Change Your Image
TonyPolito
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Wind River (2017)
This plot has more holes than a truckload of Swiss cheese.
(1) Why didn't the investigators just follow the tracks left by the dead girl back to oil drilling site from which she ran? (2) Why would the perps drive the dead boyfriend's body all the way to Littlefeather's place, with which the dead boyfriend had no connection, then put down a sled and then sled it from there up the side of the mountain, to dump it? Was this supposed to make it look sort-of like the boyfriend's murder had something to do with Littlefeather's? If so, how would it be explained that the boyfriend have gotten to Littlefeather's on-foot? (No vehicle missing from the oil drilling site, right?) And why would he have gone there? (3) Why drive the sled from the boyfriend's dumped body down to the oil drilling site, leaving another incriminating trail, instead of just sledding back to Littlefeather's, loading up the sled and driving away, leaving just a two-way trail between the body & Littlefeather's? (4) Why did the dead girl trek six miles, ever deeper into wilderness toward nothing, when at some point early-on she could clearly see she was not being pursued? (5) Why didn't the girl head for the fork in the road where her girlfriend dropped her off (apparently such easy & short walking distance the girlfriend didn't even bother to drive her all the way) where she might have had some chance of finding someone to help her? (6) Why didn't the perps immediately pursue the girl who could incriminate them for the rape & the beating/murder? (7) Why didn't the girl try stealing one of the utility trucks and driving away? Given they were being used to constantly patrol the perimeter, the keys were likely left in them and, in such cold, they were likely left running 24/7 (to keep the oil & fluids from freezing). (8) Why would the perps first say they didn't know what happened to either the boyfriend or the girl after they left ... then, in the very next breath, say they knew the girl was dead? The perps know that the authorities are going to come around eventually, given the boyfriend works there, so why don't they have their story tight/straight? (9) How is that the girl can trek six miles and who-knows-how-many-hours before the cold makes 'HER lungs burst,' but the perp can only run for a few minutes and a couple hundred yards before the cold makes HIS lungs burst? (10) What is the wildlife agent thinking will happen when the remains of the rapist-perp are eventually found ... barefooted? (11) Why is the wildlife agent saying they can't find out what happened to HIS daughter? They can figure out who most of the people were that were at the party ... and none of them witnessed anything useful? And none of them knows who tipped off 'the unknown bad guys' about the party?
The Virgin Suicides (1999)
Screenplay/Plot totally fails at 20 minutes-in. Waste of Time.
At two minutes in, the viewer is told exactly what the title implies, that all five of these teenage girls will commit suicide. OK, so now the only reason for the viewer to keep viewing is to get the answer to the question "Why?" And, at 20 minutes in, the viewer is told exactly why: an overbearing, controlling mother who won't let them out of the house (other than to attend school) and force-feeds them large doses of Catholic-girl syndrome. (Far from an unfamiliar film trope.) After that, the film/plot offers nothing to interest/retain the viewer. The viewer has been told the entire story and the next hour of viewing is just waiting for it to happen. Apparently Sofia Coppola, in her screenwriting debut, was not smart enough to figure that out. And the whole premise doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway. Apparently the mother was so domineering she didn't allow her daughters to drink milk. Because if she had, the daughters would have seen on milk cartons that if your childhood is so intolerable, so unbearable, you have the option to just disappear/runaway ... before resorting to a four-way suicide pact. A pact that doesn't make much sense given two of the four will be able to legally walk away from this home of-age in under two years. Another fact for the viewer to ponder: How is the title meaningful, when one of the five daughters is clearly portrayed as the school's bicycle ride, the polar opposite of being virginal. Unless it means that the girls are virginal in the sense that they haven't experienced a full childhood. Or something like that. The film is a sop/heart-tug to teen-angst, specifically female-teen-angst, but the film just doesn't provide the viewer anywhere to project any sympathy.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Sloppy, stylish, worth-watching Hitchcock tribute. Paycheck-speed acting & lotsa plot-holes.
If you've come this far in the reviews, you already know that this is a DePalma effort to tribute & channel a number of classic Hitchcockian motifs, especially from 'Psycho.' Such as such as slasher murders in enclosed spaces that create a sense of gore without actually showing much slashing at all. If you've seen Psycho, and you are keeping an eye out for these homages, you'll find plenty. And then there is the cat-and-mouse museum scene emulating Paul Newman in 'Torn Curtain.' This film is still a good watch to take all that in. But it certainly does not rise anywhere near the caliber of actual Hitchcock product. As example it's durn hard for DePalma to claim he is tributing "The Master of Suspense" when plain clues any viewer can catch plainly reveal 'who's dunnit' at 40 minutes in. The climax scenes, that should normally finally & suspensefully reveal the 'who's dunnit' instead entices the viewer by DePalma putting his own wife on full extended display in slutty lingerie and then in extended full frontal. Indeed the erotic bookending of the film add to the desirability of its viewing.
Both Angie Dickenson and Michael Caine are plainly working here at no-more than paycheck-speed. And there are nagging plotholes that reflect sloppy work: Why would the waiting slasher be expecting the victim to come back up the elevator after leaving? If Angie has a planned date with her son to go to the museum why does she also have a planned session with her psychiatrist at the same time? How come the prostitute cannot find her 'John' for the police when she serviced him in his apartment? Why would the son haul a cassette recorder and a suction-cup microphone down to police HQ when going there to identify his mother's body? Plainly, DePalma cares little about such details.
In terms of Hitchcockian suspense, DePalma did much better with "Obsession" and "Body Double." Check 'em out. Here, the detective work just plods along to reach the viewer's long-foregone conclusion. But again, the stylishness, the homages, the erotica, all make it still worth viewing.
Spionen (2019)
Act III explained with synopsis. Historical descriptions of major characters.
This movie is built upon almost entirely true facts and real individuals, though some of the unknown details have surely been dramatized and/or knitted together.
The spycraft unfolds fairly rapidly in Act III, so I've summarized below what the viewer needs to know to make sense of it all after viewing.
FIRST, know that, while Norway was invaded and occupied by Germany early-on in World War II (to secure North Sea shipping routes), Sweden remained neutral during the entire war and was never occupied. To ensure it was not invaded and occupied, Sweden (1) provided Germany with all the iron ore it needed to build its war machine and (2) offered unfettered access to Germany moving through Sweden as needed to reach Norway by land.
SECOND, be sure to have a good understanding as to who the major characters/individuals are:
SONJA WIGERT: Norwegian-Swedish actress who, during World War II, collaborated with the Norwegian resistance movement and, starting in July 1942, spied on behalf of the Swedish government and the American OSS under codename "Bill." She offered (as a double-agent) to spy on Sweden when Terboven asked. After September 1943, the Nazis suspected Wigert could no longer be trusted and launched a disinformation campaign, publically exposing her as a Nazi spy, as revenge. Her subsequent film career suffered for it.
LEIF SINDING: Norwegian film director and journalist, seen early in the film coaxing Wigert to go to Terboven's dinner party. During the Nazi occupation of Norway, Sinding allied himself closely with the Nazis and was a member of the Nazi-affiliated Norwegian political party. For these actions, Sinding served a four-year jail sentence after the end of the War.
THORSTEN AKRELL: A (fictional) Lieutenant within "C-Bureau," the World War II Swedish Intelligence Agency. Akrell appears to be reporting to C-Bureau founder and operator Carl Petersén.
PATRIK: A (fictional) freelance photographer & paparazzi.
JOSEF TERBOVEN: Reich Commissioner (ie, Governor) of Norway, a long-time Hitler loyalist. Hitler appointed Terboven to this position as soon as Norway was occupied; Terboven held the position until the end of World War II. Wigert was Terboven's mistress for a time, in order to spy on him, and to lobby for release of her father from a Norwegian Nazi prison. Terboven committed suicide in Norway when Germany surrendered.
ANDOR GELLÉRT: A Hungarian journalist and diplomat who spied for Great Britain & the American OSS while attached to the Hungarian Embassy in Sweden. Wigert had an affair with Gellért. Though not revealed in the movie, Gellért operated under codename 'Willard.' After the War, Gellért relocated to New York City and ran the Hungarian desk at Radio Free Europe.
AUGUST FINKE: Head of Sicherheitsdienst (Nazi Intelligence) in Sweden, under cover of 'Assistant Commercial Attaché, German Embassy, Sweden.' Finke was exposed by Wigert and eventually arrested and deported. In this film Finke is spying under (the fictitious) codename 'Maria.'
BARON BERND VON GOSSLER: A key Sicherheitsdienst agent operated by August Finke, under cover of 'Chief, German Tourist Bureau, Sweden.' Gossler was also exposed by Wigert and also eventually arrested and deported.
THIRD, here is a synopsis of Act III that will help post-viewers put it all together. I think most of the Act III confusion stems from the movie not really explaining what part Gellért really played in all this; once you understand that Gellért was spying, not for Germany, but for the Allies, and doing so unknown to the Swedes, it's all a good bit more clear:
During some pillow-talk, Terboven asks Wigert to spy for the Nazis in Sweden and she agrees. Back in Stockholm her new Nazi contact reaches out and reveals to be von Gossler (whom she earlier met at parties, along with Finke). Von Gossler tells Wigert to seek out information about a possible Allied invasion of Sweden and also about a suspected leak in their Nazi spy organization. Von Gossler also reveals he knows about Wigert's ongoing affair with Gellért ... information that would place her in grave danger were Terboven to be told.
Wigert meets with Akrell; she needs real intelligence to give to von Gossler. Wigert says he might have 'some assets to spare' in order to discover the identity of Maria. Akrell reveals that he also is aware of Wigert's ongoing affair with Gellért. Akrell is suspicious of Gellért's movements and wants more information on Gellért as well.
Wigert and Gellért spend time together at Gellért's remote waterside cabin. While Gellért is sleeping, Wigert snoops Gellért's luggage and finds a portfolio of photographs of defensive artillery with geo-coordinates. Now she knows that Akrell was correct; Gellért is also a spy (for someone). Wigert notices the photos are watermarked as from "Olsson's Foto." Wigert knows this to be the same photo lab that Patrik uses because earlier he handed her a canister of film from her own photoshoot that was labeled the same. Later in the night, Wigert sees Gellért hand off the portfolio to a small speedboat that briefly docks to receive it.
Back in Stockholm, Gellért proposes but Wigert declines. Wigert stakes out Olsson's Foto, watching for Patrik so she can follow him back to his apartment. Once inside, Wigert sees the apartment is filled with similar intelligence photos, of coastlines, harbors and such. Patrik reveals he has been taking the photos requested via letters from a well-paying anonymous client and dead-dropping them in a Haga Park garbage can. Wigert is spotted leaving with the photos by someone unknown.
Wigert takes the photos and gives them to Akrell; she thinks that it is Maria who will arrive at the garbage can to pick them up. Akrell dead-drops the photos in the garbage can but nobody arrives to pick them up. Wigert realizes that she must have been seen leaving Patrik's apartment with the photos ... and so Patrik is 'blown.' She and Akrell rush to Patrik's apartment to find Patrik dead. ((A likely plot-hole; one would well wonder why Patrik was killed given he did not know who his client was.)) Akrell believes the photos were being taken for use by Gellért.
Wigert meets Gellért for a drink; Akrell has their booth 'bugged' and their conversation recorded. Wigert confronts Gellért with some of the photos from Patrik's apartment, causing Gellért to realize that Wigert is spying (for someone). Wigert further tips her hand by accusing Gellért of being Maria. ((Wigert's accusation is incorrect. Though not explicitly revealed in the film, Gellért was collecting the intelligence for the British and the American OSS, in case they decided to pre-empt a Nazi invasion of neutral Sweden with an Allied invasion of neutral Sweden.)) Gellért bolts and escapes.
Since Wigert now thinks Gellért is Maria, she fears her own cover is also now 'blown' with the Nazis. Wigert tries to put her 'toothpaste back in the tube' by contacting von Gossler, saying she has found the leak in the Nazi organization and will reveal the identity, but only to Maria. ((Wigert is thinking that Gellért as Maria has already revealed her to the Nazis as a spy ... but that von Gossler will think Gellért merely discovered that Wigert has been spying for the Nazis and that Wigert can still be trusted because she is trying to reveal Gellért to them as the leak. Von Gossler will assume that Wigert knows of codename Maria from her trysts with Terboven. Plus if the meet is straight-up, Wigert will discover, with certainty, the identity of Maria.)) Wigert tips off Akrell about the meet, so he can capture the true Maria.
Von Gossler has surmised it would be safer if he turns up unannounced at Wigert's place the night before. Von Gossler begins to question Wigert as to whether she might be a double-agent, but she calls his bluff. A car pulls up, Wigert gets in and inside Finke reveals himself to be Maria. Before Wigert even gives up the identity of the leak, Finke says that they have long suspected Gellért as the leak, as he had full access to the German Embassy. ((This sounds like a plot-hole; Gellért would have had full run of the Hungarian Embassy, not the German Embassy.)) Finke and von Gossler think Gellért is hiding at the waterside cabin and they take Wigert with them to go there and find him.
When they arrive, they search the cabin area but do not find Gellért. But they do find a suitcase filled with photographs that confirm Gellért is the leak. Wigert sees a pot boiling in the back room, so she knows Gellért is there somewhere. Gellért locks the front door from the outside and begins spreading gasoline around the cabin intending to burn them all up. But when he sees Wigert is also inside, he changes his mind and instead hides under the floor of a secondary cabin. Wigert sees this but the rest do not. Wigert leads them away from the cabins to where Gellért's rowboat is docked. While they are distracted, Gellért slips away and steals the speedboat that brought Finke, von Gossler and Wigert to the cabin. The speedboat tears away from the shore; Gellért has escaped. ((Since Finke and von Gossler do not kill Wigert, we can assume her 'ruse' about planning to reveal Gellért as the leak to Maria was successful.))
Back in Stockholm, Finke and von Gossler, blown by Wigert, are arrested for espionage. Akrell has Wigert's parents smuggled out of Norway and into Sweden. ((How, exactly, her father was first sprung from the Norwegian Nazi prison is never explained.)) Akrell says Gellért cannot be found, speculating that Gellért was working for the Americans and could be hiding in London or America. ((In real life, Gellért WAS working for the Americans and the British.)) Akrell gifts Wigert a commemorative engraved lighter for her service to Sweden.
Hopefully all this helps your understanding of the film.
Killer of Sheep (1978)
The film holds a nearly legendary status inside the industry – which may or may not be fully deserved.
A set of fictional, slice-of-life, plot less vignettes portraying slaughterhouse worker Sanders' day-to-day struggle to survive and hold values while living in the 1970s Watts ghetto. Sanders' depressed state falls from his realization that he and those around him, unable to ethically escape their social/financial plight, are not so not unlike the placid, milling livestock awaiting their turn down the chute of death, that there is a much larger killer of sheep about.
Shot on a B&W shoe-string budget toward a UCLA film school thesis project, it drips with rough editing and continuity – that increment the aura of gritty realism. Total reliance on Watts locations and neophyte Watts actors evidences clear influence of Italian neorealism. Prohibitive soundtrack costs - and a scrumptious soundtrack it is - left the master rotting in the can.
The film was lavished with solid reviews at debut, due to its stark contrast with black-exploitation films of the day, and ended up on the Library of Congress' National Film Registry. A UCLA-restored version re-debuted in 2000. The film's 30-year absence, like that of a died-young Hollywood or rock star, has accumulated the film a nearly legendary status inside the industry – which may or may not be fully deserved.
Opinions as to whether this film is worthy of its kudos will vary wildly. The slaughterhouse analogy is insightful, honest and difficult to deny. There are many subtle, poignant moments that touch and persuade. However, lack of plot will cause many a viewer to pan it. And while this black director's cultural effort may have been singular in its day, it just does not stand so tall against the talented work of current black directors (eg, Spike Lee's persuasive "When the Levees Broke.")
Recommended, but requires great patience of the viewer.