May 2022 Viewing Diary

This was the month of watching only the first two episodes of various television series. I just couldn’t keep going – not because they’re bad, but because … I have other things I have to do and/or watch. Robert De Niro Retrospective continuing as well. Priorities.

Under the Banner of Heaven, first two episodes (2022)
Allison and I watched while holed up in our house in the woods. Keeping the home fires burning – literally. We didn’t care for it. We both devoured the book. The focus on the Andrew Garfield character was … meh. I don’t know. We lay in our separate rooms across the hall and discussed how we didn’t like it, late at night. This is our friendship.

White Hot: The Rise & Fall of Abercrombie & Fitch (2022; d. Alison Klayman)
Allison and I very much got into this one. We like these docs about sick corporate cultures and the downfall of sociopathic CEOs, which is now definitely a “thing” in doc-series. I remember those store fronts. The whole thing is really weird when you think about it for even 10 seconds.

The Big Year (2011; d. David Frankel)
I love this movie so much. I don’t think Allison had seen it before, and I was raving about it – and its sneakily insightful portrayal of friendship between men – so we watched it and had an absolute blast with it. It’s such an entertaining film, but it doesn’t sacrifice depth. Everyone has their moment. Everyone has a point. Brian Dennehy is redeemed. Everyone is re-deemable. I really love it.

The Proposal (2009; d. Anne Fletcher)
On a roll, Allison and I decided to watch this ridiculous romp. Man, it was only made in 2009 but these kinds of movies don’t exist anymore. Rom-coms, with ADULTS at the helm. What sells this is the chemistry between Bullock and Reynolds. Both of them are very very funny, and when they “riff” off of each other the movie takes flight. Their shared telling of how he proposed to her is RIDICULOUS and HILARIOUS. “soft soft sobs …” I was still laughing about that two days later.

Something New (2006; d. Sanaa Hamri)
In discussing our love of rom-coms, and how much we miss them, I brought up Something New, which I have written about before, here and elsewhere. This is not just a rom-com. It’s a romantic comedy, with dramatic elements, as well as a social and cultural point of view. It has THINGS TO SAY. Everyone in it is excellent and Sanaa Lathan and Simon Baker smoke up the screen. Something New looks at some very thorny issues, and it looks at it from the inside. The film was directed by a black woman, and written by a black woman. These things matter. I can’t even count how many times I’ve seen this movie. It’s one of my go-tos, when I just want to chill out, and be entertained – but also be moved. I adore it.

Backdraft (1991; d. Ron Howard)
Onward with the Robert De Niro retrospective. It’s wild to re-watch all of these, movies I saw in the theatre back in the day. Backdraft was just HUGE at the time, a blockbuster, with a murderer’s row of talent. Kurt Russell, Donald Sutherland, De Niro, Jennifer Jason Leigh, I’m probably forgetting some others. Billy Baldwin is a bit of a blank. And there are about 10 too many stories ricocheting around. What’s really extraordinary here is the fire footage. I have no idea how they “got” all that footage – the dancing undulating flames, the billowing waves of fire on the ceiling … it’s stunning. Again, movies like this really don’t exist anymore. It feels very old-fashioned. One thing about De Niro: I really enjoy the fact that he takes roles that may seem boring to other actors. He’s fine playing a bureaucrat, a non-hero type … I’ll get to Copland when I get to it. Here, he’s a quiet thoughtful fire inspector, with a backstory of course, and a determination to never let Donald Sutherland make parole, that freaky pyro. But mostly, De Niro is just squinting at blackened boards, scraping and sniffing, and murmuring quiet words about what he sees. He is perfectly fine taking non-flashy parts. His ego is not involved. He doesn’t have to bluster and fluster and tantrum about in order to feel like he’s acting. This is RARE, especially considering his mighty reputation and all the expectations placed on him.

Cape Fear (1991; d. Martin Scorsese)
I recently re-watched this in preparation for my Film Comment piece on Nick Nolte. Will never forget the impact Juliette Lewis’ performance had on me when I first saw this in the theatre. I LOVE it when someone shows up and your immediate visceral reaction is: “WHO is THAT.” Her performance continues to make me feel uncomfortable and queasy, but she is comfortable with facing unpleasant truths – why she is drawn to this man, why she is flirting with this danger – the understanding of rebellion and the need to rebel – but also understanding that this little girl is in way over her head. Juliette Lewis understands all of that. This is a hothouse swamp of Oedipal melodrama – Scorsese really leaned into it.

Mistress (1992; d. Barry Primus)
I had never seen this one! I dislike Robert Wuhl, and he’s the lead character, so maybe that’s why. De Niro has a glorified cameo, but it’s in a very fun zone for him, a zone he rarely enters: the gleaming slick millionaire zone. De Niro knows how funny this character is, and every line reading is said with complete sincerity but also that underlying understanding of how ridiculous the guy is. I like the lightness of him here, the quickness. He also looks incredible.

Mad Dog and Glory (1993; d. John McNaughton)
What a strange movie! A romantic comedy involving human trafficking. Yikes almighty. What is – and was – interesting about this at the time was Bill Murray’s presence beside such a heavy-hitting “serious” actor. He had already done Tootsie of course, but Tootsie was in his wheelhouse – dry, sarcastic, deadpan. Here he plays a scary Mob boss. In other words, he plays the Robert De Niro role, and De Niro plays the Murray role. The film is still interesting because of this. I love that neither of them “push” to be a different type. Murray is still dry, sarcastic, deadpan, but in this context it comes off very differently than it did in Tootsie. His “persona” is flexible for different contexts. And De Niro is completely believable as a schlubby failed artist who has no “game” with women. Still: if you think about the set-up of this plot for more than 5 seconds, you’re like … wait … what?

This Boy’s Life (1993; d. Michael Caton-Jones)
This came out the same year as What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, although I can’t remember which movie came first. All I know is that I saw both films in the theatre and was absolutely blown away by this brand new teenager on the scene. Similar to Juliette Lewis, I thought, “WHO is THAT.” He was a subject of conversation in my group of actor friends, just like River Phoenix had been a couple years before. Speaking of which: River Phoenix died in 1993, the year both of these movies came out, and it was a huge loss which I still feel – but at the time, Leo’s “arrival” felt almost connected. Like, one great young actor left the scene, and another great young actor entered the scene. Not to replace the other, but … as compensation? I don’t know. I just remember thinking about it at the time. It’s so fun when a young actor comes along and you can get EXCITED about it. I had read This Boy’s Life – I went through a Tobias Wolff phase with my first boyfriend – so I was eager to see it. Cut to: my recent re-watch. It’s even better than I remembered. Barkin is superb. Chris Cooper shows up. Leo is beyond good: he is beyond his years. Similar to Juliette Lewis in Cape Fear: he’s a young actor, still a kid, barely out of childhood, and yet he shows a depth of understanding of the themes and concerns, of what it meant to be this particular kid in that particular time. (Compare to his performance in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? I know that some people thought they had actually cast a disabled boy for that one. I knew it was the same kid. It was mind-blowing. And Leo has more than lived up to that initial sense of expectation. But De Niro! The accent! This horrible character – but De Niro understands him. There are many different kinds of vulnerability. Vulnerability isn’t just crying or showing your softer side. Vulnerability is also showing that you understand pettiness, that you understand rage, that you understand the impulses to beat your children, you understand being such a “bad lover” that there’s only one way to deal with it. This is what he is willing to show in this performance, without once pleading for our sympathy. The man could have been played as a pure villain – and indeed he is a villain – but the guy isn’t a “villain” in his own mind. In his own mind he is a misunderstood man, surrounded by idiots. He is a tyrant, because there is so much rage inside of him – enormous titanic male rage – infuriated at the world changing, at anything that chips away at his own sense of impenetrable authority … The guy is this way for a reason. I’m not saying it’s not his FAULT, but in order to play a guy like this you have to really bare your soul. You can’t stay distant from it. you can’t put up a barrier to let the audience know, “I’m not like this guy.” De Niro wouldn’t do that anyway. But it’s really amazing to see it in practice (as well as seeing his generosity towards young Leo: their scenes together are incredible). This is one of De Niro’s best performances.

A Bronx Tale (1993; d. Robert De Niro)
God, I love this movie. It was so fun when it played at Ebertfest and Chazz Palmintieri was there! The stories he told! I so admire his career. I so admire that he wrote this. I also saw him do the one-man show of it, where he literally turns himself into every different character in the neighborhood. Amazing talent.

Elvis (1979; d. John Carpenter)
I’m feeling the approach of Baz’s Elvis. I was on a podcast to discuss this film, so I re-watched.

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994; d. Kenneth Branagh)
Kenneth Branagh and Robert De Niro rolling around in sticky amniotic fluid, wrestling and embracing – De Niro buck naked, and Branagh half-naked – is one of the most outrageously erotic things I’ve ever seen. It’s erotic AND it’s gross! Both! The movie is way too long – and the prologue/epilogue just aren’t as effective as they could be – I wonder if it would have been better to skip the prologue, and just have all of that in the epilogue. De Niro is truly “other” here: I’ve said this before: he REMOVES things that don’t fit. And he is meticulous about it. He can remove his shyness. (Mean Streets). He can remove his kindness. He can remove his sense of irony, he can remove his sexuality – depending on what the role demands. He can also just have all of that in place, and react in the moment according to the demands of the character. He doesn’t complicate things. Like, A Bronx Tale: he doesn’t seem to remove anything here, because it’s not necessary. Everything is in him, and everything is of use. If you want to see the process of removal REALLY in play: Frankenstein is a perfect example. So is Awakenings, albeit in a different way. He can remove LIFE. If necessary. He can douse the light of inner life in his eyes. Seriously. The guy is uncanny.

Heat (1995; d. Michael Caton-Jones)
I love this movie. It’s ridiculous in a lot of ways and I didn’t take it seriously as some big moralistic tale at the time it came out. I saw it as an exercise in style, in high aesthetics, in mood and atmosphere – Mann’s wheelhouse, nobody does it better. It was so fun seeing De Niro in Mann’s world, accept Mann’s concerns, the look of things, the moody broody alone-ness, the gorgeous suits he wears, all of that highly technical stuff Mann is so good at orchestrating like a maestro.

The Fan (1996; d. Tony Scott)
This didn’t get great reviews at the time, and I guess I understand why, but I think the movie is doing a lot of very interesting things, and telling the story in a high-intensity Tony-Scott kind of way. Maybe it’s a little BUSY visually, but whatever, I can deal with that. The whole reason I’ve been re-watching all these movies is to study De Niro’s process and his development. He has this reputation of playing “psychos” but … really? I can list 25 movies where he doesn’t play a psycho. And not all psychos are born the same. Travis is different from Rupert is different from this sports fan. They’re all unnerving though. De Niro is not afraid to be pathetic, either – or to be viewed as pathetic. He doesn’t have to be a “winner” onscreen – something Al Pacino has, at times, fallen into. Pacino asserts his dominance over movies – and other actors – in situations where it’s like, “wait, where did that come from?” People always quote his “Don’t waste my MOTHERFUCKIN’ TIME” from Heat but I think the moment stinks. It’s Pacino showing off. And I love Pacino. I am actually able to love people who aren’t perfect. I know. It’s amazing. De Niro, though, does not feel the need to throw his weight around: he is perfectly able to play schlubby nobodies in khaki pants without having to remind us he’s a bad-ass. De Niro is NOT a bad-ass. There’s a scene here where he’s let go from his job – and he is made to feel so small – and he is small – that suddenly I wanted to weep for him. He’s Willy Loman, for God’s sake. De Niro shows you things you do not want to see.

Meltdown: Three Mile Island (2022)
Devoured this. I didn’t really know the story of what happened, so it was very interesting. I learned a lot.

The Valet (2022; d. Richard Wong)
This was cute. I reviewed for Ebert.

Sleepers (1996; d. Barry Levinson)
I mainly wrote about this in my piece on Ron Eldard, since in my opinion Ron Eldard and Billy Crudup are the best things in this, and they’re barely in it. Brad Pitt is gorgeous but not for one second do I believe he grew up in Hell’s Kitchen, nor for one second do I believe he is a smoker. Poor Jason Patric is just completely miscast – he’s so insanely gorgeous, he’s difficult to cast because of it (and I think he’s an excellent actor) – but again, not for one second do I believe he is the grownup-version of the kid in the early sections. Robert De Niro is good as the local priest who gets sucked into this madness, and honestly – the dilemma he faces, should he lie on the stand? – is one of the most crucial in the whole thing. And then, the movie just doesn’t follow up with it! He lies, and it helps get the killers off, and then … we never see the priest again. Did he lose his faith? Did he regret what he did? Did this impact his relationship with the kids he basically helped raise? What happened? And not only THAT: his lie put those two dangerous people back out on the streets, where they proceeded to go on gang-related killing sprees, before both being killed themselves. Like, that’s on HIM. HE did that. Was it worth it? The abuse they suffered was horrible, but they’re the ones who chose to become murderers. Maybe there’s another way to help them heal – while behind bars? So this very good man, this priest, lies on the stand … the guys are let off scot-free – the old friends have a raucous celebrating where they’re hugging and making toasts – and I couldn’t help but think: Maybe have a little bit more gravitas about what you’ve done, and also what you’ve asked this very good man – this priest – to do? And then we never see the priest again! This movie came with a lot of flash and gleam – all these good-looking men – but there’s something rotten about what it’s doing and how it’s doing it. It’s a weird watch.

Marvin’s Room (1996; d. Jerry Zaks)
Wow, I had not seen this since it came out. Another Leo extravaganza, juuuust before the titanic event that was Titanic. This is the Diane Keaton show, all the way. She really makes this woman make sense. You believe every word. Streep is good, but Keaton’s work makes Streep’s look a little showy. It’s a very good script. You can tell it’s a play, not much has been done to “open it out” and I feel like that’s the right choice. It’s all very sad, a very deep kind of sadness: beauty and love and sadness.

Dark, two episodes (2017; d. Baran bo Odar)
I need to get back to this. I was VERY impressed and instantly hooked in. It was weird, I saw it right after Three Mile Island, so it felt oddly connected. Nuclear power plants looming over little communities. Although this one appears to have something … supernatural about it. Perhaps connected to nuclear power? I just don’t know. I only saw the first two episodes. I just don’t have time for a binge. Not with all this Robert De Niro business going on.

Dinner in America (2022; d. Adam Rehmeier)
I really fell in love with this gritty funny little gem. First: I reviewed for Ebert. Then I watched it again and liked it even MORE. Then I made it a mini-mission to get the word out, so I wrote about it again. I love how romantic it is. I was not expecting that at all. It made me realize how romances like this used to be dime-a-dozen – when they worked they worked – but aren’t really a “thing” anymore. It’s a romance but with an edge, it’s about these two characters, but it’s also taking place in a real world, with some things to say about bucking the status quo, how stifling conformity is, how important rebellion is, etc. I love romances with this sort of thing as background and context. This isn’t a “teen romance” or “coming of age”. Both people are adults. But misfits, socially and otherwise, and one is a blatant criminal. And violent. But something clicks here. None of this would work without these actors AND without the director knowing exactly what he’s doing, and the kind of romance he wants to convey. I really loved it. It’s streaming now.

Copland (1997; d. James Mangold)
RIP Ray Liotta. Copland is a great example of what I said earlier: De Niro’s willingness to take “meh” parts – non-explosive or showy parts – parts where there isn’t a twisty backstory or some gigantic tantrum or whatever. Here, he has a bad haircut, an unattractive mustache, and his suit is rumpled. He’s IA, and therefore despised – as he says to Sylvester Stallone at one point: “We’re in law enforcement, but we’re not cops.” He doesn’t “get to be” evil or psycho or Mr. Tough Guy. Listen, actors have egos too. Actors like to be “on top” too. (I always think of Sam Rockwell’s observation in the John Cazale doc that most actors want to play Michael Corleone, and don’t want to play Fredo. Cazale showed the value in “beta males” – Rockwell’s words.) De Niro is, of course, a star, and could have played Keitel’s part, could have played Stallone’s part, could have played Liotta’s part: he has all of those men in him. The least interesting role (except in terms of plot) is the role he actually took. And he’s so GOOD in this. He doesn’t try to add things. I keep saying that. What he does is remove anything that isn’t essential to the role. He keeps his eye on the ball. He doesn’t get distracted. His ego is just not in play at ALL. People, this is EERIE and UNUSUAL. Actors can learn so much from him, not just from watching him as Travis or in Deer Hunter – but from roles like this one. Or the one in Backdraft. Nobodies: functionaries in the plot. Not main characters. But he makes them real. Everyone loves the moment when he sneers/yells at Sly: “You BLEW IT” but pay close attention to the other stuff, the small stuff, the way he listens, the way he THINKS, everything. Details, details, details, but none of it looks like “work”.

The Staircase, first two episodes (2022; d. Antonio Campos)
Again, with the first two episodes. I watched with Jen during our hours-long reunion day. I haven’t seen her in almost three years. We were roommates for YEARS. I have never gone this long without seeing her since the day I met her. We had enough time to catch up, all as the thunder rolled and the rain poured down, and then we decided to watch the first two eps. Jen had already seen it and wanted to show it to me. I think it’s very well done. It’s fun to see Colin Firth in a meaty and unpleasant role. I saw the doc years ago and became totally convinced the guy was totally guilty. “We sat outside, and drank wine, and talked for hours and looked at the stars.” Oh come on, no you did NOT.

This entry was posted in Monthly Viewing Diary, Movies, Television and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to May 2022 Viewing Diary

  1. Mike Molloy says:

    I hope you continue on with Dark. I liked it a lot, and would like to read your thoughts if you get farther into it (& want to write about it). It takes some twists & turns, it’s fun.

    • sheila says:

      Mike – yes, I do want to get back to it. It seems like it will be really fun. I was very interested in all the characters too. I’m getting a kind of Leftovers-vibe – especially after the “reveal” at the end of episode 2!

  2. José Gabriel Ferreras says:

    Sheila, I’ve read and loved Glenn Kenny’s book and some things by other people, but your De Niro rundown, even in its viewing diary form, is hands down my favorite thing I’ve ever read about him as an actor. Thank you, best part is that it’s not even finished yet!

    I also rewatched The Fan a couple of weeks ago (never saw this one in the cinema, and when I finally did it on dvd was out of a thing for Tony Scott), and oh boy, was Wesley Snipes a wild force in the 90’s. He’s not had it easy apparently in recent years, but he’s been a fearless actor since the beginning (his WHO is THAT moment in Michael Jackson’s Bad!), and he was just unstoppable in so many roles that decade. I can see De Niro so happy to work with him in this movie!

    • sheila says:

      Thanks so much for your words in re: my babblings on De Niro. It’s so funny because he was such a massive figure to those of us starting out as actors in the 80s – the 70s were just in the rear view mirror, and he was still popping up in everything – and it was an EVENT. We spent hours discussing him and studying him. (among others. Pacino. Hoffman. Streep. etc.) But I haven’t written all that much about any of that – about why he was important to us, and what he reveals. He’s a strange one. His career looks stranger and stranger the more I re-visit it. I’m mostly fascinated right now by his interest in “nothing” parts – plot-functionaries – how he’s willing to take those parts. Like the one in Copland – as crucial as that guy is, he doesn’t get to be evil or twisty or dark – or any of those things actors are normally interested in. and of course De Niro understands darkness – I don’t think he’s a particularly optimistic and/or positive person – but in his acting, he’s up for anything. I think this is why some people get “disappointed” in him – like, why isn’t he going for the brass ring, and fussing and fuming – which gets people Oscars? I honestly don’t think he gives a damn about Oscars. He’s interested in working. He does three movies a year. Boom boom boom, he doesn’t trip about it. There have been no fallow periods. The early 2000s are pretty grim … and he seemed to be segueing into a new phase – which of course makes sense because he was becoming an old man. Of COURSE his attitude would change. He just wanted to keep working.

      // oh boy, was Wesley Snipes a wild force in the 90’s. // right?? Such star power – and he’s so good in this. I love the scene where “the fan” “saves” his kid from drowning – and the two hang out at the beach house and it takes a while for Snipes to realize something’s a bit … “off” about the guy. Snipes plays that perfectly – the dawning realization that he needs to get this guy off his property NOW.

      • José Gabriel Ferreras says:

        //I honestly don’t think he gives a damn about Oscars. He’s interested in working.// Exactly! And it says a lot that he is not “above” working with any ot these mainstream directors, like the Howards, the Schumachers or the Scotts, nor they feel they’re “below” working with him. As long as he’s interested in a project and a character, he’s all in for the ride, and the process itself is what’s important to him. Couldn’t care less about purists or the Oscars, he just loves to be working!

        //I love the scene where “the fan” “saves” his kid from drowning – and the two hang out at the beach house and it takes a while for Snipes to realize something’s a bit … “off” about the guy. Snipes plays that perfectly – the dawning realization that he needs to get this guy off his property NOW.//

        Yes! Also there’s something beautiful in the way Snipes embodies the predicament and the hardships of being an athlete in the film, from the physical sacrifices he has to make to stay on top, to the daily pressures that surround him and he has to endure, and the loss of enjoyment and motivation that often derives from all of this. How tough it is to keep the joy that made it all start in the first place when all of these things are put on top of you?

        Also the whole deal around his team number, and the way little, apparently unimportant details like that can tip an athlete over the edge. The superstitions, the fear of getting caught in one of those slumps, and what can you do to get out of it, and the desperation when nothing you do seems to be working. Kudos to Snipes for playing of all this beautifully in the film!

        • sheila says:

          // Also the whole deal around his team number //

          Such a good detail. It gave him depth – and is accurate in re: superstitious athletes, as you mention. It gave him vulnerability too – he’s not some perfect careless athlete. He’s … obsessive. It’s such a nice touch.

          • José Gabriel Ferreras says:

            I’ve rewatched Backdraft too, saw it in the cinema back in the day (I think this and Cape Fear were my first De Niros in the cinema!)

            //What’s really extraordinary here is the fire footage. I have no idea how they “got” all that footage – the dancing undulating flames, the billowing waves of fire on the ceiling … it’s stunning.//

            I agree that’s memorable about the film, the way the fire it’s this menacing entity, like a prowling animal, on the hunt, using his intelligence in looking for ways to cause as much destruction as possible. It’s just chilling to watch (I believe ILM was heavily involved in all the stuff concerning the fire).

            // But mostly, De Niro is just squinting at blackened boards, scraping and sniffing, and murmuring quiet words about what he sees. He is perfectly fine taking non-flashy parts. His ego is not involved. He doesn’t have to bluster and fluster and tantrum about in order to feel like he’s acting. This is RARE, especially considering his mighty reputation and all the expectations placed on him.//

            That’s just about right. His character is the one who gets there when everybody else has left, when all the “excitement”, and all the heroic and action tactics, and all the noise, are over. He’s there for the “autopsy”!, for the “boring” part of a fire. He’s the man noboy pays attention to, and he just prides himself in doing his anonymous job good. And De niro seems to love every second of it!

  3. Hope you get back to Under the Banner at some later point. I think the focus is on that guy because the series takes the issue of faith seriously. Basically it gives faith (not just FLDS faith) a bad name, which I’ve never seen done before. Also Bill Taba is a great character.

    • sheila says:

      Jincy – yes, I can see why they’re focusing on him – since the book is so much about cracking the edifice of the faith, and the divide in the Mormon church, etc. I just found basically everybody else more interesting than this fictional guy. I’ll probably go back to it since it’s such an interesting subject.

  4. James says:

    Always appreciate your Viewing/Reading diaries!

    I loved Dark; I also hope you continue on with it. Netflix’s upcoming 1899, by the same creators, appears to be “Dark on a Boat,” so I’m sold. Uhhh, don’t look up the cast list unless you want spoilers.

    I had a similar reaction to Under the Banner. Among other things, it irked me that they kept sending the non-Mormon/native cop off on his own into a hotbed of radical separatists like it was no big deal. That said, the actor Gil Birmingham is fantastic in the role — I first noticed him as the grieving father in Wind River, and I’m starting Yellowstone mostly for him.

    • sheila says:

      // Netflix’s upcoming 1899, by the same creators, appears to be “Dark on a Boat,” so I’m sold. //

      LOL I haven’t heard about this one! I won’t look up the cast list.

      // it irked me that they kept sending the non-Mormon/native cop off on his own into a hotbed of radical separatists like it was no big deal. // I know! Birmingham was my favorite – I wished he had been the lead detective, and just get rid of the Andrew Garfield character – or have Garfield play second banana, instead of being the central character. I understand what they are trying to do – they are trying to reflect what the book does, which is interrogate faith – and how difficult Mormons found it to live with the contradictions, etc. But I don’t care about Garfield’s character’s grappling with faith – I care about what’s going on out at that creepy ranch!

      I keep meaning to check out Yellowstone!

  5. Carolyn Clarke says:

    Love this as always. A few comments in no particular order.

    Love Juliet Lewis in From Dusk to Dawn. Hate vampire movies but this one has a baby faced George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, and absolutely no redeeming value and I love it and her, particularly the end of it.

    Like Cape Fear but i keep wanting to compare it to the Peck/Mitchum version which makes no sense because they are very different films;both versions are unique to their time.

    Heat is my favorite Michael Mann movie. The one scene between DeNiro and Pacino! Deniro is so cool and Pacino is so hot. But what is Michael Mann’s obsession with that particular shade of blue. It’s in all of his movies.

    Love Something New. Went on a Simon Baker binge of his show, The Mentalist, after watching the movie the last time. The man is so ridiculously charming

    Re Deniro, did you see The Intern? Total bubble gum movie and pink bubble gum at that but he is professional as always.

    • sheila says:

      Dusk to Dawn is such a hoot.

      // ;both versions are unique to their time. //

      Yes! Scorsese leans really heavily into Oedipal stuff – and anxiety about masculinity – and an unhappy wife, etc. – in the Mitchum one, they were pretty much a happy perfect family. Both work, I think!

      // But what is Michael Mann’s obsession with that particular shade of blue. It’s in all of his movies. //

      I knowwww. It’s so poetic. I keep meaning to watch The Insider again. I really like that movie.

      I love The Intern!

      and finally: My cousin’s husband was the weapons trainer on The Mentalist!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.