Oct 25 2026

1969 – Midnight Cowboy

It’s an American drama directed by John Schlesinger, apparently quite faithfully adapted from the novel by James Leo Herlihy. It stars Jon Voight as Joe Buck and Dustin Hoffman as Rico “Ratso” Rizzo. It tells the story about two down-on-their-luck hustlers; one is a prostitute, the other a crippled con man. It holds the distinction to be the only Best Picture winner to be rated ‘X’ (equivalent to today’s NC-17 rating). I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

Early this year, when flying back to Berlin, we had a 14-hour layover in Newark. We took the opportunity to go to New York to show my son all the sights. Since we didn’t have much time, we had to be economical with our sightseeing. So, naturally, we went to Times Square and up the Empire State Building, and even visited the pools where the Twin Towers stood. But what I liked the most was walking the city: going into the bodegas (we had quite a bit of hand luggage and could leave it there for a small fee), stopping at an amazing bagel shop, taking the subway, and, of course, having a lunch of pizza by the slice at some dingy counter.

I love NY! It has the same qualities that make me love Berlin so much: an amalgamation of people from all over the world, each with their little quirks, wanting to “make it” in this world. A lot of them fail, creating an underworld that is scary and artful at the same time. Berlin is facing the same problems New York is facing, too: gentrification, ever-rising rents on ever-scarce land (though a lot of it is because of strange permits and zoning ordinances), corporatization, and a growing animosity towards it from people outside the city. And we just elected a leftist Muslim mayor, too. My daughter recently told me that Berliners are throwing trash on the streets and painting the walls with graffiti on purpose to keep rich Arab and Asian investors out—as if only Berliners feel good in the gritty neighborhoods.

And yet… you find some of the kindest and most lovable oafs in the city, who supposedly have an uncultured, often accented way of speaking, but honestly put their cards on the table. It’s a concrete jungle out there, and everybody is out to get theirs, but even in the underbelly, there is love. In the movie, the two protagonists end up at some Andy Warhol-esque party with a whole bunch of strange characters. Okay, so I have no idea if those types of parties exist nowadays, but they absolutely existed in the ’90s in Berlin. You ended up in some apartment having a drunk, existentialist conversation with a total stranger you were never going to see again, or you danced the night away in some basement where people set up a few boom boxes, a few chairs, and a few beer crates and called it a nightclub. Everything had a smell that was a mix of dampness and East German brown coal; the plaster on the walls was falling down, and there were some truly weird characters around. But man, was it unpretentious.

But it’s not all fun and games, and thankfully, in the morning, I did go back to my dorm. This movie shows us the underbelly of New York City in the late ’60s, far away from the glamour. There is no Copacabana or fancy Upper East Side views (this isn’t Mad Men or Mrs Maisel). Joe Buck arrives in New York escaping some harrowing events in Texas, wanting to find a rich lady for whom he can play gigolo, and utterly fails. Together with small-time crook Ratso, they survive by squatting in a condemned building, stealing from street vendors, and pawning off their last few possessions.

In between there are some views into the gritty, let’s say non-touristy, sides of New York. There are three very different encounters with repressed homosexuals in various locations, as well as scenes showing the tediousness of hustling for even the smallest things: a wash, some crackers, even a bed. All around them is a rainbow assortment of characters; Schlesinger, the gay director, depicts them so well. This movie came out just a month or two before the Stonewall Riots; that’s the kind of scene these two characters would probably visit (though they probably couldn’t afford it).

It’s amazing how well the movie holds up. A lot of it’s the amazing cinematography, how the movie plays with irony so well. I kept laughing and eyerolling in my head while the montage of Joe driving on the Greyhound through Texas with the “Everybody’s Talkin’ at Me” song. It was probably a whole lot more shocking back then, with the im- and explicit sex scenes (every HBO show now shows more). The themes of finding friendship in a cold and unfriendly city, though are Universal and I am thankful for the movie of showing New York that way. Without it, there is no Taxi Driver, no French Connection, no Dog Day Afternoon, no Saturday Night Fever. Thank you for that!

Oct 18 2026

1968 – Planet of the Apes

It’s an American science-fiction film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, loosely based on the 1963 French novel by Pierre Boule (La Planète des singes). Its main protagonist is George Taylor, played by Charlton Heston, an astronaut who lands on a planet where a simian society rules over the planet’s human-like race. I rented in on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

We are still in the transition of Hollywood in 1968, and this year we’re going into space. We are in the middle of the space race in that year; the American Apollo program is in full gear. For a while, I had set out “2001: A Space Odyssey” as my film for that year, but I had been warned that is a quiet and meditative movie and yesterday I just felt restless. So I went with this movie. It can’t be that bad if countless sequels and reboots (of which I sadly have seen none) have been made out of it, can it? Add to that the fact that I heard Charlton Heston is a jerk in the movie, even if he is the main protagonist “hero” figure. Heh, that should be interesting! I liked the self-righteous “Ben-Hur” quite a lot, but seeing him thrown off his pedestal a bit seemed intriguing.

We are still fully entrenched in the rebellious side of Hollywood. Much like the protests against the Vietnam war in real life, the themes in Hollywood kept on questioning authority and the way society has always functioned. And again, just like last year’s example of “Bonnie and Clyde“, you are along for the ride and not just critiquing from the sidelines. ome of it is funny – in one scene Taylor shaves off his beard, which had been growing for two years while in cryosleep. The older apes are disgusted, while Taylor explains that in his world it’s actually the young humans who are the ones growing beards. It’s the young nephew ape that then chimes in that he finds the smooth skin intriguing – of course, he had to go against the elders!

There are many other societal themes that get addressed in the movie: authority, religion, righteousness, society, rules, compassion, etc. Some of them resonate, some of them are exposed a bit clumsily.

So, the execution is clumsy, the acting is wooden, and the costuming is ridiculous. Add to that the seeming contradiction in the depiction of women (which added to the prick personality of Taylor): for example, there is the female astronaut commander, respected by at least one of the crew members, but whom Taylor reduces to an Eve who is supposed to carry on the human species. On the planet itself, we have Dr. Zira, a renowned psychologist and veterinarian specializing in the study of humans – she then gets constantly denigrated by Dr. Zaius, the minister of science and chief defender of the faith, underlining the strict patriarchal society (they may be advanced, but they are still sexist apes). And don’t get me started on Linda Harrison’s Nova character, a mute human who is supposed to be the mating partner for Taylor. I can only shake my head at the “noble savage” story they’re going for there.

But then… the movie is thoroughly entertaining. Its message is overt, but subtle enough not to be preachy. I had a great time watching the movie, and it is not for nothing that it became a juggernaut of a franchise. Its sequel came out only 2 years later and it led the way in changing the way Hollywood operated. In the past, sequels were considered B-movies, so of lower quality and interest, with no expectation of critical acclaim (think of the Tarzan, Frankenstein, etc. franchises). This movie changed that dynamic and paved the way for other science fiction blockbuster franchises, such as Star Wars.

Add to that the ending of the movie, which by now has been overly spoiled in general culture (think of the vacuum lady in Spaceballs, for example), but then supposedly packed such a punch, that it left the audiences flabbergasted. Before, it was a slight adventurous sci-fi movie with power inversion themes, the ending felt devastating, an apt critique about the human greed, evil and destructive tendencies.

Oct 4 2026

1967 – Bonnie and Clyde

It’s an American biographical and gangster film directed by Arthur Penn and produced by Warren Beatty. It stars Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty in the titular Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow roles. They are outlaws who roam the Depression-era South robbing banks and convenience stores together with others. It ushered in the era of New Hollywood, a more gritty, but honest form of cinema with self-auteur (away from the studio system and the Hays Code), morally ambiguous main characters and bleak or unresolved endings. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

It’s time for another gangster movie and for yet another tonal shift in movie types. I had already commented on the earnestness of 50s type movies appealing to the better angels of our nature to the cynicism of the early 60s that made fun of the system often in biting satire. Well, now it’s time for showing the dirty parts of life, still cynical, but now you are taking part, riding shotgun instead of having a God’s-eye view over the bad parts of the system. Bonnie and Clyde represents that part of seeking freedom and fame during the Great Depression.

In the beginning, it seems glamorous. That shot of Faye Dunaway posing with a cigar and a gun in front of a car is one for the ages. It looks so stylish, she is dressed so fine, you want that too. Warren Beatty is so easy on the eyes, with his amazing suits accentuating his body. But then the movie very quickly transports you to the reality of what it means to live on the lam: sleeping in dirty cars or run-down accommodations, crawling out of iffy situations through muddy fields or lakes, killing people… Just like other gangster movies, the glamour is unceremoniously unveiled as grueling and unforgiving. And yet, you feel for them when Bonnie’s mother says goodbye to her, she suddenly seems so young. She starts talking of starting over, true regret in her eyes, she suddenly regrets being famous, even though she writes herself a poem.

Well, but did I feel it? The style of the movie is great. Those chase scenes really paved the way towards other movies, like the chase scene in Thelma and Louise. But much like other New Hollywood movies, which this one and The Graduate kicked off the movement, it is very boomerish in its depiction of yearning for freedom. I am sorry to say it, but Boomers do have the reputation of being self-involved. Their self-actualization comes before issues of the greater good. In the movie, they are partially magnanimous towards poor people, but their satisfaction comes first. My boomer teachers had us reading “The Catcher in the Rye” for school, I found Holden to be a whiny, privileged hypocrite, who complained about the phoniness of others while lying to others constantly. Our teachers also had us watching “Easy Rider” which I found so boring, their ideas of freedom being so selfish. It’s what I love about our current GenZ so much, they often do think in communal terms about the greater good.

Now part of it is circumstantial, Boomers didn’t have the greatest role models and were born into a rigid society, so a certain rebelliousness is understandable. But Penn tries to tie these themes to the Great Depression, so the juxtaposition of that boomer style with 30s downtrodden America is a bit jarring. The constant cuts and fast editing make you feel like you are yanked back and forth constantly into joy and despair, which is on purpose, but not very nice. Add to that its famous ending, which sort of leaves you aghast and unsatisfied – what was it all for? And that is what the movie left me, sad. Not feeling sorry for those criminals, they did kill so many cops, after all, just sad at the circumstances.

Sep 20 2026

1966 – The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

It is the classic spaghetti western epic (meaning it was written and produced by Italians and typically shot in Europe). It was directed by Sergio Leone and stars Clint Eastwood as “the Good”, Lee Van Cleef as “the Bad”, and Eli Wallach as “the Ugly”. Its story is original, written by Leone and one of his writers, Luciano Vincenzoni. There are many unique aspects to this movie, but one special standout is its music by Ennio Morricone. I rented it on Apple TV for €3.99. Incidentally, in Germany, this movie is called “Zwei glorreiche Halunken”, which roughly translates to “Two glorious bastards” — huh? Did the translator simply drop one of the key ingredients present in the original title?

Movie poster for 'Il Buono, Il Brutto, Il Cattivo' directed by Sergio Leone, featuring three main characters in cowboy attire.

When I was 8 years old, my parents took me to see “The Mission“; they had to really fight to let me enter with them, as it’s not a kids’ movie at all. There are a few images in my mind here and there, but I don’t really remember much of the movie anymore. What really stayed with me, and I recall it immediately like it was yesterday, was the amazing musical score that accompanied the film. I already mentioned somewhere in the blog being introduced to “Cinema Paradiso” by my dad. In the final scene where the protagonist watches all the cut kisses, that score that has been in the background all along starts to swell up and begs the tears on your face to flow, flow, flow – how can some kitchy kisses from movies make you cry so much? That is the mastery of Ennio Morricone! Before Hans Zimmer and Ludwig Göransson, even before John Williams “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” defined score. Where you hear a few notes and are immediately transported into the movie. Parodied, copied, emulated, incorporated – he was the trailblazer.

So, it wasn’t a hard decision to choose which movie I would see for 1966. Why not the one that made him famous? Well, I have already discussed my reluctance toward Westerns, and this movie is 3 hours long, so I was a bit scared going into it. Part of it was wrong expectations: I really thought Clint Eastwood was going to be a caricature of “good”, the noble cowboy somehow fighting against the very good-looking “bad” character. It turned out that all three characters are some shade of gray (though Angel Eyes, “the Bad” is a scary character like Anton Chigurh in “No Country For Old Men“); there were no pure good guys here.

I actually liked that it poked fun at the nobleness portrayed in movies just a decade prior. There is that 1960s cynicism that keeps repeating, contrasting itself with the aspirations of the 1950s. I just never thought it would also translate to Westerns. The anti-war message about the senselessness of fighting over a bridge, for example, hits especially hard when one thinks that two years later in 1968, the Americans would pursue exactly that strategy in Vietnam: fighting over a hill with enormous casualties only to let it go later.

Three men facing each other in a dusty setting with mountains in the background, suggesting a tense standoff.

And then the movie also looks so damn good. From a technical aspect, you can really appreciate how well they coped. Does your “western town” movie set look dilapidated and poorly built due to budget constraints? No worries. We’ll just say it was marred by the Civil War passing back and forth through this town, with the Yanks and the Confederates taking it over. Add to that, it is really well portrayed. I don’t know how to describe it, but the movie is incredibly cinematic. It shows a close-up right at the exact moment when I thought, “Ah, now it’s time for a close-up!”, perfectly highlighting how scary somebody is or how much they want to redeem themselves. Perfect timing throughout! Even though it’s an epic, I didn’t feel like it lost a beat or meandered around.

So yes, come for the music and stay for a really good time. The climax features a tense three-way shootout between the titular characters — who will come out on top? I won’t reveal it, but my heart rooted for “the Ugly” the whole time!

P.S.: This review was supposed to come out already last Sunday, but I was quite sick a few days ago. So sometime in October I will have to do 2 Sundays in a row again, so that I finish with 25 movies by the end of the year.

Jun 22 2026

1961 – The Children’s Hour

It’s a psychological drama produced and directed by William Wyler (oh, hello again) with a screenplay by John Michael Hayes, based on the 1934 play of the same title by Lillian Hellman, which itself is inspired by a real case in 1810 that happened to two ladies running a school in Scotland. It stars Audrey Hepburn as Karen and Shirley MacLaine as Martha who run a girls school and find themselves in social and financial ruin after a student accuses them of engaging in a lesbian relationship. I saw it on YouTube here.

Sorry, I am a day late. I was on a little family trip and World Cup is on, so my interests are with that for the moment, hehe. I was even contemplating whether to just skip a week, but since I did watch this movie last night, I count it as being on time. Looking back, it would’ve coincided with June 28th better as it’s the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, but hey, all of June is Pride Month! Choosing this movie was fairly random, it seemed interesting, I liked both actresses, was not in the mood for a Samurai Kurosawa movie (Yojimbo) and weirdly I have seen a lot of 1961 movies.

So the premise of the movie is fairly simple to tell: a reckless student in an all-girls boarding school accuses the two women who run it of having a romantic relationship and the repercussions that scandalous accusation bring. You know how often we say that children should rule the world, then it would be a better place? Nah, children are the worst, because they often have no idea how bad the consequences of their actions are. Here this kid, who is like 12-13 thoroughly destroys the lives of two women just out of spite, because she didn’t want to be punished for her lies. She manipulates her fellow students with blackmail and fully gaslights her grandmother into her evil story.

I liked the premise very much. It offered so many possibilities. It fully passes the Bechdel test, lol. Unfortunately, the movie has two flaws that take somebody completely out of it.

(a) it’s so badly acted – everybody is running around screaming and whaling their intentions to each other in such a dramatic way. James Gardner, who plays Karen’s love interested even sings his lines in that typical “Hey, I’m acting” way. Horrible, it took me out of the movie. The only person that saves the movie is Audrey Hepburn, with the quiet hurt, but also dignity that she can convey in her eyes. It really saved the movie. The rest of the cast (yes, even Shirley MacLaine, as much as it pains me to write this) is horrible.

(b) Oh the melodrama! I really didn’t know if it was supposed to be camp, but they sure didn’t present it that way. Rather than quietly explore something of what could’ve been, it’s just a bunch of howling and shrieking that leads to a very disappointing ending, even for 1961 and especially for 2026 – it’s just too Hays coded. Man, how far we have come!

Glad I watched it, but unfortunately, it didn’t speak to me, precisely because it wasn’t brave enough to really tackle the subject.

Tanya's Astro Blog

Tag Archives: movie-reviews