Movies in 2026 185

 

From Russia with Love (Terence Young, 1964)

I'm going to plow through the three films in the Criterion Channel's James Bond collection, and so I watched From Russia with Love. As I said previously, I'm not really that big of a James Bond film, but this is definitely the film where they figured it out (and many folks, including actors who played Bond, consider it the best in the series). It's more serious and gritty than Dr. No, and definitely less silly, Bond spends his time in Istanbul and Vienna, beginning a recurring character in the films: exotic locations. It's odd to watch films like this and remember that I've been lucky enough to go to many of these locations, including Istanbul and Vienna. And, yes, if you're an Archer fan you completely see where so much of the material comes from, including his Russian girlfriend, Katya.

Movies in 2026 184

 

The Whole Town's Talking (John Ford, 1935)

Another film from a pretty vanilla Criterion Channel collection: office romances. Last night I watched John Ford's 1935 film The Whole Town's Talking. I'm a big John Ford fan, but I didn't know how long he had been making movies. Like a lot of folks I always link him to 1939's Stagecoach, and the beginning of his pairing with John Wayne, but by 1939 he had already been making films since 1917. This includes a ton of silent films, which, sadly, like most silent films, have been lost. The Whole Town's Talking stars Edward G. Robinson playing two roles, the timid company employee Arthur Ferguson Jones and the ruthless gangster "Killer" Mannion. I was impressed by Ford's ability to get both characters in the same scene considering the limitations of special effects in the mid-30s. I liked the film, although they didn't do nearly enough with Plattsburgh's own Jean Arthur (playing Wilhelmina Clark), who was such a firecracker and who routinely stole every scene in every movie she was ever in.

Movies in 2026 183

 

Dr. No (Terence Young, 1963)

For some reason the Criterion Channel is featuring a collection of the first three James Bond films. These are the collections that worry me a bit. Mainly I just don't want the Criterion Channel to lose its edge in the pursuit of more casual movie fans, as compared to true film nuts (it is a slippery slope). Nevertheless, last night I watched the movie that started it all, 1963's Dr. No. I'm not one of those guys who goes out of his way to watch James Bond movies (I think of Lester in American Beauty), but it's not as if I don't like them. Dr. No opened to very mixed reviews, which is completely appropriate because it's actually pretty silly. They obviously hadn't figured out what they wanted to do with the character. Now it's considered a bit of a classic, which is a completely goofy and undeserved designation. Nevertheless, we all have to start somewhere, even James Bond. Cycling back to my occasional concern for CC program, it may simply be a case that they dumb it down a bit in the summer because it's too hot for us to tackle Bergman or Kieslowski.

Movies in 2026 182

 

Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)

One of the Criterion Channel collections which is not making nervous is their current one entitled Odysseys, which is exactly what you would think: films about epic trips. It gave me a chance to watch Nicolas Roeg's classic 1971 film Walkabout (which I had inexplicably never seen). I have mixed emotions about Roeg, although even his films that I don't like I like. It tells the story of two Australian children, Jenny Agutter as Girl and Luc Roeg (the director's son, although he's listed as Lucian John) as White Boy, who are abandoned in the outback when their father loses his mind and commits suicide. They are rescued by Black Boy (the long-time Australian Aboriginal actor David Gulpilil) who is on his walkabout. It's about their growing friendship, and the love affair between Girl and Black Boy which never really happens, and which in the end kills him. It's also about much more: the clash of cultures, the wild beating heart of Australia, and the inevitable death of that native culture in the fact of Western culture. It's hard to believe that Jenny Agutter was only eighteen at the time. It's wonderful and absolutely heartbreaking. And required viewing.

Movies in 2026 181

 

Red (Krzisztof Kieslowski, 1994)

OK, so I finished (yet again) Krzisztof Kieslowski's Three Colours trilogy when I watched Red the other night. Many people consider it the greatest of the three films, although I don't know if I would sign off on it being better than Blue. That said, I think I like it more with every viewing. It was Kieslowski's final film, which gives it a tremendous weight. He announced while finishing it that he was done, and he died only a couple years later. It's sort of like hitting a grand slam in your final at bat to win the World Series, except that he directed so many extraordinary films. I'm already queueing up The Double Life of Veronique as well as all ten installments of Decalogue. Since we've moved on to the red portion of the French flag it's not surprising that the theme is fraternity, or in this case the odd friendship between Valentine Dussaut (wonderfully played by the ethereal Irene Jacob) and Joseph Kern (another great performance from  Jean-Louis Trintignant). It's strange to think that recently I watched Il 
Saporro, which was one of his first films. Here is a much older man, a retired judge who has given up on life while eavesdropping on his neighbors. His unexpected friendship with Valentine brings him back to the world. The ending ties up not only Red, but the other two films in the trilogy as well. Simply filmmaking at its best. Obviously, required viewing. I was reminded of the story of Van den Budenmayer, the mythical Dutch composer who is referenced in Red, Blue, and an episode of Decalogue - and who was made up by Kieslowski and his long-time composer Zbigniew Preisner simply because they both loved Holland. The fact that I know that clearly means that I watch too many movies.

Movies in 2026 180

 

Against All Odds (Taylor Hackford, 1984)

I've been exploring one of those wonderfully odd Criterion Channel collection: 1980s remakes. It's half of a great idea, because the original films are all really good if not great, but the 1980s remakes (with the exception of Carpenter's The Thing) are abominations. I appreciate the quirkiness, although it also makes me a tad nervous. I hope that they're not doing this because it's a cheap option and that it foreshadows some doom down the road (this mainly me fretting about a thing, the Criterion Channel, that I love and which gives me so much happiness). The other night I watched, or maybe re-watched, Taylor Hackford's 1984 misfire, Against All Odds. If I ever saw it before, I didn't know that it was a remake of Out of the Past. Now, take this with a grain of salt, because Out of the Past is one of my favorite movies, but, wow, Against All Odds is a dog. It would take more time than I have at the moment to express, fully, how bad this film is, so I'll restrict myself to the most obvious problems. First off, they broke a cardinal rule: never remake a classic film. Maybe it's ok to remake a film that was close to being a classic, and there's some little thing the original missed or got wrong, and you're almost completing the vision, building upon the unachieved potential. But please, for the love of God, stop remaking great films. It's insulting. Secondly, Jeff Bridges, Rachel Ward, and James Woods are simply not Robert Mitchum, Jane Greer, and Kirk Douglas - not even close, even though I sort of like all of them, especially Bridges. Thirdly, the script is a trainwreck, there are way too many unimportant minor plots competing for screentime, and whereas the original had more great lines that you could count, no one in this film ever says anything even remotely intelligent or funny or engaging. Fourthly, your broke one of the cardinal rules of film noir: a hopeful ending where the central characters somehow walk away unscathed. Did Hackford simply not have the courage to kill off Jeff Bridges and Rachel Ward? Fifthly and finally (although I could go on and on), they gutted a classic femme fatale, one of the greatest in film history. Jane Greer's Kathie Moffat was so brilliantly drawn, and so utterly evil, whereas Rachel Ward's character is mainly annoying (I don't think it's her fault, it's just a crappy script). There's probably some thinly veiled misogyny at play here as well, which is strange since Out of the Past is decades older, and yet the Kathie Moffat character simply has more agency; Rachel Ward's Jessie Wyler seems to exist mainly to be sweaty and minimally clothed, an object as compared to a subject. The only good thing I can say about it is that Jane Greer has a cameo, and although she's not given much to do, she still steals the show. If you want to understand how not to remake a classic - of for that instance how to not make a good movie - then by all means watch Against All Odds. Otherwise, please keep your distance.

Non parlo italiano

 I'm about a month into my Italian study. I've tinkered with several languages over the years, but never mastered any of them. In high school I took two years of Latin, a year of Spanish, and a year of French, which I think gives you a sense of how little interest my parents had in parenting. Any locked-in parent would have pointed out that it would have made more sense to take four years of the same language, but I guess it never popped up on their radar. At Franklin, during my undergraduate days, we weren't required to take a foreign language, for some godforsaken reason - and I apparently didn't have the foresight or energy or sense to sign up for some. In graduate school my two languages, inexplicably, were French and Russian, and now, forty years later, I can't speak a word of either. In the decades since then I've tinkered with Arabic for a bit, and over the last couple years Portuguese. However, as much as I love Portugal, it didn't make much sense to keep working on it while Janet was pursuing this (allegedly) shorter route to citizenship. When/if she gets citizenship, I'll have a spousal visa (the ultimate plus one), but will eventually have to pass an Italian exam to get my own citizenship. Even if Janet gets citizenship this summer, I'd still have to live in the country for a couple of years before I would qualify for my own citizenship. However, I'm diving in seriously, knowing that I'll never actually be fluent, but maybe I'll be at least functionally non-embarrassing. I finally got serious and signed up for a class - and will do something more face to face when we're actually in-country. I try to remind myself to be patient, and also that learning a foreign language is one of the best thins that you can do to keep an aged brain lubricated.

I knock off the daily lessons, which I'm really enjoying and I feel that I'm learning a lot more than I ever did on my own, although after being on the road for a week and a half I'm a little behind. Then, after a few days, I go back and work my way through the lessons a second time, and that's when I take notes. I'm trying not to break up the flow the first time through, and just let it flow more naturally, but then come back later and try to get it down. I don't know if it will help, but it seems to make sense at the moment. The biggest problem is that I just suck so hard at languages, but knowing that you're going to live overseas does give you more of a boost in studying. We don't want to be those expats who separate themselves into little clusters of other expats. Instead, we truly want to immerse ourselves.