I’m continuing to follow Hazel Flagg’s recommendations. I like that she goes for slightly deeper cuts, because I’ve seen most (all?) of the major classics (see? no humblebrag), but not so deep cuts that they aren’t available at all.

However, some of these DVDs are a bit on the janky side. The opening sequence to this one looked horrible, but when the movie proper started, everything was OK.

Conflict! And very relevant for the situation in the US today, really.

This is the first Hepburn/Tracy movie, and it’s so obvious from the very first scene that they’ve got something special going on. It’s just a fun pairing.

Watching this makes me realise that I’ve only seen a couple of their duo movies.

Or… none of them!? Oh, I think I’ve seen the 1967 one. And possibly the 1947 one.

The bits that work are wonderful, but it’s a bit uneven. That is, the first half is brilliant, and the final scene is hilarious (even if dictated by the studio). (And makes me wonder whether Chantal Akerman ever saw this movie.)

It should have been edited down by about 20 minutes, I think, and then this would have been perfect.

Woman of the Year. George Stevens. 1942. ⚄

So… there’s going to be a big dramatic reveal, I guess?

Well, I’ve only seen two movies before by Wong Kar-Wai, and I liked one (In the Mood for Love) and not the other (2046). Both were very stylish, but with shots that were cliched and overly mannered? And this looks like more of that.

On the other hand, it’s nice to see a movie like this these days — when virtually all movies are filmed without any specific lighting, and everything is colour graded into oblivion.

Wise words.

And then all of a sudden we’re in a different story? Is this an anthology movie?

This part is kinda boring. It’s just “oh she’s so kooky”.

I didn’t immediately clock it as a short wig. That’s on me.

So… er… I thought this movie looked pretty good, but was boring as fuck.

Right again. So what are the critics saying?

What the fuck is he talking about?

WHAT CONFUSION!? IT”S TWO STORIES

Honestly. People. Get a grip.

That’s more like it.

But I mean, it’s not awful. It’s OK.

Chungking Express. Wong Kar-Wai. 1994. ⚂

Heh heh snarky.

Gary Cooper’s so good.

This is very amusing indeed.

Yay! Edward Everett Horton! I should watch all movies he’s been in, really.

Oh it’s… it’s.. what’s his name? Yes, David Niven! I don’t really think of him as a 30s actor, but indeed:

He was 28 here, but basically looks the same as he looked when he was 60.

Wow, that’s odd looking. The four people in the foreground have been shot in front of a read projection of people cavorting at the beach. So that’s already weird, but also the depth of field is so strange. The projected people are slightly out of focus (which is natural), but everybody in front are abnormally super sharp even though there’s a couple meters between them — the guy behind Coop is 100% in focus, while the people “behind” him aren’t.

It’s just disturbing, and it’s not the first shot of the kind. Did they send a second crew to the Riviera to film stuff, and then shoot the rest in Hollywood on a sound stage? A very sandy sound stage?

Tu plaisantes !

Heh heh, that’s funny.

Oh, they didn’t name this movie randomly… but it’s so weird that they’d spoil the plot (sort of) by giving away the twist in the title? I guess?

This movie sort of goes off the rails after the first bit…

But it’s still very funny!

Yeah, Hazel Flagg’s right again. The good parts here really are perfect — Coop is doing an extremely good job here, and Claudette Colbert is so much fun, too. But the movie falls apart! The scene where he tries to get Colbert so drunk that he’ll get her to bed is super duper creepy, for instance. And the ending where Coop is in a straitjacket? It’s… I see what they were aiming for — screwball comedy — but it goes past that and into nightmare.

Sort of.

But the good bits are perfect.

Bluebeard’s 8th Wife. Ernst Lubitsch. 1938. ⚄