DRUNKEN ANGEL (1948)

DRUNKEN ANGEL is considered by many to be Kurosawa's "first picture" and I whole-heartedly agree.  To me, it's the first to have that complete Kurosawa feel to it.  It's also the first of 16 collaborations between Mifune and Kurosawa.  Akira's opinion on the matter: "In this picture I was finally myself.  It was my picture.  I was doing it and no one else."

The story takes place in a large city, but all of the events happen in a slum neighborhood surrounding a large foul-looking pond.  Perhaps it's a crater from the war.  Whatever it's origins, it's now a filth-filled hole full of garbage.  The water looks black and something is slowly bubbling up from underneath.  Around this disgusting cancer live thousands of people.  All going about their lives as best they can.  One such person is a doctor (played brilliantly by Takashi Shimura).  He's an alcoholic, but truly cares about people.  A drunken angel.  One night a local gangster (Toshiro Mifune) comes to him for help.  He says he has a nail in his hand.  Shimura pulls out a bullet.  From this meeting blossoms a unlikely friendship.  Shimura tells Mifune to take it easy since he believes that Mifune has tuberculosis.  At first he does, but when some gangster business comes up Mifune falls back into his old ways of partying hard and fighting hard.

There's not much action in DRUNKEN ANGEL, it mainly has to do with the characterizations and the daily lives of Mifune, Shimura and the people in their lives.  I've read about some people disliking Mifune's surreal dream scene, but I thought it was brilliant.  Reminded me a little of the main characters nightmare in LOS OLVIDADOS.

It's not a masterpiece, but it is the first of Kurosawa's truly great movies.  Highly recommended.

ROLLERCOASTER (1977)

A lone psycho is setting up small bombs at various amusement parks across the nation and if he doesn't get a million smackeroos quick he's gonna keep on doing it aaaaand...that's about the extent of the story.  The film opens with a small set-up and explosion that launches some roller coaster cars off the tracks killing a number of people.  After that, it's a strictly cat-and-mouse affair with the nameless bomber (Timothy Bottoms) using a structural engineer (George Segal) as the go between for him and the amusement park owners.  Of course, the FBI is hot on the case with agent Richard Widmark trying to apprehend the bomber.

There's really not a lot of excitement in ROLLERCOASTER, but at the same time the story just keeps on plugging along at a steady pace.  No big ups or downs, just enough drama to keep you interested.  One thing that I did find interesting was the crowd scenes of the people back in 1977.  The fashions and the way the people acted was just so foreign to me.  Everybody seemed sociable and happy.  No cell phones.  I know it's a just a movie and not a documentary, but it was still interesting.

Is ROLLERCOASTER worth watching?  If you're not into older films then probably not, but if you like classic cat-and-mouse style films then I say go for it.  Solid acting all around, nice supporting cast, quick pace, a young Steve Guttenberg and Helen Hunt, plot holes, tons of smoking, lots of telephone conversations and even a performance by Sparks.

Uncredited Steve Guttenberg.

A young Helen Hunt with Susan Strasberg.