Sorcerer

Basically on a whim, I watched:

Sorcerer (1977).

This William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) suspense movie has nothing to do with magic, despite the title. It is based on the novel Le Salaire de la peur which was made into the 1955 movie Wages of Fear. Many claim that Sorcerer is a remake of that movie, something Friedkin always denied.

In a nutshell, three men are hiding from their misdeeds in a small hellhole in South America. The only available work is for a US owned oil well, and even so, the pay is garbage. They all want out, but are nowhere near rich enough to be able to escape. A ticket to Argentina and a passport would cost almost 2000 pesos, and one of them has managed to save a hundred. Then a mysterious hitman arrives and the tension rises again.

One day, the local guerrillas blow up the well and the only way to put it out is with dynamite, but the only available dynamite is 351 km (218 miles) away, and it's old and sweating. In case you didn't know, dynamite sweats pure nitroglycerin and nitro doesn't like sudden movement.

The oil company promises 8000 pesos each to the four men who can and are willing to drive the sweaty dynamite through the jungle, down bumpy roads and across rickety bridges. Only the most foolhardy or desperate men would take on such a task.

Sorcerer opens with four short vignettes showing what these men did to end up in the hell hole. Make no mistake, these are not good people but you still can't help sympathize with their plight once the job is on.

Clocking in at two hours, the first hour is basically all set up. The vignettes, the back breaking work, it's all misery and pain. But it is important misery. You could watch the most suspenseful scenes by themselves, but without the buildup I think you'd loose so much. You need to follow these men to understand them, to truly get why they are putting themselves through such suffering. It's easy to dismiss a lot of Sorcerer as theatrical nonsense but I firmly believe that this is a masterfully crafted thriller with well managed slow burn.

The actors are good, with Roy Scheider as the “main character”. The music is by Tangerine Dream and works well, but the star is actually Friedkin and his cinematography. Each scene is meticulously crafted, with a blend of the gritty realism from The French Connection and the overhanging sense of doom from The Exorcist. During the vignette in Jerusalem, I almost expected to see Father Karras, but that would of course be silly. That is however the atmosphere Friedkin managed to create.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes but not to everyone. If you like to have a movie on while you do stuff on your phone, this is not the film for you. Sorcerer demands attention and if you can give it that, it will reward you. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a masterpiece, but it is a really good movie, and that is enough.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great week with no sweaty dynamite!

 

Stereotypes

 Hello,

I've had a pretty busy week, so unfortunately I have nothing concrete to talk about this week, but you showed up and deserve something for it.

What I have today is the comedy of  Foil Arms and Hog, a comedy trio from Ireland. I want to highlight their amazing getting past immigration interview series, where the answers are true but never what you expect. I'll link the playlist below for your pleasure:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBhpqVyEFbg&list=PLQYUb9JUs7E_-jkxbSykWTB7NfPOIpYk2

 

Beyond that, join me again next time and until then, have a great week!

 

Nosferatu

I watched:

Nosferatu (2024),

by Robert Eggers (The Witch, The Lighthouse).

This is a remake of the 1922 Nosferatu, which in turn is a ripoff of Dracula. That's why the major story beats are more or less identical to Dracula.

Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult), newly married to Ellen (Lily-Rose Depp) is sent by his boss, the sinister estate agent Knock to Romania to finalize the purchase of an estate. He visits Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård), our titular vampire, and has a very bad time. Meanwhile, Ellen who is staying with friends, suffers worse and worse seizures and walks in her sleep. Turns out she has a sinister connection to Orlok, and just like in Dracula, he is coming for her. Thomas has to fight to save his wife together with Dr. Sievers (Ralph Ineson) and scientist turned alchemist, Professor von Franz (Willem Dafoe).

First off, Nosferatu looks incredible. Every shot, every scene is a Gothic painting come to life. A grim fairy-tale full of horror and suffering. I sound melodramatic, I know, but this movie genuinely looks amazing. So amazing in fact that it almost becomes distracting. I suppose the sound is good, but I actually can't recall it, that is how mesmerizing this movie is. Count Orlok's caste is in fact Castle Hunedoara, where the real Vlad Dracul spent some time.

The actors are likewise fantastic, especially Hoult and Depp, who in case you didn't guess is the daughter of Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis. Both portray terror and despair incredibly well, and the scenes where Ellen has her hideous seizures were not shot with a body double, Depp really did them herself. Strong stuff. It is worth noting that there is a bit of overacting in this movie, and I wonder if it is a homage to the original, since early movies were incredibly over acted.

The titular character deserves a separate mention. Count Orlok is played by Bill Skarsgård, the same man who also played Pennywise the clown. He again goes above and beyond to be terrifying, succeeding so well that several cast members wanted nothing to do with him while in makeup. A makeup that took 4-6 hours for 6 artists to apply. He also worked with an opera trainer to lower his voice an octave, which Gary Oldman also did for Bram Stokers' Dracula.

One can't watch a remake without comparing it to the original, so lets do that. A hard comparison though since Nosferatu 1922 is a silent movie shot in black and white, while Nosferatu 2024 is in color. Pale colors, this is an Eggers movie after all, but color nonetheless. Eggers has added a few scenes while omitting others, but nothing that harms the movie in any way. The most noticeable change is Orlok himself. In the 22 version Orlok is a thin, emaciated and rodent like figure, very creepy, sinister and unsettling, whereas the 24 Orlok is massive, intimidating and brutal. The 24 version is also somewhat decayed and rotten, and sports a large drooping mustache. Eggers wanted him to look like a eastern European aristocrat which is something the 22 version does not do. Skarsgård stands 6'3 normally and in makeup he was a towering 7+ feet, making him even more menacing. Orlok also seems to have difficulty breathing, which is so labored and rattling that Darth Vader sounds healthy in comparison. This detail puzzled me until I realized that as a vampire he doesn't normally breathe and so he has to force air into his decayed lungs in order to talk. Awesome detail.

My biggest gripe with Nosferatu 24 is the pacing and storytelling, which sadly is a bit choppy. Several scenes feel like they forgot them and forced them into the only spot they could go. I of course have no idea of what Eggers wanted, he might have wanted to make the experience more jarring and thus more unsettling, but several times I got annoyed at the flow being interrupted by a new scene popping up. I'll give a small example. At one point the movie cuts to von Franz opening an occult book at a random page, flipping forward a few pages and immediately finding the key to defeating Orlok, complete with illustration. Then the scene ends and cuts to something else. Jarring!

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, absolutely. The visuals alone make it worth watching and it holds so much more. Nosferatu 2024 is the least sexy vampire movie I have ever seen, and I like it. If you have any interest in vampires or Gothic media, then do watch Nosferatu 2024.

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

 

Dead Man's Shoes

On a friends recommendation I watched:

Dead Man's Shoes (2004).

This British revenge drama is directed by Shane Meadows who also co-wrote it with main star Paddy Considine.

The story is this; A soldier, Richard (Considine) returns to his small home town to get revenge on a group of local lowlifes for tormenting his mentally impaired brother Anthony. The group deals drugs, takes drugs and likes to mess around, but against an angry paratrooper they have little to show.

The Roaring Rampage of Revenge trope is an old one, and I have seen a few in my time. Tarantino's Kill Bill movies exemplify the trope, but Dead Man's Shoes is a different beast. There is no glamour, no real cathartic moment like when John Wick gets revenge for his dog, and really no action. It's gloomy, miserable and sad, but in a good way if that makes sense.

The movie is told in two parts, flash backs in black and white and the present in color. We see everything the group does to Anthony, especially the groups leader, Sonny (Gary Stretch). He is the dark soul that pushes things too far, the one who laughs the loudest, gets the angriest and the one the group follows and fears. He doesn't even walk, he swaggers.

Dead Man's Shoes is extremely well made. It takes realism to a level where it almost becomes surreal. The camera is often right in there, putting you in their dingy living rooms, even right up in their faces, essentially trapping you in the grim narrative with no way out but through to the end.

Staying with the gloomy mood, the soundtrack is sad and melancholy, but good. The actors are likewise good, with several being veterans of the craft, amateur hour this is not.

I think the central theme of the movie is guilt. Not just the guilt of doing something wrong, but the guilt of not putting a stop to it, the guilt of being away and the guilt of revenge itself. They say two wrongs don't make a right, and Dead Man's Shoes is an example of that, but it's also about justice.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, absolutely. Dead Man's Shoes is extremely compelling even though it is the kind of dark movie that saps the light from the sun and leave a bad taste in your mouth. I wouldn't go so far as to call it brilliant, but more than worth watching at least once.

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