Yes, I’m continuing my series of movies that I’ve bought because Hazel Flagg said so.

Ooo! Preston Sturges!

This is a very nice 2K restoration — but it makes the difference between the straight-up shots like this…

… and the dissolves even more stark: When it’s dissolving like this, it’s like we’re dropping down to EEEK before going back to 2K. I mean, dissolves always looks worse (after all, they’re at least three generations further along than normal shots), but…

Ooo. Is that a combination of matte paintings and a set? Or all set? Looks great anyway.

Hey, I’ve laughed out loud several times already.

Heh heh heh.

Heh heh heh.

Heh heh heh.

Man, this is so funny. And it’s one of the loopiest scripts ever — just totally preposterous, and I love that. Great performances from everybody involved.

The Good Fairy. William Wyler. 1935. ⚄

He’s so evil!

I take it that Capra wasn’t big on getting involved with the situation in Europe?

Exactly!

Now that’s a party!

This movie is cornier than a corn field in Kansas. But I love corn.

This should have been a bit snappier, though. The good scenes are wonderful, but it doesn’t really warrant the length.

You Can’t Take It With You. Frank Capra. 1938. ⚄

Love the wig.

This is fun! It’s very 70s. I’m not really that Don Siegel’s movies. I mean, I saw Dirty Harry on VHS as a teenager, and I think I saw Telefon? Oh, and the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

I wondered how they were going to make the bank robbers sympathetic — I mean, beyond having Matthau being one of them. I mean, they killed people and stuff? But then they just work around that problem by having their enemies being even worse: A ruthless, leering Chinese loan shark (soo eeevil), and a totes racist, psychopathic Joe Don Baker character. (And did he sort of quote Amiri Baraka!?)

Nice wigs!

Hey, it’s whatsisname.

The 70s basically had only 35 actors, and they were in every movie. At least that’s my impression!

Now that’s classy furniture.

I liked this movie just fine, but it didn’t really grip me. And for a heist movie, you need to be involved.

I wonder what the budget and the box office on this was. It’s a fairly small movie, really, and it doesn’t really seem to be the sort of movie that’d rake in the money? It’s just a bit odd — it doesn’t have the normal things that make a blockbuster (“it’s about fambly!”, traumatic childhood with a father who wasn’t there for him, etc). Instead it’s rather clinical… which I like.

Well, that’s Wikipedia for you:

Although critically very well received, the film underperformed at the box office but still turned out to be a modest hit.

Underperformed… But was a “modest hit”?! What does that even mean?

Charley Varrick. Don Siegel. 1973. ⚃