Jammin' the Blues (1944)

Since this film was only 10 minutes long, I am only going to dedicate a review of the same length. In our world full of hour, two hour, three hour epics, it was a breath of fresh air to feel the same emotion as you would in one of those multi-million dollar productions, in this simple jazz-filled ten minute "jam" session. Jammin' the Blues, done as a short in 1944 is a brilliant introduction to the raw nature of a music that has nearly gone extinct in the modern age. Beginning with a simple turn of a hat, the room filled with smoke and bold whites, you can easily get caught up in each of the musicians emotions, facial expressions, and passion of a genre nearly dead. This is jazz. This is blues. This is history being made using Hollywood to record it. It is original and honest. It is a bolder documentary than modern concepts and it conveys a power unheard of even today. Oh, and did I mention that it was only 10 minutes long?!?
Thinking further about this brief interruption of jazz, I wondered if I could watch this short little reel again? Would the excitement of hearing this for the first time be relevant on the second viewing? I once read that Bogart walked into this session, stopping whatever film he was working on, and said he needed to hear this because nothing like this would ever be recreated again. I would have to agree. Jammin' the Blues is very important. It needs to be heard, but instead of repeat viewings, take this as a chance to recognize the roots that it planted. Watch this film - then immediately go to your local record store and explore. After watching Mili's use of technology and soul to create this instant classic, I wanted to hear more. This wasn't a film to indulge the sensory of sight, but more for the ears. Watching these musicians like Lester Young or Joe Jones with the singing talents of Marie Bryant - again - staged with either the dark or bold white background was amazing. Brilliant to be exact, but it just compelled me to to listen to more music than watch musicians at their best.

Can I recommend this film to anyone? No - I can recommend this to EVERYONE. I found this on the Norman Granz Improvisation DVD as a supplimential feature - although I think it would be great as a single issue for about $5.00. I admit, to own a moment of history like this, I would consider spending more.

Watch this film once - then explore. Find other LPs - listen to the emotion of this era and do not forget. Do not forget the roots of our modern sound.

Discovered in my book "Defining Moments in Movies" - the collaboration of this group is marked as a cinematic classic, naer to be repeated again. I would agree whole-heartedly ... but I don't think I could watch it again. It was bold for a first run, but all it gave me was the itch to seek out more.

Finally, it gets a pink mark. Watch this movie.

Jackie Brown (1997)

Jackie Brown. Oh, let me count the ways in which I used to love you. Once upon a time, in Winchester, I used to be a Tarantino junkie. If he was remaking Shakespeare, I would be first in line. Pulp Fiction used to be the ultimate cinematic experience for me. I could discover no other film that both visually and intellectually stimulated my mind. Tarantino was a genius in my eyes. When I first watched Jackie Brown, I knew I had to own it. It was another chapter in the Tarantino - and I was ready for it.


Fast forward from 1997 to now - 2009, nearly 12 years since its release, and I found it within my cannon of films to watch again. The excitement overtook me as I prepared to rediscover Tarantino's voice again - his more humanistic approach instead of just kitch over kitch. Kill Bill has come and gone and he redefined the Grindhouse mantra, so why wouldn't Jackie Brown continue to impress.

Then I watched it.


Five nights. That is the amount of time it took me to watch this film. Twelve years did not do well for this little film. Quoted in several of my books as Tarantino's best film, I found my emotions ranging from anger, frustration, boredom, apathy, and an eagerness to finish this nearly three hour film. Tarantio had failed me. He had failed my youth - and he was failing me for five nights in a row. The excitement had faded, my catalogue of known cinema had grown, and this film just couldn't keep up with both classics and modern. Jackie Brown is a failure. Choppily made - lacking emotion - cliche characters - and a climax that is so convoluted that three hours felt like FIVE DAYS - and it was. Tarantino's second outing was supposed to pay homage to those films like Shaft or other blaxploitation films, but it just didn't garner the punch I remembered. To begin, the characters were dull and void of excitement. No surprise this came out the same year as the paunchy LA Confidential, a dismal year for Hollywood. Sam Jackson plays ... wait for it ... Sam Jackson. Yelling and screaming he conveys nothing new to the screen. He is himself, and it didn't fit in this world. The same could be said for Bridget Fonda, Pam Grier, and Michael Keaton - our other headliners of this film. Tarantino's excitement had faded, these actors could not save this film from age.


Now, that isn't to say that there were some stand out performances. Robert DeNiro was the only breath of fresh air in this film. When he was on screen, I was impressed with his transformation into a character that I hadn't seen him do before. He was gruff and lost, a perfect addition to the ensuing chaos that Tarantio allowed within the remaining characters. Also, I have a bit of a soft spot for Robert Forester, who was gentle enough to be this random bail bondsman falling in love for the last - or first - time. These two did it, while the rest I can successfully say, failed.


Being in the minority, I am not a fan of Elmore Leonard's film adaptations. Get Shorty and Be Cool were failures when I watched them, and while I do have faith for Out of Sight, it was the direction in that film that ultiamtly trumped the film. So, seeing again that it was based on a Leonard story, my heart fell. It was too complicated for Tarantino, which is very surprising. As a director I would have shown the audience how the take was going to happen, instead of allowing Grier to do all the talking. It felt boring and repetitive. Where were the kitchy Tarantino tricks? Twelve years ago I liked the change, but today - I need him to remain the way he is. Fast edits and exciting language - Jackie Brown had none of these.


Countering the story was the music. Recently having watched Across 110th Street, I was excited to see Tarantino use the music to bookend this story. It worked to convey Grier's character, but that was it. 110th Street was such a powerful film about race and corruption, that by using the song - I thought the film should cover that a bit further. Grier singing at the final moments somewhat defined this idea, but it wasn't completed. It felt as if Tarantino had several quality moments, but failed to express them fully. His excitement seemed to fade with his characters. The illustrious "Jackie Brown" into the door speaker seemed forced and oddly edited. That felt on par with the remainder of the film.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book, Jackie Brown alas, fails to maintain its integrity. It was a film I fawned over, in fact, I even pre-ordered the DVD when it was announced, yet today I am ready to clean my hands of this project. Tarantino still has the ability, he is growing each time I watch his films. Alas, it saddens me to say this, but this film gets the illustrious yellow highlight with black mark. Never to be watched again. No film should take FIVE DAYS - no film.

Quai des brumes (1938)

Well, it is official, the final chapter in my TIME OUT FILM GUIDE is completed. I didn't really know when this one would end up (considering my time spent at the office and a play practice in which lines seem to evaporate before me) - but I did it. I complete the first five entries in the "Q" bank of this book. What an adventure! That is not sarcasm folks, it is honesty. I went from a corrupt cop, to a angsty Brit, to a classic who-dun-it, all the way to my first adventure in the world of Italian sex-romps. Then there was this - a French film bordering on the lines of Pickpocket with the finesse of one Jean Gabin (who was ever so impressive in The Grand Illusion). Quai des brumes (or Port of Shadows) is a dark and sinister film with no moral characters as far as the eye can see. It is character driven, with small elements giving us just enough action to keep us awake. It is an unusual film because it takes places in the lowliest of lows, but somehow seems a bit like a shining light in cinema. It is not a film that could be enjoyed several times over and over, but like wine - perfect to be enjoyed with a friend visit or social setting.

Let me get this off my chest. I love films from the Criterion collection, they are my Achilles heel, but unlike modern cinema, they are not to be watched daily for fear of loosing that aura of greatness. Port of Shadows best exemplifies this idea because of how droll director Marcel Carne's vision is. From the beginning, with our Jean hitchhiking away from some unknown disaster, we know that we are going to be rooting for the dark horse. As we follow him, he leads us through the blemished areas of France, especially around their port areas. Carne's vision is vivid, creating some iconic images with the bar known as Panamas and those gut-wrenching slaps that Jean produces to intimidate Lucian - a local hood that has a short fuse temper. From Nelly's "guardian" to that moment where Michel decides to swim out into the ocean to escape, Carne builds a city where there are more than one story floating around - the idea of lost souls suffering through - searching for an escape. Considered by many to be "poetic realism", Port of Shadows is everything you want in a film like this. We want love, escapism, revenge, the unknown and with this film we have it. We have it all - but is it a good thing?

Port of Shadows is a difficult film for me to stand behind because of Carne's lack of excitement behind the camera. Sure, it has everything we want - and it has some amazing (like never-forgotten) moments in cinema, but as we begin to conclude our saga - this is where Carne lost me. The one-night stand between Jean and Nelly seemed forced and rushed, void of passion to say the least. I couldn't feel the connection between the two at that time. I saw it during the fight moment and the night at Panama's, but that final scene just felt like it was placed to appease audiences. I wanted Jean to really prove his love for Nelly, not just bed her and run. Thinking back, this was the only element I didn't enjoy - there were parts that I need to watch again to understand (ie the item found by Nelly in the basement AND what happened to the money in Jean's jacket), but it does still make me want to watch this film again. I loved so many of the angels, the introduction of the dog character to bring a level of humanism to Jean, and that breathtaking finale where we are ready for him to make it leap, but gets cut down too soon. Again, iconic images in cinema - but does it last?

Riding the high of this film, it isn't the same as I felt with Quai Des Orfevres, the other Criterion explored this month. While two seperate films, I wasn't ready to rewatch Port of Shadows right away. This is a simmering film, one that needs to be enjoyed, placed into the freezer for later, and then enjoyed again. I liked the vision, the actors, and the story - but perhaps it was the language brining me down this time. Whatever it was, Port of Shadows just didn't feel perfect. I liked it, but didn't love it. It was the same reaction I had with Carne's other work - Children of Paradise - it was good, but not an immediate gratification. I will wait a couple of weeks and rewatch - perhaps the spark just needs to be tried a couple of more times.

FAVORITE SCENE: Hands down, the bumper car scene. Brilliant from the beginning, a personal saving moment for me on this film.

Found in the TIME OUT FILM GUIDE #9, this concludes my "Q" adventure. It is now onto the "J", where we will battle classics with modern - a match up I am eager to see.

Port of Shadows was recently re-released via Criterion at spine #245.

Final decision - it is going to get a pink mark. Again, good, but not the greatest. I will watch this movie again.

Quante volte... quella notte (1972)

First let me say this much, this film is not a PORNO. I need to get this into the clearing immediately. Despite the fact that it is Italian - that the DVD box does not defend my position - AND that there was some nudity in it - Quante volte ... quella notte was actually a fun 70s sex-romp (modern cinema will call it a rom-com) that took you on an unknown journey similar to that of Sliding Doors or He Loves Me...He Loves Me Not. From an audience perspective, we watch our two main characters - the very masculine John Price (played by Brett Hasley) - and the very beautiful Tina (played by Daniela Giordano) - go from scenario to scenario giving the audience a different perspective on the events of a night of passion. Again - this was not pornographic in any way.

Obviously, I will need to defend that idea even further.

What makes Quante volte ... quella notte more than just a typical film is the introduction of the scientist at the end who tries to add value to the bottom line. From not only the peeping tom of a bellman, but also the idea that perhaps this "date" was nothing more than a sweet, innocent evening just added a new layer to this simple film. Knowing nothing about Mario Bava (the director), I thought that his camera angles, his comic timing, and focus on detail - as well as the surreal ending - was well captured. He was focused on this film - yet I should warn. If anyone begins this film and is bored within the first two stories, keep your eyes open - it does get better and less repetitive. My original gut reaction to this film was dull. I wasn't interested in our characters or their dilemmas. Yet, as we added the third and fourth story, it grew increasingly better.

FAVORITE SCENE: This hasn't been a regular occurrence on this blog, mainly because if the film was fun - typically there was more than one scene that was enjoyed - with this film it wasn't the gold standard of film making, but there were moments that stood out. One happened to be a scene where John and Tina (awfully American names for an Italian film) were in bed in the second scenario where she is the seductress and while he lies in bed, her legs pass by his face (a close-up shot) and five minutes later her legs pass again. His response, "I am not a machine" HA! HA!

I am glad I watched this film. It was my first, to my knowledge, endeavour into the world of Italian sex romps, and I was pleased with the final verdict that Bava gave this film. Is this a film I could watch again ... certainly not. It was Austin Powers fun, but not repeatable. I am eager to see Bava's other films - but not right away.

So - this film - gets a pink mark. It had high standards - it was a strong outing, but just not perfect.

Found in my TIME OUT FILM GUIDE #9, one more "Q" ... I still have high hopes for this letter.

Quai Des Orfevres (1947)

The concept is simple. You love your wife. You are jealous of your wife's popularity among the men. You are easily angered. You are at the point where anything can happen. You are Maurice Martineau from the utterly French, yet utterly amazing film Quai Des Orfevres. A film that takes you from the slums of France, into the mind of an early detective, and then twists you into another world when you least expect it (or at least you think you have it figured out). This is exactly the type of film that I love. It is unknown, nearly forgotten, yet has everything a modern blockbuster would relish in. It has the dame (the beautiful woman that you want to love), the jealous husband, the witty - yet due-diligent police officer, and you have the scurvy old man. Again, I pose the question - what more do you want in a film? From merely looking at this early Criterion box (spine 193) one probably would think this was just another Pickpocket, but it offers so much more. It is a world upon its own - ready to be explored, never to be forgotten.

What is this film? Director Henri-Georges Clouzot does a fabulous job of giving us powerful characters, darkened elements, and - my favorite - the unknown. This film hinges on what we see, the complexity of our lives, and what we would do for love - or what we think is love. It includes prostitution, lesbians, and voyeurism all in 1947. Shocking as it may seem, it is done tactfully and gracefully, giving this film a quality of romanticism and style. I guess the ultimate question for this film is which genre does it fall into? Is it a crime picture? Is it a romance? Is it a who-dun-it? That is what builds the complexity of this film. I loved the pairing of both Suzy Delair (Jenny Lamour) to the very average looking Bernard Blier. His passion for Jenny was so obvious from the beginning, that I loved the he turned into a monster by the end - a monster that the police corrupted further. What he does to himself to ensure that he doesn't go to prison was unexpected and added a new depth to their character. I also loved that this occurred during Christmas, a time where we think onto family and our loved ones - it just cemented the idea of earthiness and home-style feeling.

Where this film perhaps missed the mark was in the development of our infamous - and dedicated - police officer. Louis Jouvet does a great job playing Inspector Antoine, but it is when he thinks back to the colonies that I felt a bit cheated. He has a "son" that occasionally pops into the picture to secure a human feel to him, but I was so caught up with both him and the couple that when the son arrived, I just ignored him. It was an unneeded element. I also wished that they could have developed the idea of a lesbian tryst further - I think it would have helped define the relationship (or at least the geometric triangle - who didn't like that moment of symbolism) between Maurice, Jenny, and Dora Monier. With these gripes behind me, I do have to say there were flaws, but it was 1947 and while that is no excuse - I felt it offered more than the other film I was watching in between the scenes - Twilight. While two different films, there was just more creativity and excitement for Quai Des Orfevres than expected.

Needless to say, I loved - LOVED - this movie. In fact, this is one of those films, rare recently, that I could watch again and again. I could give this film to friends or family with the understanding that I am giving them a awesome piece of history.

Quai Des Orfevres gets a green mark with blue stars in my book. It was discovered in the TIME OUT FILM GUIDE #9 in the "Q"s. Just a few films left of this book, and it has been a mixed bag. I can't wait to see the next entries. This film has re-energized my passion for cinema.

Quadrophenia (1979)

"ME" - Jimmy shouts in that iconic neo-Thelma and Louise moment where his fleeting life meets Sting's scooter on the white coast of Britain. It is one of those final moments that is supposed to resonate with you long after the film had ended - it is there to show you the symbolic irony of the characters - it is there to say that Quadrophenia is more than just a jumbled mess of social anxiety fueled on a generation calmed by parties, non-sequitor jobs, and pills ... plenty of those blue little pills. Based, if one could use such a word, around the album released by "The Who" under the same name, this 1979 feature takes us on a incoherent ride through a disastrous blend of both sonic youth and James Dean. Jimmy is our stand-out character, yet he seems to fold to conform under any pressure. He is a weak character that this viewer had trouble watching for 114 minutes.



I want to say that I could understand the plight of this young heroine, but nothing could connect me to him. The voyage was set, I could see the wheels moving, but on this end this seemed more like a dated VHS film than anything close to being considered a cult classic. One of my bigger issues was with Sting, an obvious pull into the film for those merely stumbling upon it at a video store. This wasn't brilliant casting, it was necessary financing. Jumbled next to this acting mess is the structure of this film random plot - which contains everything every film has ever needed to survive. It has the deep rooted, yet unnecessary family struggle (Jimmy obvious returns at midnight cause parental distress), the Animal House structure parties that go all night and into the next day (sex is fluent and mandatory), and the mixed media concerning drugs. Again, it is a hodgepodge of disaster that cannot seem to focus on one central theme. Quadrophenia lacks within the detailing moments of the first and second act, but when Sting is uncovered, Jimmy's life in shambles, and that vibrant ending - it finally feels like a cult British film.


Steph meanders throughout the film, giving (literally) when she can to Jimmy, but isn't enough to save this disastrous film. For me, I could see the angst and woe of our character, the desire to live a unique and uncontrolled life. It is used in any 1940s/50s teen drama where one rival gang is plotted against the other. Outside of the glorified ending, the only other redeeming value to this film are the scooters - the number of side mirrors was a bit high-tech for this film (probably historically accurate, but personally funny). The power of these light little motorized terrors finally gave this film some jazz it was so desperately needed. This film took me three times to view, and it wasn't even the accents or the graininess of the VHS, it just didn't resonate with me. The characters, in final, were never developed. The dimmed lighting distracted from the actions of our characters. The non-full use of "The Who" songs from that album just feels like a cheap trick to me. Sure, they helped make it - but more was needed to connect the two.


I must say, it was nice to see Ray Winstone and Tim Spall before Hollywood.


Found in my TIME OUT FILM GUIDE #9 in the Qs, this is the second film to receive the illustrious yellow highlight with black mark. It isn't a film I would suggest to anyone. It isn't a film you could be proud of.


Found on VHS on eBay - it is going back on there. Let someone else take this as their pride and joy.

Well, three more to go in this book. Wish me luck, the Qs may have me by the end.