Blog Directory CineVerse: July 2026

There will be film analysis (and some blood)

Wednesday, July 29, 2026

What’s the better film from 2007: There Will Be Blood, or No Country For Old Men? For many, not only is the former superior, but it’s ranked in their minds as perhaps the best movie of the 2000s or – for that matter – the 21st century thus far.

Released in late December of that year and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, There Will Be Blood is a historical drama set during the Southern California oil boom that follows the ruthless and misanthropic oil tycoon Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) as he ruthlessly builds his fortune, clashing fiercely with the charismatic local preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Along his path of capitalistic greed and psychological decay, Plainview navigates relationships with his adopted son and business partner H.W. Plainview (played as a child by Dillon Freasier and as an adult by Russell Harvard), a man claiming to be his long-lost half-brother Henry Brands (Kevin J. O'Connor), and business associate Fletcher Hamilton (Ciarán Hinds).

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of There Will Be Blood, conducted last week, click here.


The sheer strength of Day-Lewis’ performance as Daniel Plainview elevates this from a good to a great film in immeasurable ways. As Robert De Niro did in Raging Bull – masterfully portraying a thoroughly detestable character – Day-Lewis inhabits this personality so completely and makes him so unique with distinctive touches and fascinating traits that everything else, including the plot, takes secondary priority to the viewer.

“Day-Lewis mesmerizingly embodies the character with a gruff hardness that can be gleaned in his calculating eyes, his contemptuously deliberate comportment, and his semi-condescending tone with all those he speaks to. His oil baron is at once upfront about who he is and yet willing, when the situation suits him, to bend the truth in service of attaining what he wants, a bastard alternately honest and devious whose bullheaded determination is amplified by Day-Lewis’s rigorously controlled—and yet somehow still wildly unpredictable—modulation of expression and action,” wrote Slant Magazine reviewer Nick Schager.

The actor seems to invoke the voice and cadence of the late director/actor John Huston, particularly Huston’s performance as Noah Cross in Chinatown; Huston was also the director of Treasure of the Sierra Madre, which Anderson studied extensively while making this film, citing it as a major influence.

The score by Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood pulses with dread and throbs with an undulating tension that orchestrates Plainview’s success-at-all-costs ruthlessness. It’s a decidedly nontraditional, avant-garde soundtrack that plays during moments both expected and unexpected.

The cinematography is exquisite – With most scenes shot outdoors on a massive ranch in Marfa, West Texas, by Robert Elswit, who won the Oscar that year for Best Cinematography.

Pay close attention, and you’ll realize that there is virtually nothing spoken for the first 20 minutes of the movie; yet this introductory section – in which we see Plainview shift from struggling silver prospector to fledgling wildcatter – is as riveting as it is efficient in showcasing exactly what kind of a man he is.

So, what’s it all about? Essentially, Blood is concerned with the exploitative power of two major pillars of America: capitalism and religion. There Will Be Blood depicts how oil men and robber barons like Plainview, as well as false prophets like Sunday, driven by ruthless determination and greedy ambition, fleeced people to increase their wealth and power. Daniel uses his adopted son as a prop to convey a more family-friendly image, and demonstrates little empathy when his workers are killed. The film repeatedly compares and contrasts these two forces, embodied in Plainview and Sunday, and demonstrates how their manipulative tactics, duplicity, arrogance, and quest for control overlap. (Recall symbolic imagery like the oil smeared on the infant’s forehead as if the baby was religiously anointed.) Yet Daniel continually dominates Eli, suggesting that capitalism was and remains the more potent force in shaping America.

We’re also reminded how absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is a cautionary narrative about the price you pay for success and valuing money and power over human beings. The more wealth and influence Plainview commands, the more corrosive, competitive, and dehumanized he becomes, to the point where he devolves into an outspoken figure who spews hatred, burns bridges with loved ones, and commits murder with no remorse. And a worsening alcoholism and purposeful alienation from the outside world fuel his loathsome actions.

Deceit and duplicity abound in PTA’s magnum opus. Daniel, Eli, and Henry present themselves as people they are not, projecting a façade of likeability and altruism to the gullible around them and profiting from their charade. There’s even a possibility that Paul and Eli—presumably twin brothers—are actually the same person.

Reflect, too, on how the film explores the drawbacks of the Nietzschean ideal. Daniel personifies Nietzschean philosophy, weaponizing his will to shatter moral boundaries and fuel an unconstrained ambition fueled solely by capitalism, completely bypassing the moral boundaries of religion. Per Deep Focus Review essayist Brian Eggert: “Plainview despises morals as signs of weakness. And though his ambition leaves him misanthropic and achingly lonely, his overarching desire for a pointedly American symbol of success, namely oil and the isolationist comforts it affords, circumvents all else.”

The film exposes the fatal flaw in this worldview by stripping Daniel of all genuine human connection, leaving him isolated, bitter, and spiritually hollow inside a massive, lifeless estate. His violent, unhinged breakdown at the climax proves that sacrificing empathy and morality in pursuit of absolute conquest ultimately yields total self-destruction rather than true victory.

Similar works

  • Oil!, a novel by Upton Sinclair
  • Citizen Kane (1941)
  • Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
  • Giant (1956)
  • 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Other films by Paul Thomas Anderson

  • Boogie Nights (1997)
  • Magnolia (1999)
  • Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
  • The Master (2012)
  • Phantom Thread (2017)
  • Licorice Pizza (2021)
  • One Battle After Another (2025)

Read more...

Discover the astounding animated anomaly that is Anomalisa

Thursday, July 23, 2026

If your mature mind occasionally craves some anti-Pixar programming, take a detour down Charlie Kaufman and Duke Johnson’s 2015 rabbit hole Anomalisa. This thought-provoking stop-motion adult animated comedy-drama follows Michael Stone (voiced by David Thewlis), a depressed, middle-aged customer service expert who perceives every person he encounters as identical in appearance and voice. Still, his monotonous reality is upended during a business trip in Cincinnati when he meets Lisa Hesselman (Jennifer Jason Leigh), an insecure and ordinary woman whom he perceives as uniquely special, prompting him to escape into a brief, transformative romance.

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Anomalisa, conducted last week, click here.


The choice to film this as stop motion with marionette puppets is curious; Anomalisa could have been a live-action film using ample digital effects to homogenize the faces of all the other characters besides Michael and Lisa, but co-directors Kaufman and Johnson opted to adapt the former’s shorter 2005 audio play into an animated adult feature film. The advantage of using stop-motion animation is that the characters truly look like interchangeable puppets (which they are), which plays into the story’s thematic elements; even the limitations of old-school marionettes—like a visibly hinged jaw—remain, which they could have digitally erased.

“Whereas live-action mimesis might have muted the characters’ distinguishing traits – Michael’s slumped gait, the half-curtain of mousy hair hiding Lisa’s facial disfigurement – the puppets’ movements invite anthropological scrutiny. The distancing effect of the animation limits subjective identification with the characters while heightening audience awareness of the film’s social and sexual dynamics,” opined BFI critic Graham Fuller. Additionally, avoiding live-action actors and easily identifiable celebrity voices allows us to become better immersed in this eerie, offbeat world without getting distracted by overfamiliar elements.

Anomalisa lingers long on mundane, everyday actions, unfolding often in real time as we follow Michael through a predictable first act of arriving at his destination, checking into the hotel, and going through the motions. This is the thinnest of plots, but it forces us to pay attention to the smallest details.

Interestingly, this boasts one of the most moving and credible sex scenes in any film ever made, which is ironic, considering it's stop-motion animation. The dialogue is excellent in this sequence, and the behaviors of the characters are realistic and plausible. Indeed, Anomalisa proves that eye-catching animation is not limited to family fare alone; it can be made for and appreciated solely by the grownups. (This was actually nominated for a Best Animated Feature Oscar, being the first R-rated animated movie in this category.)

We quickly discern that this is a narrative about disconnection and alienation from fellow human beings. Michael sees others as blandly similar, non-distinct beings who fail to excite him because they look and sound alike. He suffers from a myopia fueled by depression and an insular, self-absorbed worldview that limits his capacity for empathy.

“Kaufman is nearly without peer in simulating the biological sensations of depression, particularly the numbness, the tastelessness, as well as the conviction that nothing worth experiencing is capable of happening to you. This formal mercilessness is essential to lowering the audience’s guard for the unexpected tenderness of the film’s big scene: Michael meeting (Lisa),” wrote Slant critic Chuck Bowen.

His callous disregard for others’ feelings is evidenced by how, the morning after he has enjoyed transcendent intimacy with Lisa, he curtly criticizes her eating habits; how he inappropriately gives his young son a sex toy (did the semen-like liquid come from Michael himself?), and the way he insensitively reopens old wounds with past lover Bella.

This is a midlife crisis of individuation and identity experienced by many males, one that threatens to suck all the joy out of Michael’s existence. He struggles to find uniqueness in a homogenized world and connect with others, choosing to hide behind a mask and perceiving that others are doing the same thing.

To his credit, Michael can see beyond the flaws and faults of others; he bonds with Lisa, finding her distinctive personality and physical scars appealing because they distinguish her from the rest of the pack. But he seems doomed to repeat a cycle of relationship futility. Apparently, his dysfunctional pattern is to rush headlong into a relationship but quickly lose interest once the initial thrill is gone.

One theory bandied about on social media is that Lisa is not a real person but rather a psychological projection manifested from the antique Japanese doll Michael buys earlier in the film; it’s a conjecture supported by a web of subtle clues – ranging from her identical facial scar and the pre-taped nature of her singing to the inexplicable absence of cleanup after their unrealistic sex scene and the doll's final, haunting Japanese refrain. But that doesn’t perfectly align with the end scene, in which we see Lisa’s older blonde co-worker with a different and presumably realistic appearance (she looked more like the homogenous faces in the crowd earlier, proof that Michael wasn’t recognizing her true self), as evidence that Lisa and the co-worker are real; this is the only scene not from Michael’s POV and a tell that the hotel affair was not all in his imagination. But, like other creative works of oblique cinema, Anomalisa is open to multiple interpretations.

Similar works

  • Mary and Max (2009), a bittersweet, melancholy animated feature about two incredibly lonely, eccentric pen pals forming a life-saving bond
  • Her (2013), a live-action look at a lonely man seeking a genuine, warm connection in an increasingly sterile, detached world
  • My Life as a Zucchini (2016), a beautifully mature, emotional stop-motion film about orphans dealing with grief and finding belonging
  • The Wolf House (2018), a surreal, deeply unsettling stop-motion nightmare using shifting physical materials to evoke psychological trauma
  • Chico & Rita (2010), a cel-animated film that features highly sensual, explicit love scenes and a mature, complex portrayal of infidelity and heartache
  • Perfect Blue (1997), which deals with intense psychological stalking, identity breakdown, and highly graphic, disturbing scenes of sexual violence
  • Memoir of a Snail (2024), a picture that explores heavy, devastating themes of profound grief, trauma, hoarding, and severe emotional abuse
  • Waking Life (2001), a rotoscope-animated film that focuses on complex, heavy philosophical discussions about existential dread, free will, and the meaning of death
  • Flee (2021), which covers mature, real-world themes of refugee trauma, survivor's guilt, and navigating one's sexuality under threat of persecution

Other films written by Charlie Kaufman

  • Being John Malkovich (1999)
  • Human Nature (2001)
  • Adaptation (2002)
  • Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)
  • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
  • Synecdoche, New York (2008, his sole directorial effort)

Read more...

The films that changed us forever

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Earlier this month, our CineVerse group gathered for another quarterly Freeform Wednesday. This time around, the topic was "The movies that changed us forever": films that changed our lives in a meaningful way, altered our destinies somehow, or had a profound effect on the way we view cinema and/or the world. Our discussion covered different angles, including when we each viewed these particular films, the ideas and emotions each picture generated, and examples of how the experience of watching it or reflecting on it was a game-changer. 

To listen to this recording of our group discussion, click here.

Read more...

Cineversary podcast celebrates 90th birthday of Swing Time

Tuesday, July 14, 2026

Brian Seibert and George Stevens Jr.
In Cineversary podcast episode #96, host ⁠Erik J. Martin⁠ commemorates the 90th anniversary of Swing Time, directed by George Stevens. Joining him on the dance floor is Brian Seibert, a renowned dance critic for The New York Times and author of the book What the Eye Hears: A History of Tap Dancing; and George Stevens Jr., son of the Swing Time director and founder of the American Film Institute. Together, they’ll examine why Swing Time is a cut above in the fancy footwork department, what elevates this material above other Fred and Ginger films, the exceptional songcraft on display, and much more.

To listen to this episode, click here or click the "play" button on the embedded streaming player below. Or, you can stream, download, or subscribe to Cineversary wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Learn more about the Cineversary podcast at www.cineversary.com and email show comments or suggestions to cineversarypodcast@gmail.com

Read more...

Fred and Ginger's finest moment

Thursday, July 9, 2026

The swing era of rhythmic jazz played by the big bands was in full swing by the mid-1930s. But the creative forces behind the film Swing Time must not have received the memo. That’s because this George Stevens-directed musical comedy, released in late summer 1936, eschews that increasingly popular musical style of the era and instead emphasizes a Great American Songbook score composed by the legendary songwriting team of Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields. But one element that wasn’t falsely advertised was the scintillating on-screen dancing of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers.

In case you care about the plot, it concerns John "Lucky" Garnett (Astaire), a talented tap dancer and gambler who travels to New York City to earn $25,000 to prove his worthiness to his wealthy fiancée back home, Margaret Watson (Betty Furness). However, complications arise when Lucky falls deeply in love with Penny Carroll (Rogers), a charming dance academy instructor he accidentally meets on the street. Together, Lucky and Penny form a sensational professional dance duo, navigating standard romantic misunderstandings, a jealous bandleader rival named Ricardo Romero (Georges Metaxa), and comedic mishaps alongside Lucky's loyal sidekick, Pop Cardetti (Victor Moore), and Penny's cynical friend, Mabel Anderson (Helen Broderick).

To listen to a recording of our CineVerse group discussion of Swing Time, conducted last week, click here.


This is often ranked as the finest of the Astaire-Rogers films, and for good reason: It showcases perhaps their very best dancing to possibly the greatest repertoire of songs in any of their 10 pictures together. And the eyes don’t lie—Many believe Fred and Ginger have never looked better together, both on the dance floor and as romantic partners.

Roger Ebert, who included Swing Time in his Great Movies essay series, wrote: “What Fred and Ginger had together, and what no other team has ever had in the same way, was a joy of performance. They were so good, and they knew they were so good, that they danced in celebration of their gifts…They brought such grace and humor that they became the touchstone of all things elegant…The chemistry between Fred and Ginger was not simply erotic, but intellectual and physical: They were two thoroughbreds who could dance better than anyone else, and knew it.” Dance critic Brian Seibert called it “the best dance film ever made because of the way that dance is integrated into the film.”

And Imogen Sara Smith maintains that, “Of all the films Astaire and Rogers made together, Swing Time does the best job of integrating music and dance into a credible story.” She particularly praises Rogers' work in this film. “She has the universal traits of the thirties working girl: she is wised-up, suspicious, and implacably sensible. And this is precisely why Fred needs her: Ginger is his ballast. Without her, he might float off into the empyrean, loosed of all ties to earth. His temperament is as airy as his physical presence; in each film, before meeting Rogers, he is carefree…she bursts his bubble and gives him something to work for. Rogers’s physicality likewise matches her character…Her opposition and eventual surrender play out in her spine and shoulders, which go from taut to melting; her body is as expressive as it is breathtakingly lovely.”

Swing Time boasts six unforgettable songs, most set to brilliant dancing, and each a showstopper in its own right. The fun starts with Pick Yourself Up, a polka tempo tune that gets the couple’s feet moving and our toes tapping with its uplifting message and exuberant stepping. It’s also the most down-to-earth and relatable, featuring dancing that’s no less graceful or impressive than any of the formalwear numbers that follow.

Next, we hear the familiar strains of an all-time classic melody that earned the movie its single Academy Award, for Best Song, and became Astaire’s biggest hit on the music charts: The Way You Look Tonight, a foxtrot featuring Astaire singing solo.

The wordless Waltz in Swing Time oozes elegance and grace in three-quarter time, with Astaire’s tap shoes punctuating the pageantry and Ginger’s puffy-sleeved, ruffled-skirted gown satiating our senses. The eternally hummable A Fine Romance, a quickstep sung but not danced by the duet amid falling snowflakes, comments on the twosome’s iffy relationship with cleverly caustic lyrics.

As cringeworthy and socioculturally dated as it is today due to Astaire appearing in blackface, Bojangles of Harlem is actually an eye-popping sequence brimming with arresting visuals and syncopated symmetry involving 24 female performers moving in perfect step with Astaire (at one point he’s dancing with all of them at one time, stacked in a straight but oscillating line) before shifting to a wowzer-for-its-time trick photography tour de force in which Fred dances with three gigantic shadows of himself.

Then, topping all the other tunes for emotional impact and visual elegance, we get Never Gonna Dance, an artfully evergreen Art Deco spectacle that begins by presenting Astaire in lone voice mode, shot from a high angle as he laments their seemingly doomed romance, and which proves the song’s title as truthful in the moment. Eventually, the lyrics stop, and the exceptionally fancy footwork begins, bringing us the last of Swing Time’s three duet dances and closing out the picture in grand style with a cornucopia of dance styles—from balletic glides and lunging tilts to acrobatic adagio lifts and rapid-fire spins.

Like the five earlier Astaire-Rogers pictures, Swing Time continues a relatively new tradition of departing from theatrical staging-style musicals common in the early 1930s. This approach completely deviated from the standard "front-row center" stage perspective and the massive, geometric chorus girl spectacles popularized by Busby Berkeley. Instead of framing musical numbers as static stage routines performed for an in-universe audience, Stevens and Astaire integrated the dances seamlessly into the narrative itself, utilizing more fluid camera movement and tracking shots. Astair insisted that the camera capture the full bodies of the dancers (head to toe) in single, uninterrupted shots, with as few edits as possible, to preserve the beauty and integrity of the performances. Stevens moved the camera horizontally with the dancers as they moved and avoided cutaways or close-ups of faces or feet. The goal was to create a more intimate, three-dimensional, and naturalistic world than the proscenium arch of a live theater allowed.

Swing Time also marked somewhat of a change in Astaire’s choreographic style. In some instances, it melds his trademark rhythmic tap dancing with the sweeping, graceful lines of classical ballet and the expressivity of modern dance to fashion a sophisticated stylistic pastiche. Earlier Astaire pictures often emphasized traditional ballroom steps and straightforward tap routines, but here, numbers like Waltz in Swing Time and Never Gonna Dance incorporate balletic pirouettes, elongated extensions, and fluid, dramatic movements. Astaire and his dance director collaborator Hermes Pan wanted to expand the grammar of cinematic dancing beyond tap alone to better convey profound yearning and romantic tension.

Also, the songs in Swing Time aren’t one-offs or sung soliloquies siloed off from the story. The lyrics are more conversational and attuned to the narrative and the romantic dynamics, helping to advance or inform Lucky and Penny’s relationship.

Unlike earlier Astaire-Rogers collaborations, which often depict primarily European fantasy worlds populated by wealthy characters in fancy attire amid wall-to-wall lavish settings, Swing Time is set in America and was and is more relatable to audiences. It better taps into the fact that this is a contemporary story set during the Great Depression. Lucky and Pop are broke and must steal aboard a train and use pluck and impromptu resourcefulness to earn money, keep a roof over their heads, and win their love interests.

Notably, Swing Time tests our patience but also builds our eager anticipation for eurhythmics by allowing 28 minutes to pass before the first full dance number commences.

Unlike so many other cinematic pairings between Fred and Ginger, Swing Time shines thanks to savvy oversight by Stevens, a quality director known for imbuing comedic flourishes (and famous by this time for helming memorable light comedies, romance pictures, and character studies. He ended up directing a handful of masterworks in a variety of genres over his career, including Gunga Din (1939), Woman of the Year (1942), A Place in the Sun (1950), Shane (1953), and Swing Time—one of only two musicals in his filmography). We watch Swing Time for the dancing, but this is a Fred and Ginger picture you don’t have to fast forward through to get to the good parts because it’s packed with plenty of jokes, comedic callbacks, and mirthful meet-cutes in between, which this filmmaker would have prioritized. While we may not care much about the formulaic narrative or the love quadrangle, Stevens and company infuse Swing Time with jocular joy and needed laughs that still mostly land after 90 years.

The casting of Victor Moore as Pop does quite a bit of the heavy lifting in the humor department, as this fretful and maladroit sidekick gets some of the best lines and amusing interplays with other side characters. What also helps propel the comedy is a series of running gags, including Pop’s shifty card tricks, pantless protagonists, the losing and breaking of coins and currency, and, most memorably, Lucky and Penny continually being interrupted from kissing (fans would actually never see them lock lips until two years later in their eighth film). The second-best joke occurs when the police officer asks Pop to repeat what he apparently muttered under his breath, to which Pop replies, "Look out for the great big ditch” (“ditch,” of course, rhymes with or can be mistaken for other common single-syllable profanities).

For many, the funniest bit is when Lucky arrives at the house of his fiancée but is greeted by the painted portrait of a frowning family patriarch, a growling dog, and a hissing cat; after impressing Dad with his capitalistic savvy, the portrait suddenly smiles, the dog wags his tail, and the cat sidles up to Lucky’s leg in purring approval.

Swing Time has screwball sensibilities, and it’s also replete with comedic ironies: Lucky initially pretending to Penny that he has two left feet, him singing about her lovely appearance at an unlovely moment for her in mid-hair wash, and the fact that he’s a richer man with a lucky Penny than his lucky quarter. (Let’s also not forget the irony built into the film’s misleading title.)

Stevens was also known as a meticulous craftsman who notched many retakes to get the perfect scene, an ethos that meshed with Astaire’s obsessive perfectionism. They did more than 48 takes of the Never Gonna Dance sequence, according to Ginger Rogers, who suffered bleeding feet after so much dancing. This director was also enamored with Americana and stories like Swing Time that depicted the pursuit of the American Dream.

Let’s address the elephant in the room: the Bojangles of Harlem blackface number. Today, it’s deeply upsetting to see any white actor of any bygone era wearing greasepaint to make themselves look Black. This dated and distasteful imagery strikes a raw nerve, especially for African-Americans, because minstrel performers were typically condescending and denigrating of Black people, attempting to imitate or mock their appearance, culture, and mannerisms in exaggerated ways that reinforced harmful racial stereotypes.

However, what may be different about the Bojangles of Harlem sequence compared to so many other minstrel numbers in old movies is that some believe Astaire was attempting to reverently honor the talents and legacy of two African-American dance greats: Bill Bojangles Robinson, a pioneering African-American tap dancer who achieved massive nationwide popularity from the 1910s through the 1930s as a premier headliner in Vaudeville, on Broadway, and in major Hollywood films; and John Bubbles, dubbed the Father of Rhythm Tap and one of Astaire’s former teachers.

While it doesn’t lessen the blow, note that Astaire’s greasepaint isn’t as dark as was common in minstrel shows of the time, and he doesn’t accentuate his lips to further that racial caricature. Also, half of his female dance partners in the scene are wearing black outfits while the other half are wearing white, which could intentionally suggest intercultural unity and racial integration.

Nevertheless, it’s understandable for people of any color to be offended today by the presence of a blackface scene in Swing Time, and it must be acknowledged that this is a mark against the film that hampers its universal and evergreen appeal.

Flaws aside, Swing Time’s most lasting benefaction is that it reminds us of the transcendent power and enduring allure of the dance, an art form that, like a phoenix rising from the ashes, modern cinema occasionally revisits (with Chicago, The Artist, and La La Land as prominent examples in this century) to remind us that human beings practiced in the skill of moving rhythmically to music and shifting their fleet feet to the beat are eminently watchable. A world where Astaire and Rogers make heavenly hoofing look easy and attainable is a world I want to continue to live in, even if it’s merely a 103-minute monochrome fantasy that’s as antique and extinct as a Duesenberg or a double eagle coin. The way you look tonight, Ginger and Fred, is the way you’ll look every night in my memory: lithe and effervescent, dazzling and dapper, ever defiant of gravity and the ravages of time. 

Swing Time is preserved in the Library of Congress's prestigious National Film Registry for its cultural and aesthetic significance and ranks #90 on the American Film Institute’s (AFI) 100 Years...100 Movies list from 2007. The Oscar-winning ballad The Way You Look Tonight slotted #43 on the AFI’s greatest songs list, and the film was also named in Entertainment Weekly’s 100 Greatest Movies list. Additionally, Swing Time earns a 93% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 8.9 out of 10 critical score vs. a 91 out of 100 Metascore on Metacritic. 

Read more...

Unexpected noir from afar

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

Directed and written by Kaneto Shindō, Onibaba (1964) is set in 14th century feudal Japan during a time of civil war. The film follows the harrowing lives of two unnamed women — an older female (Nobuko Otowa) and her daughter-in-law (Jitsuko Yoshimura) — who survive by murdering passing samurai and foot soldiers and selling their belongings to Ushi, a black market trader. Their precarious existence is disrupted when a neighbor, Hachi (Kei Satō), returns from the war and forms a lustful relationship with the younger woman, creating swelling tension and, in her mother-in-law, overpowering jealousy. 

Yet, despite being a masterful blend of folk horror, psychological thriller, and Jidaigeki period drama, Onibaba cannot escape the long shadow of classic film noir. But is it a noir or not?  That's the question I attempt to answer in a Noir City magazine article that recently published, available here.

Read more...

  © Blogger template Cumulus by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP