‘Charley Varrick’
Over many decades, Don Siegel directed his fair share of films that left an indelible mark on American culture. From the original ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ to ‘Dirty Harry’ and beyond, his movies often struck a paradoxical balance of gritty realism and slick style, ‘Charley Varrick’ being no exception (it should come as little surprise that guys like Quentin Tarantino and Brian Helgeland are big fans of it).
Bolstered by a strong lead performance from Walter Matthau (is he underrated?) as the titular Mr. Varrick, as well as Joe Don Baker in a classic heavy hitman role, along with many of the usual Don Siegel regulars (Andrew Sullivan, John Vernon, Sheree North, Albert Popwell, etc.), ‘Charley Varrick’ is the tale of a crop-duster turned small-town bank robber who unintentionally takes down the score of a lifetime. The bad news is that it’s dirty money, property of the mob, and Charley knows the only way to walk away with it is to make the ultimate getaway.
Once again, they don’t make movies like this anymore. Frankly, you can’t make movies like this anymore unless you set them back in time, before cell phones began to infringe on every aspect of human existence.
It’s not an action-packed thrill ride (although there’s some good action in the sense that it’s practical and in service of the story), and Charley Varrick himself is something of an anti-hero, but the movie works well as a battle of wits versus brute force.
I highly recommend it as a lazy Saturday afternoon kind of movie.
Rating: ★★★★☆
‘The Hitcher’
Many have tried (and mostly failed) to get the action-horror genre working, but other than ‘Aliens‘ (and, more recently, ‘Train to Busan’), few have executed it as well as 1986’s ‘The Hitcher’.
That’s not to say it’s perfect, but for a movie about an all-American kid and a crazy hitchhiker going head-to-head, an idea you might think would get old real fast, ‘The Hitcher’ gets a lot right. For one thing, there are more than enough twists and turns to keep you going, but it’s also got the cast down pat. Rutger Hauer is perfect as the mysterious and deadly John Ryder (get it?), C. Thomas Howell is totally believable as a young man in the wrong place at the wrong time (not unlike a classic Hitchcock protagonist), and Jennifer Jason Leigh is more than serviceable as the non-love-interest.
The movie itself is also an interesting contradiction; brutal, bleak, and practically nihilistic on the one hand (it’s a horror movie and horrific things happen), yet gorgeous (shot by John Seale, who’s last director of photography gig was on a little movie you may have heard of called ‘Mad Max: Fury Road‘), surreal, and undeniably (though never explicitly stated) supernatural on the other. If ‘Duel‘ and ‘American Psycho’ had a baby, you’d get something like this.
Like I said, not a perfect movie, but quite a trip (from Hell!).
Rating: ★★★½
‘Harriet the Spy’ (1996)
“And now for something completely different.”
Before you even ask, yes, they showed the ‘Hey, Arnold!’ pilot before the movie at this screening (because it was an original 35mm print, and in that context the two are a packaged deal).
I didn’t think any film could get more achingly Nineties than ‘The Crow’ (not that I don’t love it), but ‘Harriet the Spy’ might just take the crown (it’s also highly Canadian, but that’s Nickelodeon for you, at least in the 80s and 90s for sure).
Honestly, I’m not sure what to entirely make of this movie. All of the kid actors are at least passable (Michelle Trachtenberg in particular displays a charisma beyond her years), which is good; and there’s definitely a lot of creativity on display, I just question what it’s all in service of. Presumably, Harriet is supposed to have an arc, which sort of happens, but in the end I couldn’t help feeling that she was having her cake and eating it, too.
On the whole, the movie is notable for being the first Nickelodeon feature film, and in that regard it’s an interesting time capsule, but I don’t know that it holds up as a movie for children.
Not terrible, but not great.
Rating: ★★½
‘Singin’ in the Rain’ (1952)
For better or worse, it’s as timely as ever to talk about this film, in that, since the screening I attended in late November, both Debbie Reynolds and her daughter Carrie Fisher sadly passed away (the latter ahead of the former); and, more recently, ‘La La Land’ took home seven out of seven at the Golden Globes, once again propagating the popular notion that Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood at the expense of all other movies (although, disappointingly, this didn’t exactly extend to ‘Hail, Caesar!’, but I digress).
You might think, given its reputation, that ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ won tons of awards in its day, but it actually was only nominated for two Oscars (no wins). Nevertheless, it is an undeniable classic. It’s colorful, it’s heartwarming, it’s fun, it’s hilarious, it’s got wonderful song and dance numbers (although, again, you might not know that most of the songs actually were lifted from other musicals of the late 1920s and 30s), and it rightfully put Debbie Reynolds on the map (Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor were already household names, though they are both fantastic in this movie). My only real criticism is that the Broadway Melody section takes up so much of the runtime, but, in comparison to other musicals of the era, ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is far from the worst offender in this regard.
It’s a film about film, to be sure, but the decision to frame everything around the transition from silent movies to talking pictures was a stroke of genius, because that unto itself makes for a compelling story.
What else can I say? Believe the hype on this one.
Rating: ★★★★½