I’m not sure why I bought this DVD…

Oh! It’s because it has Cary Grant, and I vaguely remember trying to buy his more obscure (early) movies… a while ago…

Wow. Bought this in 2019. Time flies like a banana.

Man, this is one of those RKO cheapies? Many of the scenes (like the above) are just a couple of guys talking in front of a preposterous rear projection of some scenery: The greenscreen of the era.

So… this movie is about a claque of swindlers — they made some money being snake oil salesmen in the South, and then they lost all their money, and now they’re making their money back by… by… by…

I just didn’t understand the gag here — they swindled the guy with the comedy beard somehow, but…

The script just seems weird? Right:

The film was a commercial disappointment, losing $530,000, making it RKO’s biggest money loser of the year.

…

Filming was meant to take four weeks but ended up taking fifteen with Arnold on $10,000 a week, half of which went to B. P. Schulberg who owned his contract. Costing Small this much money gave satisfaction to Arnold, who had been rejected by the producer seeking his representation as an agent in 1918. Costs blew out on the production and there ended up being at least seven writers on the script.

Yes, this totally seems like a movie that had half a dozen writers that didn’t talk to each other.

Now they’re just doing vaudeville skits.

I think the main thesis of this movie is that the business world is stupid… so the schemes they do don’t have to make sense?

Because the schemes really don’t make sense. They’re the equivalent of the bridge personnel on Star Trek saying “try installing a recursive algorithm” and “rotate the shields”… but for, like, an hour.

It’s so stupid! But not in a good way! It’s just schemes that make no sense, and them slapstick scenes in between. I mean, this could have worked if they’d leaned into being a screwball comedy or something, but they don’t — it just veers wildly between boring scenes of scheming, and then slapstick that’s not very funny.

This movie is just totally inept.

And such a waste of talent.

The director here had been churning out movies in the 20s, and continued in the 30s, but didn’t continue beyond much into the 40s.

The Son of Monte Cristo!?!

You can just see Cary Grant thinking “what the fuck is this movie I’m in? Can I give them the slip and do a Mae West movie instead?! She’s funny!”

This is a very bad movie. There are some scenes that are pretty funny, but it’s still a very, very bad movie. And it’s bad in ways you rarely see — there’s talent both before and behind the camera, but it’s like they’re sabotaging the movie. It’s very strange, and very bad.

The Toast of New York. Rowland V. Lee. 1937. ⚀

Hey, it’s whatsisname!

And there’s that other guy! Who played the lead in Micklin Silver’s other movie… But now with more hair.

It’s a pretty oddball plot — the general gist of it’s normal enough: You have the male lead mooning over the Magic Pixie Dream Girl (above), but in normal movies she would have been dead and the male lead would have Learned Something From That. But in this movie, she’s just gone back to her husband, and is apparently happy with him.

So the movie is him remembering his short relationship with her, and not being able to move on.

Which makes it a totally different thing from the standard plot.

They still fill the standard roles — he’s a boring, normal guy, and she’s wild and wacky.

Yes, he talks to the camera.

Hey! It’s the Adam Driver from 1979!

I really liked this movie. Initially it seems like a kinda traditional drama, but then it moves in strange ways and becomes something really memorable. It feels fresh and original.

And the performances are great. Peter Riegert doesn’t have a huge role, but he’s very charming when he does appear on the screen.

And I like the calm way it’s filmed… it’s really charming.

So of course:

ilmed on location in Salt Lake City, it was released by United Artists in October 1979 under the alternate title Head Over Heels, and promoted as a lighthearted romantic comedy, much to the disapproval of director Silver as well as the film’s actors.

Chilly Scenes of Winter. Joan Micklin Silver. 1979. ⚅

Did this film have two names?

Michael Mann is another one of those directors I’ve never seen.

But the name is so familiar… and it’s because he’s the guy behind the Miami Vice TV series — so he’s basically responsible for the 80s.

This is more of a 70s movie, though.

Heh. People have noticed that modern movies usually keep the protagonist dead centre of the frame — to make it easier to post clips on tick tock or just because that’s what’s everybody’s used to now? — so it’s refreshing to see a movie where most of the shots are imbalanced like this. It’s nice.

Hey! It’s that guy!

Heh, James Caan is totally doing an impression of Jack Nicholson here.

Jack Nicholson playing a tough guy.

Hey, it’s that guy!

This is basically a heist movie… but it takes so many detours. Now they adopted a child!? That’s not very Ocean’s Fifteen.

I think. I haven’t seen any of those movies.

So it’s half heist, and half very odd relationship un-drama.

Heh heh. Cops, man.

I feel like of the classic big American male stars of the 70s, James Caan is the one that’s been forgotten the most? He was just always… there… but I guess he didn’t really have that special thing? I mean, compared to… Paul Newman/Robert Redford/Jack Nicholson/etc/etc/etc.

Hm… He had a weird 80s — did just one movie every other year or so, but after that, he did a lot of stuff… and I’ve heard about ten percent of those movies, so…

I enjoyed watching this movie… on the other hand, “so this is the final scene?” and then there was 45 minutes left.

The movie tries to do a lot, and… a lot of it’s successful? Eh, whatevs, let’s go with:

Thief. Michael Mann. 1981. ⚄