Top Four part Three, Goodfellas

It is time to look at movie number three of my Letterboxd top four:

Goodfellas (1990).

In a way I can't believe I haven't talked about this movie before. I have certainly compared others to it in the past, and always as 'not as good as Goodfellas'.

This crime epic directed by Martin Scorsese is based on the book Wiseguy by Nicolas Pileggi, who also co-wrote the screenplay, and chronicles Henry Hill from a teenager to adulthood and his rise and fall as a career criminal.

It's worth noting that this movie is based on real events with actual people, crimes and other happenings that took place. However, it isn't and was never intended to be a historical record. Some things are changed and the actors don't really look or act 100% like their real life counterparts.

As usual I won't include any important spoilers, but in a sense you can't spoil Goodfellas. Even if I told you everything that happens, it is still worth watching. It is that good.

Like I mentioned, we meet a young Henry Hill (Ray Liotta), who states “As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster”. So he gets involved as a runner and helper in Paul Cicero's crew. He meets and later works with Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci) and James Conway (Robert De Niro) as he grows up. We get a great view into the inner workings of gangster life in the 60's through to the 80's. It's worth noting that these guys are gangsters, or goodfellas, but not Mafia. Paul Cicero is Mafia, but the guys are essentially protected earners who work under but don't belong to the Mafia. This is an important distinction.

Goodfellas is simply beautiful. The way Scorsese filmed it is at times almost unbelievable. The actors are perfect, the dialogue and the narration is incredible, the score is brilliant and the story illustrates how lucrative yet perilous the gangster life is. Money, mistrust and murder rule their lives, and to show weakness is suicide. I've always loved that they show you why someone would join that life, but also why it will almost always bring you down as well. Goodfellas isn't really a cautionary tale, but it can serve in that capacity.

Goodfellas is my favorite gangster movie of all time. There are many good ones out there, but to me not even the mighty Godfather trilogy can unseat Goodfellas, and I can't really tell you why that is. Certainly the Godfather movies are brilliant, yes even the third one is good, but Goodfellas does something special. It is a question of 'the sum is greater than the whole of its parts' but there is something more that escapes my grasp.

Goodfellas set the bar for gangster movies incredibly high. So high in fact that Scorsese himself has never reached it again. Sure Casino (1995) and The Irishman (2019) are good but nowhere near Goodfellas. I'll end with this: if you like gangster movies and you haven't seen Goodfellas for whatever reason, watch it as soon as possible. I can't imagine you'd be disappointed.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Top Four part Two, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

In this second part of my top four movies on Letterboxd, we're looking at my favorite western:

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966).

Back when I was a kid, I didn't like westerns. I found them boring and uninspired, but in part this is because I knew nothing about the time and place they portray. Then I saw The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and all that changed. I'm still not a huge fan of the genre, but thanks to this movie I have seen and enjoyed quite a few westerns, but this movie is special.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is set during the U.S. Civil War, with the hunt for a great treasure as the central plot item. With a runtime of almost three hours, this movie takes its time getting to where it's going, and even though it might seem lost at times, the director Sergio Leone knew what he was doing. You could accuse him of wasting time, but that would be wrong. A detailed synopsis is impossible, but the plot is a vehicle to explore the characters. The treasure is a MacGuffin, a narrative catalyst to motivate the main characters, beyond that it's irrelevant.

The title characters referred to are The Good, aka Blondie (Clint Eastwood) a morally gray gunslinger who does what he needs to in order to survive. He lies, cheats, double crosses and steals, but he isn't cruel and he won't shoot a man in the back.

The Bad, or Sentenza, aka Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is a proper villain. There is nothing he won't do to achieve his goal, but he is a professional monster. If he has no business with you he'll just ignore you, but if you have something he wants, you are in real trouble. What makes him really stand out is the fact that he likes being a villain, he really enjoys murder and cruelty.

Finally, The Ugly or Tuco (Eli Wallach) is the middle man between Blondie and Angel Eyes. He is a scoundrel, and a very bad man, but nowhere near as wicked as Angel Eyes. A career criminal through and through, he nevertheless has some scruples left and a much tarnished sense of shame. He is also somewhat of a comedic relief character.

It's important to understand that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly doesn't have a hero. The closest we come is Blondie, but he's in it for himself and not for any altruistic or heroic reasons. He comforts a dying soldier because he feels sorry for him, but he doesn't go out of his way to do this. There is no “I must do this to save the day” motif, it is all about survival, revenge and greed for everyone involved. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is also a study of morals. If Blondie isn't careful he will become like Tuco or even Angel Eyes. Tuco isn't that removed from Angel Eyes to begin with but, to sound melodramatic, his soul isn't damned just yet.

A note about the music is a must. One can't mention The Good, the Bad and the Ugly without everyone hearing the iconic score in their heads. Ennio Morricone scored a perfect bullseye and this score has to be up there with the all time greats.

For me, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is the western. No other comes close, not even the other two entries in the Dollars Trilogy (A Fistful of Dollars and For a Few Dollars More) that preceded it. You can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but I don't care. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is imperfectly perfect. It has action, tension, sadness, humor and lots and lots of twists. It is grand and epic but also down to earth and grimy. It also has one of the best pieces of cinematic advice ever: "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk!"

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Top Four part One, Angel Heart

I actually had something else planned for this week, but I was asked why I hadn't talked about one of my top four movies on Letterboxd, and it got me thinking. The reason is simple: I tend to write about movies that are new to me, not movies I've seen a dozen or so times over the years. However, that changes now. If I can place four movies in my 'favorite of all time' then I should expand on them a bit. To be fair, I had a real problem adding only four movies in that category, but four is all Letterboxd gives and I can't change that.

This week we're talking about:

Angel Heart (1987).

This Noir style thriller/horror is based on the novel Falling Angel by William Hjortsberg, and though it keeps quite a bit from the book, it changes more than it retains.

It's 1955, and we meet Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke), a small time private investigator from Brooklyn. He gets a call from an attorney, Winesap, who wants Harry to meet his client Louis Cyphre (Robert De Niro) for a missing person case. Cyphre wants Harry to find Johnny Favorite, a popular singer from before the war, due to an outstanding contract they had. Favorite might be dead, but in either case Cyphre just needs to know where he's at. Harry embarks on an investigation that takes him from a frozen New York to the sweltering heat in New Orleans, and what he finds on the way is a thrill and a half. People get murdered, tensions rise and the question becomes can Angel find Favorite before he goes down for Favorite's crimes?

Directed by Alan Parker who also directed Mississippi Burning, Midnight Express and Evita amongst others, Angel Heart is a masterpiece of tension and foreboding. Besides Mickey Rourke and De Niro, we get Lisa Bonet in her first movie role. Rourke was so good in Angel Heart and his previous movie 9 ½ weeks that those in the know started calling him the new Brando. High praise, but he goes above and beyond in Angel Heart. The role of Harry Angel is not an easy performance, but Rourke knocks it out of the park and then some.

So without spoilers, what makes Angel Heart so good? Besides the acting and directing and the amazing, brilliant soundscape it 's all about atmosphere and detail, both of which this movie has in spades. The constant focus on spinning fans is very important. The use of ice to foreshadow death is clever but it is the use of creepy dreams, visions and recurring elements that really pushes things to the next level. The veiled woman in black, the descending elevator shadow, reflections, the mysterious pentagram jewelry that keeps popping up, it all matters. Add to this all the 'blink and you miss it' moments that explain so much if you only catch it, and you have a masterpiece on your hands. 

Angel Heart is not however a perfect movie. The ending has some unfortunate missteps, but they are so small in the grand scheme that I don't mind. I'm not going to do my usual 'do I recommend it' because it is already in my top 4 favorite list which speaks for itself. Just be aware that Angel Heart contains a lot of graphic imagery so kids should not be present.

Finally I want to mention a Youtube channel called CineG. He has dissected Angel Heart down to the bone and this playlist goes through it in amazing detail. However, DO NOT watch these videos until you have watched the movie first! This is spoiler city and Angel Heart does not deserve spoilers, it needs to be experienced in all its suffocating panicked glory.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Stalin vs. Trotsky

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a documentary about Kruschev, but this time we're turning the clock back to the aftermath of the Russian revolution. 

In the aftermath Lenin was the undisputed master of the Soviet Union, but he was ill, seriously ill and soon died. Left behind were the top leaders of the party; Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin, Pyatakov and Stalin.

Everyone besides Stalin were intellectuals, educated intelligent men well versed in political theory and able to debate on the subject with anyone. Stalin was essentially a thug. Little schooling to speak of, but he had funded the revolution with robberies, extortion and murder (amongst other things) when they desperately needed money, so Lenin was forced to give him something, so Stalin was made General Secretary. On the surface this was a nothing job, but Stalin for all his sins was a survivor and a natural schemer. He cleverly used his position to make himself the master of the Soviet Union, but how did this come about? Especially against the intelligent strategist Trotsky?

This is what this week's documentary is about. This is a decent documentary with mostly French historians translated to English but also some information from Trotsky's grandson. There is also really good film footage from those days, really interesting stuff. I wish it had gone deeper into the subject, but it will give you a good general grasp on the events following the death of Lenin.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great week! 

 

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IcDdKkfprg&list=WL&index=13 

Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga

I recently finished reading Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga (1967) by Hunter S. Thompson, the author of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Hell's Angles was his first book, and it came to be as a follow up to an article he wrote for The Nation called 'The Motorcycle Gangs: Losers and Outsiders.' The article became very popular and several publishers suggested he write a book about them.

Thompson was introduced to the Oakland chapter of the Angels by a former Angel and fellow reporter, Birney Jarvis. Thompson became close to the Oakland chapter president Ralph 'Sonny' Barger and through him got to know a group of Angels quite well. Some of them stayed a while in his apartment, he went to their parties and drank at their bars. In all, he spent about a year in their company, interviewing them, hanging out and learning how they lived, why they did what they did, but also what they didn't do.

After a party that went out of hand in 1965, the then California D.A. published a report on the Angels that was picked up by Time Magazine, Newsweek and the New York Times. They however grabbed the most frightening and lurid parts of the report and declined to publish the part that said 'All charges dropped'. This gave the Hell's Angels a sudden level of fame they weren't ready for. The police targeted them on sight but tons of people want to party with them as well.

Sonny once told Thompson “You can't say a lot of good about us, so why the need to tell lies?” or something close to that. They couldn't understand why society would make up stuff about them and eventually accepted Thompson. He never joined them, and didn't wear their colors, which would have been (and still is) a big no no.

In the end, Thompson said the wrong thing to the wrong Angel and got stomped. On of his “friends” Tiny, dragged him outside and helped him into his car, and Thompson never went back.

The book is interesting from beginning to end. It can be weirdly funny but at times it is a hard read. Thompson doesn't sugar coat anything, he reports on the violence, the abuse, the drugs, riots and everything else. I never got the feeling that he invented anything in the book. What you read happened.

Besides the Hell's Angels the book is an interesting look at the mid 60's. The era of the Kennedy assassinations. The ramp up of the Vietnam War. The rise of flower power and LSD. The Rise of the Black Panthers. A conservative society suddenly confronted with radically different ideals, and in the middle, The Hell's Angels, loud smelly rebels that didn't give a damn, riding their massive bikes, willing to spit in the eye of whoever crossed their path. Or help them out, depending on how they felt that day.

I don't think you can read Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga and not feel anything. It doesn't necessarily teach you anything, too much time has passed for that, but it is compelling throughout. If you've ever been curious about the Angles, or California in the 60's, then this is the book for you.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Krushchev

I recently watched a good documentary about Nikita Krushchev, and I thought I'd share it.

I have in my years of reading history come across his name many times. He is the one who took power in the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin. The one who built the Berlin wall, the one who stood behind the Cuban missile crisis, but who was he as a person?

Was he the funny buffoon as some saw him? The loyal but dumb peasant who did as he was told, or was there more to this man who was born a poor peasant, worked as a miner and eventually rose to supreme power?

He is depicted in Enemy at the Gates (2001) by Bob Hoskins and in The Death of Stalin (2017) by Steve Buscemi, both very different portrayals. Turns out both movies got parts of Krushchev's personality correct.

The documentary is interesting in several ways, but the inclusion of Krushchev's son and granddaughter adds a good personal touch many documentaries can't do.

So, if you are interested in history, do watch it and I hope you enjoy it.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhGHXKfOSrA&list=WL&index=9 

This Housing is just WoW

So Housing has arrived in World of Warcraft in its Early Access stage, if you have pre-ordered the Midnight expansion, which I have. I'm normally not a fan of pre-orders, but I bought it with in-game money, so who cares?

If you're not in the know, Horde and Alliance have their own special islands accessible from their capital city portal rooms that take you to the relevant island. There you can choose a plot of land that you want, pay 1000 gold and the house is yours. Once bought, you can customize your house appearance which is separate from the inside. In fact, there is no correlation between inside and outside at all. A house that is a small and shabby shack on the outside can be a huge and elegant mansion on the inside. The options for how you want the outside of your house to look is incomplete for now, more options are coming in patch 12.0.

The genius of the housing system lies in its free form modularity. Every piece of décor whether it is a shelf, a lamp, a tree etc. can be resized, turned and moved anywhere you want. Do you want a floating bed? A series of tiny statues on a shelf above your stairs? Go for it. You can also combine décor items by placing them inside each other, creating new things. Put a smelting brazier inside a table so the fire shows a little bit and you have an impromptu stove top. Stack three fountains on top of each other to make a big fountain if you want. It is almost to the point of “if you can imagine it, you can do it”. Sure, some items are outside only and vice versa, and outside lighting is currently disabled, but the housing décor system is incredible. It far exceeds what I imagined Blizzard would do.

But with everything positive there are a few negative sides as well. There are several ways of collecting décor, from achievement rewards (added retroactively) to vendors, quest rewards, drops and crafting. The others are fine, although I hope they add more drops to old dungeons. No, the big negative comes from crafting décor.

First off, Blizzard did say that you don't need maxed out crafting per expansion to craft the new décor and it is true, but you do need very high skill. 240/300, 60/75, 85/100 and so on depending on the expansion skill roof. They could have staggered the décor to work as a catch up mechanic, but they sadly elected to put it all at a pretty high level, meaning a blacksmith can craft intricate magical armor before a chandelier.

Then we get to the material components and they are ridiculous. I had hoped we would be able to utilize all the crafting materials in the game, but alas no. With a few exceptions, everything requires top level, rare ingredients, even for mundane items. A bronze banner requires 8 khorium bars, a metal that is very hard to find instead of using bronze which exists in the game! A Gilnean pitchfork requires 12 elementium bars and 6 volatile earth... A pitchfork! This is equivalent of going to IKEA and buying a tungsten frying pan and a set of titanium cutlery. It makes no sense. Where are my copper pots? My silver cutlery? I hope they change this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Blizzard has also added a new crafting material, Lumber, which can be harvested in pretty much every zone as long as your character has bought an axe from a special vendor. This is fine for things like benches, beds, chairs, you know, things that use lumber, but it is a must for all crafted décor like pillows, decorative potions, books, plushies etc. I like the lumber mechanic but please make it make sense.

For being in early access, the Housing system is already a massive success. Besides my complaints above, it is fun, creative and really exciting. I truly hope my concerns are laid to rest when Midnight launches, but even if they aren't, housing is an incredible addition to the game, a real success, and I can't wait to see how it will be developed going forward.