At the Music Box Theatre in downtown Chicago, I had the chance to attend a screening of Scarecrow.  The movie, originally released in 1973, is directed by Jerry Schatzberg and stars Gene Hackman and Al Pacino.  The film was in 35 MM projection and is a superb dark flick that is not remembered or appreciated. Back in 1973, Scarecrow was in a competition section at the Cannes Film Festival and won the big award, the Palm d’Or (back then it was called the Golden Palm), but it shared the award with the Alan Bridge film The Hireling. Besides receiving that award, Scarecrow did not receive much attention. That is unfortunate because it is a deep and authentic drama that is essential for avid film fanatics.

The film gears on Max and Lionel (Hackman and Pacino). Max is an ex-con artist who is a drifter with a goal to save money by opening a car wash. Lionel is an ex-sailor who is homeless. Once they both get acquainted, they begin to go on the road together in hopes of finding ways to make income and start a car wash business. However, the title Scarecrow has a meaning which Lionel explains during a discussion in the movie.  However, it is important to see it in order to   understand the connection and why the film has this title.

Realism is such a critical element of Scarecrow. This film brings its audience back to the era of low technological support. The film also shows how networking was such a challenge in this time frame. There are moments where Max and Lionel hit plateaus and experience other troubles that make the goal of the car wash even more challenging than they have anticipated. Also, Max starts to resent Lionel, because he feels Lionel has no craft and is lacking in so many areas required for success. The realism with the anger and frustration brings out the harsh authenticity that Scarecrow portrays.

Given how brilliant Scarecrow is, I believe if it got the recognition it deserved, it would have led to more opportunities for the actors and people involved with the film. Hackman has said this role was his favorite, but because it was poorly recognized, it prompted him to pursue more commercialized films. While the movie got some recognition with awards and reviews, for some reason it never found an audience to help the film grow. Unfortunately, the film alone was off the grid, and not released on DVD until many years later.

Despite, the poor attention, Scarecrow is a film that is imperative for the 1970s and the film world we are in now. The film needs to be seen because of its character development, and its central conflict. The dialogue is top-notch, and viewers will sense deep feelings during this movie.  There are many films like this one I love that are also underappreciated. I am giving Scarecrow four stars.

From the opening of Birds of Prey, the audience already knows what kind of rollercoaster ride is coming their way. The film opens with our lead actress Margot Robbie (who plays Harley Quinn).  In the first twenty minutes, she narrates what crazy conflicts exist and describes what her ridiculous priorities are which include graphic violence. Robbie steals the opening act with her violent, spunky, and neurotic personality. Birds of Prey is the one film where I believe DC makes its mark as it almost rivals Marvel’s Deadpool. That is because it opens almost the same way with vulgar yet funny language, and acts of violence intended for laughs. However, Birds of Prey takes the hysterical violence to a whole different level.

The plot of Birds of Prey is gearing on life with Harley Quinn after breaking up with the Joker. Viewers are used to viewing Quinn as the villain, but in this one she is geared more on being the protagonist. She falls into a position where a wealthy and egotistical villain, Roman Sionis (played by Ewan McGregor), and his assistant Victor Zsasz (played by Chris Messina), are after a young woman named Cassandra Cain (played by Ella Jay Basco), because she has something that is worth a lot to Sionis. This puts Quinn in a position where she falls into a scenario of building up a team of other crazy ladies who include Renee Montoya (played by Rosie Perez), Helena Bertinelli/the Huntress (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and Dina Lance/Black Canary (played by Jurnee Smollett-Bell). The film becomes a ride of over-the-top, lethal, and loud violence that will make viewers laugh.

The acting by Robbie is superb and McGregor is also outstanding. However, I found that some of the violence seemed repetitive. I figured that this was done to keep the audience laughing. An example of this is there are scenes where Harley or others break people’s legs. The leg breaking is comical, but it was just repetitive. Also, I felt that the film was only gearing on breaking of body parts as a goal to keep the action going. The dialogue is top-notch, but the fighting moments are repetitive.

What grabbed my attention the most with Birds of Prey was how both Robbie and McGregor play such egotistical characters. Each had moments where they felt they had more power over the other and then it would be the other way around. That made the film interesting for me because it gave me a hint that later one character had something that the other character was not aware of, and then another catastrophic moment would come around. The film is full of surprises.

Overall, Birds of Prey goes over the top by utilizing the same acts of violence, but it’s still a funny and entertaining time for those superhero fanatics. I find that it is one of those films that DC has been needing. A film where the violence goes up many levels because that is what gives a DC movie its mark by making the intensity and realism feel dark and heavy. I am giving Birds of Prey three stars.

Nicholas Cage has been doing experimental film after experimental film, and Color Out of Space may be his most experimental one yet. He went from doing a few Blockbuster flicks to ones that have bizarre concepts. Color Out of Space is a film in which Signs (2002) is mixed with Poltergeist (1982) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial with an odd concept of horror. I found myself having fun during some moments with Color Out of Space, but also consistently wondering how hard the film is trying to seem visually grotesque with crazy sci-fi elements. I believe it is more of the film’s setting that makes it strange for its audience.

Nicholas Cage plays Nathan Gardner, the owner of a farm that is hit with a meteorite that carries revealing elements for Gardner and his family. An alien force has taken over the farm. When that happens, a variety of disasters occur causing the family to experience scary situations with the animals on the farm. And, the damage keeps on growing. Color Out of Space displays weird scenarios that are not unlike Mandy (2018). That film also starred Cage and had a similar plot, but was much more disturbing with gory violence. The current movie was also quite disturbing with alien-type revelations and unexpected jump scares.

For me, Color Out of Space seemed to be more a sci-fi thriller that needs to find its audience. I had moments where I was interested and some where I was not interested, and that is not because of the film seeming weird, but instead because the acting and writing seemed to be dry. Fortunately, the visuals are top-notch. That is important and what ultimately makes people want to watch Color Out of Space. People will watch the film more for the strange plot over the acting or the writing. This is a common type of film for Cage to do. It fits him, but it felt too much like watching Mandy all over again. Alien movies (like this one) require a certain type of audience who enjoy violence with alien attacks and lots of gore. That is what Color Out of Space consists of.

After much thought, I am going to give Color Out of Space two stars. Honestly, I like to be fair and rarely bash movies. However, this movie is close to two hours of experimentation with many ridiculous scenarios consisting of animals and people’s weird behavior, all because of a meteorite. I wish there would have been better rationale for how the conflicts evolved which is why I viewed the film to be a below average experience.