On September 19 I saw "The Plot Against Harry." It was projected using a 35mm film reel and the film was restored into 4K picture quality. The picture and sound quality were terrific, almost as if the film was made and released recently. I counted a total of eight people, including myself, in the auditorium. You could hear lots of laughs, the movie was pretty darn funny. Once it ended, I had to visit the bathroom, and two of the guys from my screening were also in there discussing the film. They compared it positively to "Uncut Gems" and "The Sopranos;" the movie was about a Jewish mobster, after all. I made "The Sopranos" connection personally while watching, but didn't identify "Uncut Gems," but it made sense once I heard it.
There weren't any special guests or Q&As regarding the film, even while being at an indie theater. The reason I think it was this way is because from my understanding this film has sort of become obscure in this day and age. Looking at the film on Letterboxd, it has just over a thousand viewers. For reference, the most seen movie on the website is Bong's 2019 film "Parasite" which is nearing three million total viewers. In comparison, it has a mere 408 viewers on IMDb. No single cast member from it has more than five film credits, and I personally never have heard of the director, Michael Roemer, or any of his films, although some of his other work seems compelling and I'd like to check it out. I think this is honestly the most interesting thing about the movie, how under the radar it seems for not just me, but pretty much wherever I can find it online. The biggest shout I can seem to find was that both Wes Anderson and Roger Ebert praised the film some time ago, however that's about where it ends. Despite it being very obscure and hard to find, I'd recommend anyone who gets a chance to check this one out.
The aspect that stuck out to me the most was the performances, namely the film's leading man, Martin Priest, who portrays the titular Harry Plotnick. As I said, nobody in the film seems to be a star, which perplexes me because Priest gives a terrific comedic performance, using deadpan delivery to his advantage, which made me and several other audience members laugh to ourselves on multiple occasions throughout the film's short, but sweet runtime. This isn't to say the other cast doesn't shine, the next best performance was Ben Lang as Leo, Harry's ex-brother-in-law. Leo was such a ditzy, lovable buffoon that Lang brought the perfect amount of chipperness to. After my viewing, I did read that the film had its premiere in 1971 but wasn't publicly screened until eighteen years later, so that could be a key factor of none of the cast being very famous, which is pretty unfortunate.
Personally, nothing much frustrated me or challenged me with the film. It was just a nice little film made to give its audience a good time, nothing too thought provoking came out of it, which isn't a bad thing. I'd like to watch it again sometime and maybe even find the rare DVD, the only listing of it on eBay right now is $75! It kind of concerns me that movies like this are still at risk of being hard to find for years to come even though it was released on DVD, because as physical media is becoming less and less popular, collectors like me get concerns that we could lose quality films if we don't have hard copies. I guess this is pretty frustrating but isn't really the fault of the movie itself, but rather the way studios and audiences have let films fade into rarity.
There weren't any special guests or Q&As regarding the film, even while being at an indie theater. The reason I think it was this way is because from my understanding this film has sort of become obscure in this day and age. Looking at the film on Letterboxd, it has just over a thousand viewers. For reference, the most seen movie on the website is Bong's 2019 film "Parasite" which is nearing three million total viewers. In comparison, it has a mere 408 viewers on IMDb. No single cast member from it has more than five film credits, and I personally never have heard of the director, Michael Roemer, or any of his films, although some of his other work seems compelling and I'd like to check it out. I think this is honestly the most interesting thing about the movie, how under the radar it seems for not just me, but pretty much wherever I can find it online. The biggest shout I can seem to find was that both Wes Anderson and Roger Ebert praised the film some time ago, however that's about where it ends. Despite it being very obscure and hard to find, I'd recommend anyone who gets a chance to check this one out.
The aspect that stuck out to me the most was the performances, namely the film's leading man, Martin Priest, who portrays the titular Harry Plotnick. As I said, nobody in the film seems to be a star, which perplexes me because Priest gives a terrific comedic performance, using deadpan delivery to his advantage, which made me and several other audience members laugh to ourselves on multiple occasions throughout the film's short, but sweet runtime. This isn't to say the other cast doesn't shine, the next best performance was Ben Lang as Leo, Harry's ex-brother-in-law. Leo was such a ditzy, lovable buffoon that Lang brought the perfect amount of chipperness to. After my viewing, I did read that the film had its premiere in 1971 but wasn't publicly screened until eighteen years later, so that could be a key factor of none of the cast being very famous, which is pretty unfortunate.
Personally, nothing much frustrated me or challenged me with the film. It was just a nice little film made to give its audience a good time, nothing too thought provoking came out of it, which isn't a bad thing. I'd like to watch it again sometime and maybe even find the rare DVD, the only listing of it on eBay right now is $75! It kind of concerns me that movies like this are still at risk of being hard to find for years to come even though it was released on DVD, because as physical media is becoming less and less popular, collectors like me get concerns that we could lose quality films if we don't have hard copies. I guess this is pretty frustrating but isn't really the fault of the movie itself, but rather the way studios and audiences have let films fade into rarity.