Based around the mob's use of time travel to send their victims and enemies back in time to killed, 'Loopers' are the ones who act as their executioners. Eventually though the Loopers themselves begin having to kill themselves, having been sent back 30 years from the future, equipped with a massive pay off, to make sure they enjoy their final 30 years. One day though, one of the Loopers (Paul Dano) discovers it's his future self before pulling the trigger and lets his future self go. Now on the run from the mob, the Looper seeks refuge with his fellow Looper (Joseph Gordon Levitt), who resolves to give him up. This leads to one of the film's best moment, as the exiled Looper from the future is dismantled by the mob who are 'operating' on his younger self. There is also this whole "seemingly" superfluous mention of telekinesis, that gives one that sinking feeling about where this film is heading.
Soon Gordon-Levitt's character is brought face to face with his own future self (Bruce Willis), which leads to another fantastic sequence showing the different 'loops' and the consequence of the character killing himself (when it originally happened the first time his future self was sent back). Up to this point the story and action is extremely absorbing, as Willis tries to kill the future crime lord who he has deduced is a 5 year old child, and Gordon-Levitt tries to kill his loop. The film doesn't hold any punches and is also pretty unconventional.
Sadly it is right after this point where the film falls apart, in a similar fashion to the earlier character who was literally dismantled. The film quickly begins to become overindulgent in the melodrama; and even the action sequences become gratuitous, even to the point of laughable. I honestly can't remember a movie having such an abysmal final third in contrast to the rest of the film. The twists are predictable, which is I don't usuallly have a problem with, but in this case they are executed poorly and one soon becomes irritated with how poorly they're handled. For a film that started so well (though obviously nowhere near The Matrix level of greatness) it's ending is so shockingly awful, that you have to remind yourself it's the same movie. Bruce Willis' own Twelve Monkeys is similar in concept, but the finished product there is far more satisfying compared to this below average affair.
Next up I saw A Star Is Born, one of Judy Garland's most famous films and one made off the back of many similar movies that were about the show business industry. It was later remade in the 70's with Barbara Streisand in the lead role; but this version was itself in fact a remake, however this is the most famous version of the film. It was significant for Garland as it was the first film she made with Warner Brothers, having successfully terminated her contract with MGM. As such what is most striking about this picture is Garland's image, as she appears more dowdy and plain; but this is also due to the script, which satirises the "star system" (synonymous with her old employers MGM). Her image may have also been suffering due to her off screen drug troubles and mental illness.
The film itself centres around Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland), a small time singer, who's show is interrupted by A-lister Norman Maine (James Mason), who drunkenly invades the stage. He soon sobers up and spots Garland singing in a lounge bar, where he's struck by her talent. He soon sets about in making her a star and the two fall in love along the way. The problem at this part of the film is that Mason's character when they first meet is such a wreck that it's hard for the viewer to warm to him quickly. To be fair to Mason though, he's seemingly unscrupulous character, begins to show some heart as he falls in love with Garland.
The film is credited as being Garland's landmark performance, and whilst she is undoubtedly the star of the show, it is neither a performance that completely blows me away. She has that sense of vulnerability and charm that makes her endearing (along with her singing talent), but the lack of great songs and plaintive tone of the film, doesn't work in favour of her performance. As for Mason, he lacks a bit of the charm and suaveness he exudes so readily in other pictures, oddly enough it's his plaintiveness that does work for him in this film; and his ability not to conform to the conventional leading man is arguably his greatest strength. There is also decent support in this film from accomplished actors Charles Bickford, Jack Carson and Tommy Noonan.
The production values are also strong, and atypical of the musical's of the 50's; with direction from the great George Cukor, and musical arrangements from George Gershwin's brother Ira. Unfortunately, the film on the whole comes up short, in terms of both films of similar plots such as Singin' in the Rain, All About Eve, Sunset Boulevard and even The Bad and the Beautiful. It's lack of real great show tunes and musicality even leaves it short in my opinion of the being a truly great musical. It's a good film, that is maybe over indulged by fans of Garland, who are exposed to an on screen Garland that is akin to her real life turmoil. The film in truth though is a bit too overblown for it's own good.
Don't Look In The Basement was an early 70's horror film, much in the same mould of the low budget grindhouse and snuff movies also released around that era. This film did in fact share a double bill feature with Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left. Set in a remote mental asylum, where a couple of the patients have killed a doctor and a nurse, leaving just one more doctor on site, when a young female nurse arrives informing the doctor that she was assigned to the place by one of the victims. This nurse begins to endure the mental and physical anguish the patients unleash on her.
Whilst this film is very low budget, it is blessed in that it has a strong plot, that does suffer a bit from slightly erratic direction at times, that can sometimes seem confusing. The acting is also forgivably tolerable, but does suffer from a bit of the usual woodenness associated with these pictures; but at the same time is amusing and is why they're so enjoyable. In my opinion it does compare favourably to other films of the genre, and is definitely amongst the better ones I have seen. It isn't overly gratuitous and has a bit more purpose than the snuff-centric The Last House on the Left, but it's not quite as gripping as I Spit on your Grave. The ending to this one will leave the viewer guessing, and it's probably due to it's strong screenplay that a remake is currently in the works. However, there's something about the rawness of these films, that make the overproduced remakes occasionally pale in comparison to the originals. The entire film can be seen below:
I also watched the 1925 version of Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ, which is often cited as being the most expensive silent film ever made. Though it shared much the same narrative as the Wyler remake, there were also longer, as well as a few additional scenes. The film was directed by Fred Niblo, who had directed two other movies I had seen, Greta Garbo's The Temptress and Mysterious Lady. Already impressed by hints of his technical mastery in those pictures, this film is undoubtedly his most known, probably because it's his most impressive. This was one of the first MGM productions, it's opulence and grandeur would serve as a signal that started MGM's and indeed Hollywood's Golden Era. Along with The Big Parade, Ben Hur instantly propelled MGM to become the biggest studio in Hollywood.
Niblo had originally wanted to cast Hollywood's biggest star at the time in the title role, Rudolph Valentino. Eventually the role was given to Ramon Navarro, who gives an interesting performance as Ben Hur, and looks the part, especially when enslaved by the Romans. The problem is though, that Charlton Heston's seminal interpretation of the character is definitive. his characterisation best portrays Hur's inner struggle with faith and vengeance. Whilst the supporting cast, especially Francis X. Bushman as Messala, work well; they don't quite match up to the charisma and emotional impact the modern cast portray.
The film also differs to the remake in it's tone; this film is surprisingly darker and even more subversive than the 1959 version. It includes scenes of nudity; and the violence is also quite graphic for a film of the era, most notably during the galley battle and of course the chariot race. Despite this, rather ironically, the film managed to pass censors as it was about Christianity. One can't talk about Ben-Hur: A Tale of Christ and not mention the chariot scene. The original version is just as impressive as the later one; maybe more so as it was filmed more than 30 years earlier. Interestingly one of the second unit directors in this scene was one William Wyler. This version also boasts the restored 2-colour Technicolor footage, originally though lost. The colour footage looks incredible and adds to the film as a spectacle. One of which stands out more than the others, which parodies Raphael's masterpiece The Last Supper. Finally, like the majority of restored silent films today, this version boasts a score from the always impressive Carl Davis, who's work has ensured the projects he's worked on will endure for a further 90 years.
Overall, I believe Wyler improved upon this version, mainly due to the cast and the fact that the sound does add to the emotionally charged script (admittedly, some of the best lines are taken right out of the original). This however, is undoubtedly a great epic, and one that will forever be remembered for it's ground breaking technical direction from Niblo; which in turn propelled MGM straight to the top. The resulting Golden Age of cinema and it's "more stars than heaven" owe a lot to this film; even if it took until 1931 for it to make a profit, it was still very much a box office smash and great success for MGM.
The Public Enemy was my second James Cagney film after his sensational turn as psychopath Cody Jarrett in White Heat. The Public Enemy was made 18 years before that film, and would forever be remembered as the film that made James Cagney a star. People have often cited the moment that James Cagney appears on screen in The Public Enemy as the birth of modern acting. It's easy to see why too, he's comfortably natural in front of camera, noticeably more so than some of his co-stars. Added to that the energy and charismatic performance of Cagney, it's easy to see why the world fell in love with this despicable on screen character. He plays a young Chicago hoodlum, who soon becomes murderous and one of the forerunners for bootleg alcohol during the prohibition period.
The charm of this film is that it is made just a few years before the Hayes code came into effect into the Hollywood. Therefore we are privileged to see a more open reflection of the Chicago the film is set in, including a highly camp and suggestive tailor, Cagney getting seduced by a floozy whilst drunk; along with more brutal and violent scene, including the infamous "grapefruit scene" with Mae Clarke. Also in this film is another icon of cinema, Jean Harlow. Harlow was given second billing in the film due to her association with Howard Hughes and the success of the recent Hells Angels. I like Harlow's look, and whilst she isn't particularly beautiful, she has a unique style that is unmatched and an allure different to her contemporaries. Unfortunately in this film her performance is rather flat and she seems to struggle with the delivery of her lines; along with limited screen time. However, it is great seeing two screen icons sharing the same scenes.
The film is superb, despite it's flaws, and is one of the greatest gangster films I've seen, predominantly because of Cagney. His ability to be both terrifying, yet endearing is a real gift; the story is also gripping, and one that future films of the genre would follow. For a film that is now over 80 years old, it holds up remarkably well, and for anyone who likes crime dramas, it's hard not to enjoy this.
Man on Wire documented Frenchman Philipe Petit's audacious stunt of tightrope walking across the World Trade Centres in 1974. It's a film that intersperses that big stunt, with footage of Petit's build up to it; where we watch him hone his skill and performs similar stunts on Notre Dame Cathedral and across the Sydney Harbour bridge. We also see the formation of the relationships with the people that would help him pull of the stunt, the most notable of which are with his fellow planner Jean-Louis Blondeau and his girlfriend Annie Allix.
Whilst the documentary is always intriguing, it really reaches it crescendo when it talks about the World Trade Centre stunt. The intricacies of how they put the wire across a 150 feet gap, is clever and admirable. When the moment comes towards the end of the film, it's truly awe-inspiring, one gets vertigo just from the idea of it. It isn't just Petit, the viewer ends up admiring, but also his support team. Their complete calm at seeing their companion do this truly death defying stunt would be hard for even the most of benign of person would struggle to convey in such a situation. Jean-Louis' pragmatism is the perfect antidote to Petit's dreamer like persona, and one can't help but feel this was needed to ensure Petit wouldn't go too far and be killed.
It is after the stunt is performed that we realise Petit is quite a selfish individual, as he takes the plaudits and is seduced by the power of his new found fame. We are left just as betrayed as Jean-Louis and Allix, as they are left abandoned after the stunt. Nonetheless one can't help but respect these people who push the boundaries of plausibility and produce just one extraordinary moment, that shows the true power of man.
