This is a thriller that is highly regarded by some, but I really don’t know what to make of it. On the one hand, it’s such an 80s film, with its synth music, fashion styles, lazy tropes and all, that it’s hard to take seriously. Yet it takes such a cynical view of the police to the extent that I don’t think we’re supposed to be sympathetic to the main characters at all. Plus the plot takes some odd, unexpected tangents here and there. On balance I have to say that I was disappointed, as this was made by William Friedkin who established his reputation with The French Connection.

This is the first time we’ve watched a film by director Kaneto Shindo though if the quality of this one is any indication we should have done so much sooner. It seems that the director specifically wanted to make this as a film with no dialogue at all and indeed there isn’t any. The only spoken words in the film are songs and chants yet there is no difficulty in understanding this simple but emotionally resonant piece.

There are an awful lot of documentaries about photographers but I believe that this one, even though it is supposedly about Pete Souza, really has Barack Obama and his presidency at its center. As Obama’s official White House photographer for both of his terms, Souza was basically present at every key moment. Yet after the end of Obama’s presidency, Souza was so angered by what he saw Trump doing that he used those photographs to essentially troll Trump and thereby became a celebrity in his own right. There are some bits about Souza himself in it but mainly this is about reminding everyone of the essential humanity and empathy that should be in the office of the US president but is wholly absent from Trump’s White House.

This is the second film we watched by the Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer and it is once again a masterpiece even as it extols a cause I dislike. It is tempting at first to view the subject of faith in this film with some ambiguity as even the characters who profess the strongest faith are mired in pointless bickering. But as the film builds in intensity, it leaves you in doubt whatsoever where it stands and overwhelms you with the sheer force of its message.

I suppose reinventing old fairy tales is all the rage these works and returning them to their horror roots seems like an obvious choice. Unfortunately this one doesn’t quite work, being mostly focused on the superficial cues that evoke horror while not investing in worldbuilding at all and having a childishly straightforward plot. The result is a strange mishmash of Disney-level horror aesthetics with real murders and gore.

This is only the second Charlie Chaplin film I’ve covered here but this was considered his first talking film. Here Chaplin plays dual roles both as an ordinary Jewish barber and a dictator of a fictional country who is of course a parody of Adolph Hitler. While Chaplin’s audacity to make this, at a time when the US was still at peace with Nazi Germany, is commendable, I don’t find this to be a very effective comedy and I prefer him in his silent roles. Furthermore as satisfying as it is to imagine this driving Hitler into paroxysms of rage as doubt Chaplin intended, no amount of mockery of evils such as his can replace actual armed resistance and the true horrors of his regime simply renders any attempts at humor feel simply inadequate.

We’ve watched a fair few Iranian films so far and all of them are essentially arthouse drama films. This one by a heretofore relatively unknown director Saeed Roustayi about the police chasing after a drug dealer seems at first to be a more commercial movie. But it turns out that the Iranians treat even a crime thriller more seriously than most and takes care to present events from the perspective of the drug dealer. I think that in end, it still toes the Iranian government’s line on drugs but it’s tone and the turns it takes makes it feel different in some surprising ways.