pretty much a perfect compliment for Malick’s style, which is not necessarily something I’d say about Badlands or Days of Heaven (it’s been ages since I’ve seen Badlands, so another viewing is probably in order, but in Heaven, it’s pretty clear that the fairly routine love triangle is the least interesting thing about that film). Malick isn’t particularly interested in telling straight-forward stories; in his first two films he tried to do that, and in this one he didn’t bother. I think this film is better off because of it. It’s completely plotless, and yet it is absolutely compelling throughout, thanks to Malick’s poetic, oddly hypnotic direction. The same can be said for Malick’s recent The Tree of Life, of which I am also a pretty big fan.

.

The Red Shoes (1948)
Directed by: Michael Powell, Emeric Pressburger
Starring: Moira Shearer, Anton Walbrook, Marius Goring
First Viewing

An exceptionally well directed film. Though it’s a little slow in parts, seeing the inner workings of the ballet company is kind of fascinating, and directors Powell and Pressburger do a really good job of developing the characters and making them compelling — even side characters we don’t necessarily spend much time with. All of the performances are quite good, though special mention must go to Anton Walbrook as the leader of the company; he’s pretty mesmerizing in the role. The film also looks very, very good, with top-notch direction and glorious Technicolor cinematography (the pristine Criterion Blu-ray probably helps in this regard). Highlights include a hypnotic dance sequence in the middle of the film, and a supremely memorable ending, which has to rank up there as one of the best endings ever.

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Henry Thomas, Drew Barrymore, Dee Wallace
Second or Third Viewing

What can I say about this movie? It’s a classic, obviously. Many consider it to be Spielberg’s best film, and obviously the man does not have a shortage of great films to choose from. To me, Raiders of the Lost Ark is — and will always be — Spielberg’s best movie, but E.T. is definitely a strong contender. It’s funny, exciting, touching, and downright entertaining; it’s pretty much everything you want out of a movie like this. It also features top-notch direction from Spielberg, and some really great cinematography from Allen Daviau.

The Thing (1982)
Directed by: John Carpenter
Starring: Kurt Russell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley
Second Viewing

This is a stunningly good movie. I remembered this being very good; it’s even better than I remembered. Featuring perfect direction from John Carpenter (this is definitely among his best films), the film always looks good and does a pretty astounding job of building and maintaining tension. It’s also really well acted, and the dynamic between all the characters is always really well done (both before and after shit gets real, and everybody starts questioning who’s still human). Ennio Morricone’s score also suits the material perfectly. Honestly, I’m having a hard time thinking of any flaws in this movie.

Synopsis: After getting divorced, a woman builds herself up from nothing, with her spoiled daughter always looming large in her thoughts.

With the HBO miniseries by Todd Haynes starting to air, I figured it was probably a good time to finally watch this film. And I’m definitely glad that I did. I’ll be checking out the Haynes version, but there’s little doubt that it has quite a lot to live up to.

The film starts with a literal bang as we see a character get shot; it’s a pretty great way to start the movie, and a guarantee that it has your attention right from the get-go. From there, Mildred Pierce’s story unfolds in flashback — and there is a fair amount of story to be told. I can see how a six part miniseries was made from this material, as quite a lot happens in this movie (and I can only imagine that quite a bit more had to be cut from James M. Cain’s novel). That’s not to say that the film feels rushed or disjointed; it definitely doesn’t.

The film was directed by Michael Curtiz, who was prolific, putting it mildly, with a stunning 173 films to his credit (according to his IMDb page, at least). He also directed another film that I’ve already watched for this blog, The Adventures of Robin Hood, and I’m sure I’ll be talking about at least a couple more (including Casablanca, a film widely regarded as one of the best of all time). Curtiz was never known as a flashy director, but he was no visual slouch, either. Pierce is frequently classified as a film noir, which seems like a bit of an odd categorization (aside from the murder-mystery framing device, the film has little in common with typical film noir), though there are definitely some noirish stylistic flourishes here. It’s a good looking film. The movie also moves at a really fast pace — sometimes it’s a little too easy to get distracted when you’re watching a movie at home, but this one had my undivided attention from the memorable opening right to its closing moments.

Mildred Pierce is quite melodramatic — and that’s not a bad thing. Melodrama is frequently derided as being a lesser form of storytelling: mere soap opera, not worthy of serious consideration. And certainly, bad melodrama is painful to watch. But if done right (as it is here), the heightened emotions of melodrama can be quite compelling.

And of course, I have to mention the performances, particularly Joan Crawford — Crawford deservedly won an Oscar for this film, which revitalized her flagging career. This is a role that could have easily been overplayed, but Crawford really nails it. There’s a great depth to her character, and I think a lot of the credit for how well the film works must go to Crawford.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: After his brother leaves him alone for the weekend, an alcoholic writer goes on an alcohol-fueled bender.

This is pretty much entirely unrelated to The Lost Weekend, but I wanted to start this post by mentioning how much I love Turner Classic Movies. What’s not to love? Classic movies all day long, uncut, commercial free and always presented in their proper aspect ratios. Good times. And in case you hadn’t guessed, I just watched this film on TCM, so bringing it up wasn’t completely random.

I really liked this film. It takes what seems like a fairly limited premise and turns it into something pretty special. Kudos must go to star Ray Milland for his nuanced performance. When he tries to rationalize his addiction near the beginning of the film, he’s so charming that you almost believe him.

It quickly becomes apparent, however, that this is a man who is completely ruled by his nearly crippling addiction. Milland does a great job of really selling everything that his character goes through, from his near-exuberance at the start of the movie to his increasing desperation to satisfy his cravings (he has limited funds, and spends all his time either drinking or figuring out where his next drink is coming from).

There’s something grimly compelling about watching Milland’s inexorable descent and his complete powerlessness to his own addiction. Every time you think “surely, this is rock bottom,” things manage to get even worse. The whole thing might have come off as over-the-top or even preachy under a lesser director, but Billy Wilder directs the film with a sure hand, and never allows it to be overtaken by melodrama.

Buy the movie on Amazon

Synopsis: A husband and wife find themselves on opposite sides of the courtroom when the wife decides to defend the woman that the husband is prosecuting.

Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy are probably one of Hollywood’s most enduring on-screen couples; in fact, “Hepburn and Tracy” has practically become synonymous with “compelling screen couple.” And with good reason, too, as this film so aptly proves. This is actually the first film of theirs that I’ve watched, and yet another one that I’ve been meaning to see for a long time. I’ve also (and I don’t know why I’m even admitting all these woeful omissions in my film-watching repertoire) never seen anything by this film’s director, George Cukor. So this was definitely a good introduction to Hepburn and Tracy, and to Cukor.

The film was certainly quite enjoyable, though Hepburn and Tracy are so good together that it can’t help but slow down a bit in the scenes where they are apart (which is a fair amount in the first half or so). That’s not to say that other stuff was bad, not at all, but Hepburn and Tracy are both so good, and their back-and-forth dialogue so compelling and enjoyable that I would have been happy just watching them talk and argue for the entire 101 minutes. As for Cukor, he basically just stands back and lets the couple do their thing, which is definitely the wisest choice when the couple is this good.

Buy the movie at Amazon