July 2009 – Page 4 – FilmFanatic.org

Arruza (1972)

July 7, 2009 admin Comments 0 Comment

“Carlos enjoyed his life on the ranch with Mari and the children — but it was not enough; it never could be.”

Synopsis:
Bored with life in retirement, world-renowned bullfighter Carlos Arruza returns to the ring on horseback as a rejoneador.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Budd Boetticher Films
Bullfighting
Documentary
Retirement

Response to Peary’s Review:
This hard-to-find documentary about famed Mexican bullfighter Carlos Arruza was the picture Budd Boetticher “wanted to make all along” during his lengthy career as a Hollywood director of westerns and other fictional dramas (including two about bullfighting). As Peary notes, since “the film was so important to Boetticher, who certainly didn’t make it with commercial goals in mind, there has been a tendency among his fans to overpraise it”‘; yet the unfortunate truth is that Arruza — shot over a period of seven years, and completed after Arruza’s freak death in a car accident at the age of 46 — is “sadly, a disappointment, lacking the excitement and even the charismatic protagonist that distinguished Boetticher’s fiction films”. Neither Arruza nor anyone else in his circle is interviewed (or at least none of this footage shows up in the finished film), so we never get any real sense of who this iconic man was or even what he sounded like.

Instead, the bulk of the film consists of medium to long shots of Arruza fighting in various arenas (there are noticeably no dramatic close-ups — this was “real life”, after all), as well as footage on his ranch, with shots of his docile wife and cute kids in the background. While it “contains interesting, even poignant moments” (there was real potential here for a story about a man at the top of his game whose ego and love of the sport wouldn’t allow him to quit), non-bullfighting fans will find their patience sorely tested long before the movie is over — and as Peary notes, “if you don’t like bullfighting to begin with, you probably won’t share Boetticher’s respect for Arruza or his ‘art’.” Arruza is primarily of interest to film fanatics these days given what we know about the circumstances surrounding its making: “Boetticher nearly starved (he had an account at a tamale stand), was divorced, spent time in prison, suffered a mental breakdown, and nearly died from a lung ailment”; meanwhile, “most of his crew died”. See the excellent, must-see documentary Budd Boetticher: A Man Can Do That (2005) to learn more about this intriguing director.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Lucien Ballard’s cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended simply for its historical notoriety.

Links:

Can Heironymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness? (1969)

July 6, 2009 admin Comments 1 comment

“I don’t mind his vulgarity; it’s his pretension that irks me.”

Synopsis:
A womanizing performer (Anthony Newley) screens an autobiographical film about his rise to fame, as well as his rocky relationships with his first wife (Judy Cornwell), his second wife (Joan Collins), and a nymphette named Mercy Humppe (Connie Kreski).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Fantasy
Flashback Films
Joan Collins Films
Musicals
Womanizers

Review:
Pop star Anthony Newley wrote, produced, directed, scored, and starred in this self-absorbed but surreally fascinating pseudo-autobiographical musical about a performer named Heironymus Merkin who beds and/or weds countless women while skyrocketing to fame. Largely considered a failure upon its release, it has since gained cult status, thanks in no small part to its intriguingly unwieldy title. CHMEFMHAFH is ultimately a hit-or-miss affair, but is so creatively conceived and executed that it’s difficult not to find oneself at the very least impressed by the audacity of Newley’s vision (and wondering what other similarly unhinged spectacles might emerge if all “artists” were given free reign to create a movie about their lives…) There’s ultimately too much going on in CHMEFMHAFH — rated X for some nudity and simulated sex but quite tame by today’s standards — to explain or describe it all in one review; it’s the kind of film that must be seen to be appreciated.

The fragmented, fantasy-laden storyline (which possesses distinct echoes of Fellini) is centered around Merkin screening a film about his life to his doting mother (a delightfully game Patricia Hayes) and two young children, and to an audience of critics (Victor Spinetti, Rosalind Knight, and Ronald Radd), crew members, and other spectators. Parts of the film take place on a deserted beachfront, where Newley acts out scenes from his childhood (in a highly creative and successful gesture, he plays his child-self as a limp marionette) as well as both his marriages. Passages flow freely from one setting to the other, with little regard for continuity or logic, but (to Newley’s credit) things never become confusing, only increasingly surreal.

Newley fills his movie to the brim with theatricality and carefully rendered artifice, all in the service of the old bromide that “life’s a stage” and we’re players on it. All the female characters, for instance, are given lewd and/or alliterative names (Polyester Poontang, Filigree Fondle, Mercy Humppe), while others possess equally theatrical monikers (Fat Writer, Skinny Writer, Sharpnose, Red Cardinal). Milton Berle shows up as a “devil on the shoulder” named Eddie Goodtime Filth (he sets Merkin on a lifetime road towards womanizing), while Jewish comedian George Jessel as The Presence (death?) inexplicably comes and goes, spouting stand-up jokes to a flummoxed Merkin. Fortunately, even when Newley is at his most self-aggrandizing (he shows his alter-ego bedding literally countless women, who line up behind his bed on the beach), he retains a sense of humor and perspective about it all — most notably in the presence of his critics, who he allows to provide a welcome outside perspective on the entire endeavor.

Newley’s score, however, is a major disappointment; his forgettable songs range from maudlin (“I’m all I need; if I’ve got me, I’ve got rainbows”) to inane. The songs should have simply been scrapped, thus cutting the film’s viewing time down and streamlining the script. The one exception is Newley’s outrageously hilarious ditty “Once Upon a Time”, about a princess named Trampolena Whambang (Yolanda) and her donkey lover; this song alone is worth several viewings. (I love how Merkin finally sends his kids away during the screening of this sequence — it’s the only one he considers too truly outrageous for little eyes and ears.) If only the rest of the film’s songs came close to matching its sense of wit and surreality…

Note: Ironically, Mercy Humppe herself (Playmate of the Year Connie Kreski) plays a remarkably small part in the film; she shows up in one gauzy sequence as Merkin’s “dream nymph”, but only really has a few scenes after this, and never seriously disrupts Merkin’s life in any way.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Weirdly audacious and surreal imagery
Patricia Hayes as “Grandma”
Victor Spinetti, Rosalind Knight, and Ronald Radd as three vicious critics (pictured below as witches and wizards in the song “Once Upon a Time”)
The hilarious “Once Upon a Time” song
Newley’s boldly satirical script

Must See?
Yes, simply as a most unusual cult flick. Listed as a Cult Movie and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

Cult Movie

Links:

Lady Vanishes, The (1938)

July 6, 2009 admin Comments 2 comments

“I don’t see how a thing like cricket can make you forget seeing people.”

Synopsis:
A young British woman (Margaret Lockwood) travelling on a trans-European train befriends an elderly governess (Dame May Whitty) who suddenly disappears. When nobody on board the train will believe her story, Iris (Lockwood) turns to a musicologist (Michael Redgrave) for help in unraveling the mystery.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Amateur Sleuths
Hitchcock Films
Michael Redgrave Films
Mistaken Identities
Mysterious Disappearance
“No One Believes Me!”
Paul Lukas Films
Spies
Trains and Subways

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary and many other critics have noted, this “vastly entertaining thriller ranks with The 39 Steps as the best of Alfred Hitchcock’s British films”. It’s filled with “wit, suspense, sex, romance, a wonderful array of characters (enthusiastically played by an excellent cast) and a fascinating mystery”, and features characters who all “turn out to be different than they first appear”. Unfortunately, it takes a while for things to get going: the first twenty minutes or so merely serve to establish the characters and their relationships with one another, and first-time viewers may become impatient. Once the train has boarded, however, the excitement really begins, as Hitchcock explores one of his favorite cinematic tropes: the nightmare of not being believed.

Lockwood is “most appealing” as the leading protagonist (a “frivolous” rich girl who essentially “comes of age” on the train), and Whitty — who “has spirit and energy that belie her age” — is perfect as the mysterious title character; meanwhile, Redgrave (in his film debut) slowly grows on you as his character matures and he rises to the task of assisting Iris. The remaining supporting characters are all perfectly cast as well — though I must admit I’m not a fan of comedic team Naunton Wayne and Basil Radford, playing a pair of self-absorbed, cricket-obsessed Brits (they went on to star in several other films together — including the anthology horror flick Dead of Night, co-starring Redgrave). Peary notes that they provide “much of the film’s humor”, but I find them merely distracting and annoying. With that said, they — along with several other passengers — show their true colors in the film’s final dramatic sequences, when all loyal Brits are called upon to fight against corrupt Balkan police; indeed, this film — made just before the dawn of World War II — is, among other things, a clarion call to action against fascist forces.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Margaret Lockwood as Iris
Michael Redgrave as Gilbert
Dame May Whitty as Miss Froy
A highly suspenseful script (by Sidney Gilliat, Frank Lauder, and Alma Reville)

Must See?
Yes, as a classic Hitchcock thriller. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Pictures of the Year in his Alternate Oscars book.

Categories

Genuine Classic
Important Director

Links:

Wuthering Heights (1970)

July 5, 2009 admin Comments 1 comment

“When I’m dead, I think I’ll come and haunt you.”

Synopsis:
A gypsy foundling named Heathcliff is brought by Mr. Earnshaw (Harry Andrews) to live with his daughter Cathy (who quickly becomes Heathcliff’s closest friend) and son Hindley (who is jealous of his new “stepbrother”). When they grow up, Cathy (Anna Calder-Marshall) and Heathcliff (Timothy Dalton) become romantically interested in one another, but find their passions hindered by social mores.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Harry Andrews Films
Historical Drama
Incest and Incestuous Overtones
Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
I had reasonably high hopes for this Arkoff-and-Nicholson produced adaptation of Emily Bronte’s 1847 romantic classic, given how many contributors on IMDb vote it the “best” of the novel’s many cinematic iterations. Unfortunately, it disappoints on nearly every level. The script (by newcomer Patrick Tilley, who only wrote two other little known films) focuses on just the first half of Bronte’s novel, but still manages to feel disjointed and rushed. Years pass without any helpful transitions, and characters develop relationships with one another that are barely explored or explained; most of what we “know” about the story and its passionate characters comes from our knowledge of the novel. Tilley’s dialogue, while it may or may not be authentic to Bronte’s book (which I haven’t read in a number of years), comes across here as either romance-novel cliches (“All of these years I’ve thought of you, in every cloud, and every tree.”) or laughable anachronisms (“Do you want it here, or in bed?”).

Meanwhile, Tilley feels compelled to milk an idea barely hinted at in Bronte’s original novel — that Heathcliff might have been Earnshaw’s illegitimate child, and thus Cathy and Hindley’s half-brother — for all its sensationalistic potential, leading viewers to gasp at the notion that half-siblings might actually be in love/lust with one another. Worst of all, however, are the overwrought performances by nearly everyone involved. Dalton is simply a brooding, dark-browed hulk (somewhat laughably, he’s smeared in grime for the first half of the film to represent his uncouth “gypsy-ness”), while Calder-Marshall is merely snippy and spoiled.

The best aspects of the film (which make it marginally watchable) are its beautiful settings, and Michel Legrand’s memorable score, which is nonetheless badly (over)used.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Beautiful location cinematography in the Yorkshires
Michel Legrand’s haunting (if badly used) score

Must See?
No; definitely feel free to skip this one.

Links:

Trouble With Harry, The (1955)

July 4, 2009 admin Comments 1 comment

“Frankly, I don’t care what you do with Harry, as long as you don’t bring him back to life.”

Synopsis:
When a corpse shows up on a hill in Vermont, three different people — the corpse’s widow (Shirley MacLaine), a spinster (Mildred Dunnock), and a retired sea captain (Edmund Gwenn) — believe they may be responsible for his death; it’s up to a resident artist (John Forsythe), who has fallen for MacLaine, to help them figure out what to do with the body.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Black Comedy
Edmund Gwenn Films
Hiding Dead Bodies
Hitchcock Films
Mildred Dunnock Films
Murder Mystery
Shirley MacLaine Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
The Trouble With Harry — “one of [five] Alfred Hitchcock films… that were long kept out of circulation” [the others were Rope (1948), Rear Window (1954), The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), and Vertigo (1958)] — is surely Hitchcock’s most amiably comedic film, and likely “the closest America’s come to reproducing the feel of an English Ealing comedy”, according to DVD Savant. Peary, however, doesn’t appear to be a big fan of the film: he notes that “it looks like Hitchcock, stuck with a one-joke premise, made a half-hearted effort”, and argues that “it lacks pace, style, and, most importantly humor”. But I disagree on most of these counts.

Yes, the story is decidedly one-note, but it’s based on a clever conceit, and works well if you’re in the right mood. As far as pacing is concerned, the storyline simply follows its own leisurely logic rather than the usual thrill-a-minute velocity one expects in a Hitchcock flick; and in terms of style, Hitchcock and d.p. Robert Burks make lovely use of the Vermont countryside, with many establishing shots literally bursting with vibrant fall colors. With regards to humor, while not all of the “jokes” in the film work (i.e., the “gag” about a millionaire wanting to buy all of Forsythe’s painting, only to find him either absent or suddenly unwilling to sell, falls flat), there’s a steady undercurrent of dark, dry humor that bolsters the film. Indeed, Hitchcock was actually quite the cinematic experimenter, always interested in stretching his own boundaries and trying new approaches — here, he was purposely trying out a more “subtle” form of humor on American audiences. (Apparently European audiences were more receptive, given that it played for a year or more in England, Italy, and France.)

He also purposely kept his cast free from big-name stars — and nearly everyone involved (only Forsythe rubs me the wrong way) shines in their respective roles. Gwenn is perfectly cast as an amateur hunter convinced he’s accidentally shot Harry; his budding romance with Natwick (equally convinced she’s guilty of manslaughter, and given to exaggerating the truth about her age) is quite sweet. Meanwhile, it’s clear to pretty much everyone who sees the film that its “major point of interest is the debut of young Shirley MacLaine”, whose “performance — the matter-of-fact delivery of lines, and the weird rhythm of her speech — is disarming”, and whose natural beauty is refreshing. Her unusual casting has gone down in cinematic history: she had no movie experience at all, and was shocked at being chosen, but Hitchcock apparently said to her, “All this simply means is that I shall have fewer bad knots to untie.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Shirley MacLaine (in her film debut) as Jennifer Rogers
Mildred Natwick as Ivy Gravely
Edmund Gwenn as the Captain
Jerry Mathers (pre-“Leave it to Beaver”) as Arnie, Jennifer’s young son
Beautiful location footage in the hills of Vermont
Bernard Herrmann’s score (his first for Hitchcock)

Must See?
Yes, as an unusual entry in Hitchcock’s oeuvre.

Categories

Important Director

Links:

Nanny, The (1965)

July 3, 2009 admin Comments 1 comment

[Note: The following review is of a non-Peary title; click here to read more.]

“Nanny understands… She’s on your side!”

Synopsis:
A young boy (William Dix) recently released from a mental institution is convinced that his nanny (Bette Davis) is out to kill him; but neither his no-nonsense father (James Villiers) nor his mother (Wendy Craig) — emotionally fragile after the drowning death of her young daughter (Angharad Aubrey) — believes him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Bette Davis Films
Governesses and Nannies
“No One Believes Me!”
Psychological Horror

Review:
Some film fanatics would understandably consider nearly every movie Bette Davis starred — or co-starred — in to be a “must see” film, simply for her presence; while I wouldn’t go quite that far (I’m not a fan of All This, and Heaven Too, just to name one instance), I do believe her work in The Nanny — a worthy psychological thriller in its own right — was unjustly overlooked by Peary in his Guide for the Film Fanatic, and deserves mention here as a Missing Must See Film. It was made three years after Davis’s Oscar-nominated title role in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962), and was clearly meant to capitalize on her new role as Mistress of Grand Guignol (check out her over-the-top beetle brows!). As always, however, Davis invests herself fully in her character, adding layers of nuance to what could easily have been a mere caricature; watch her eyes alone to see what a remarkably versatile and meticulous performer this star really was.

The script (by Jimmy Sangster, based on a novel by Marryam Modell) is consistently suspenseful and well-constructed, leading one to question who’s really disturbed — Joey? Nanny? — until close to the end, when deep, dark truths are finally revealed; yet even knowing the film’s secrets doesn’t prevent repeat viewings from being a pleasure, given that one simply watches the characters with new insights. Much of the film’s success is due to the fine performances given by the entire cast. Dix may get on your nerves playing obnoxious little Joey, but this is exactly what he’s meant to do, and he’s certainly more than simply a bratty little whiner; we genuinely believe he’s scared for his life, and doing what he can to protect himself from deathly harm. Meanwhile, Craig is appropriately on edge as Joey’s jittery mother, who means well but is too emotionally fragile to be of much use as a guardian, and Jill Bennett is well cast as her more level-headed sister. Henry Waxman’s atmospheric cinematography and Richard Robert Bennett’s creepy, memorable score contribute towards The Nanny‘s status as an all-around good show, one film fanatics will surely want to check out at least once.

Note: Director Seth Holt didn’t make many other films, but he did direct the fine suspense thriller Scream of Fear (1961), starring Susan Strasberg.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Bette Davis as Nanny
William Dix as Joey
Wendy Craig as Joey’s mother
Jill Bennett as Aunt Pen
Pamela Franklin in a bit role as Joey’s neighbor friend, Bobbie
Angharad Aubrey as little Susy (in flashbacks)
Harry Waxman’s cinematography
A genuinely disturbing and suspenseful script
Richard Rodney Bennett’s memorable score

Must See?
Yes, for Davis’s performance, and as an all-around good psychological horror flick.

Categories

Good Show
Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971)

July 3, 2009 admin Comments 1 comment

“That man never killed anyone in his life.”

Synopsis:
A cocky businessman (Warren Beatty) and an opium-addicted madam (Julie Christie) open a whorehouse in a northwestern mining town, but find their lives at stake when local mobsters try to force them to sell their holdings.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Corruption
Julie Christie Films
Keith Carradine Films
Michael Murphy Films
Prostitutes and Gigolos
Robert Altman Films
Shelley Duvall Films
Warren Beatty Films
Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “revisionist western” by Robert Altman as “one of the best films of the early seventies”, citing its “great visual beauty” and “uniquely romantic feel — until the bad guys intrude”. In his Alternate Oscars book (where he votes it Best Film of the Year), he calls it “a bawdy bad joke about ‘free’ enterprise, big business, and the growth of America”, noting that while it has a “humorous tone”, it’s “full of casual violence that is extremely brutal” and possesses an ending that is bitterly “ironic” (indeed, it’s a real downer). He points out that the story (based on Edward Naughton’s novel McCabe) “throws viewers completely off balance”, given that “nothing is what it seems, nobody is who you think he is, [and] everything that happens is unexpected”.

Indeed, McCabe is often cited as the ultimate “anti-western”, as it foils the norms of this venerable cinematic genre in every way possible: McCabe is a foolish anti-hero; the town’s buildings (painstakingly hand-constructed in British Columbia by production designer Leon Ericksen and his crew) appear realistic rather than set-like; dirt and grime cover every possible surface; the three prostitutes McCabe “purchases” near the beginning of the film are, to put it mildly, decidedly uncomely; Chinese workers co-exist in a ghetto (and their vile exploitation as “cheap”, “renewable” manpower is duly noted); Mrs. Miller is a drug addict; and while McCabe and Mrs. Miller do become lovers (as expected), their relationship remains mercenary rather than romantic. It’s not until the film’s shoot-out ending that some of the genre’s conventions finally come into play.

In addition to its stunning appearance (both Ericksen’s sets and Vilmos Zsigmond’s luminous cinematography are justifiably lauded), McCabe and Mrs. Miller features, as usual in Altman’s films, a host of fine lead and supporting actors. Christie — boasting a broad Cockney accent and frizzy hair — “has never been lovelier” (she deserved her Oscar nomination), and Beatty is convincing as her shaggy-haired partner, who gets by on a combination of gumption and pure dumb luck (it’s Miller who notably possesses the brains of the enterprise). Keith Carradine gives one of his best non-leading performances as a luckless young visitor traveling through town, while William Devane as a lawyer and newcomer Hugh Millais as a heavy rise to the top as well in each of their tiny but memorable roles. Peary reviles Leonard Cohen’s score (he notes that Cohen’s singing “will get on your nerves”), but I think its folksy quality works; and as Peary writes, “at least Altman was trying to be different by using his songs”.

P.S. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is a film which sits even better after you’ve had some time to absorb it, and read a few critiques (see below for a handful of links, each of which reveals new and provocative insights) — but keep in mind that nearly every review gives away major spoilers.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

Julie Christie as Mrs. Miller (Peary — like the Academy itself — nominates her as Best Actress of the Year)
Warren Beatty as McCabe
Fine supporting performances
Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography
Many memorable “throwaway” moments — i.e., a drunk villager attempting to dance on ice
Ilse Richter’s authentic costume designs
Excellent period sets (watch the short 10-minute “making of” documentary on the DVD to see some fascinating footage of the town being built from scratch)

Must See?
Yes, as a (now) undisputed modern classic by a famed director (Roger Ebert calls it Altman’s one “perfect” film among a lifetime of masterpieces).

Categories

Genuine Classic
Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

King of Comedy (1982)

July 2, 2009 admin Comments 3 comments

“Why not me? Why not? A guy can get anything he wants as long as he pays the price.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring comedian (Robert De Niro) named Rupert Pupkin aggressively pursues a spot on a late-night television show, resorting to kidnapping its host (Jerry Lewis) when all other attempts fail.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

Aspiring Stars
Black Comedy
Comedians
Jerry Lewis Films
Kidnapping
Martin Scorsese Films
Misfits
Obsessive Fans
Robert De Niro Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary holds nothing back in his vivid description of the “pushy, insensitive, tactless New York slimeball” protagonist of this cult black comedy by Martin Scorsese. He questions “why anyone would want to make such a sick, though oddly credible film” about such “repulsive” subject matter, yet he acknowledges that the film is “superbly made”, and notes that it features “perfect” acting by its leads, whose “characterizations are precise”. Indeed, one’s reaction to this controversial film — which flopped at the box office but has since been widely acknowledged as a “must see” flick (it’s included in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die) — is likely to be mixed, given its crafty merging of brilliance, pathos, and sheer repugnance.

It’s difficult at first to know how to react to Pupkin (De Niro is in top form), who is single-minded in his devotion to “making it” as an entertainer, but utterly out of touch with the reality of what such an endeavor entails — especially given that the “reality” of achieving any kind of fame in show business, no matter how fleeting, is so nigh impossible that resorting to drastic measures may actually make some kind of sense. Peary and countless other critics give away the fact that Pupkin ultimately “triumphs” in his goals (making it on to Jerry Langford’s show), so I’ll mention it as well — and truth be told, this ending may very well be the only one that could have worked. No matter how much of a “despicable leech” Pupkin is, he’s also undeniably pathethic — a true loser who perhaps (perhaps!) deserves his chance in the limelight, if only as evidence of his sheer gumption and warped savvy.

Several “big names” were considered for the role of Jerry Langford (including Frank Sinatra, Orson Welles, Dick Cavett, Sammy Davis, Jr., and Johnny Carson), but Lewis was an inspired casting coup, given his real-life designation as the “king of comedy”. Meanwhile, Bernhard (in her screen debut) is simply hilarious as Pupkin’s partner-in-crime, a deluded poor-little-rich-girl whose entire identity revolves around being Langford’s “number one fan”; her interactions with Langford while he’s taped up in her house are rollicking. Indeed, by this point in the story, the film’s bitterly humorous sensibility has emerged more strongly than ever, as it becomes especially clear that Scorsese is aiming for satirical laughs, and won’t leave us stranded in a sea of purely icky discomfort. Pupkin and Masha (Bernhard) may be two of the most pathetic individuals in existence, but we all — film fanatics among us! — possess a certain amount of this quality ourselves; Scorsese’s gift here is in allowing us to feel a measure of empathy with two characters whose very actions are the epitome of obnoxious delusion.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments: