RMurray847 Reviews

Strange Darling (2023)

Oh, this is SO much fun!!

[8/10 · 26 August 2024]

STRANGE DARLING is so much fun. I just wanted to get that out there right at the top. It has a certain zing of creativity that only comes along occasionally. Where it feels like the film was made on pure energy and adrenaline, with everyone on the same wavelength, and the result is a movie a bit unlike anything you've seen before, yet the influences are clear to see. A film made by people who love films and are inspired by films, but have made their own "thing." At the conclusion of this breezy 97 minute movie, I wanted to just jump out of my seat in excitement.

That said, I would also say that STRANGE DARLING is a bleak and bloody film that will stress you out and perhaps even depress you just a little.

Writer/director JT Mollner directed one other feature, a film I was not at all familiar with, OUTLAWS AND ANGELS. It was not critically well received, apparently, nor are ratings from viewers very high. An inauspicious debut. Then comes STRANGE DARLING, nearly 8 years later, and it feels like we're now meeting a director and writer that we'll be eager to follow in the years to come.

But what is it, you may well ask? Well, it's a movie that is difficult to fully describe because to say much about it will ruin many of the joys of discovery. Let me try to describe the beginning. There is an opening crawl (red against a black screen) that tells us something like: "Between 2018-2020, America's most prolific serial killer embarked on a multi-state slaughter from Colorado to Oregon, and this saga is the final chapter of that spree." So we know we're in for a serial killer movie. Then see a scene of a very distressed looking young women, left ear mutilated, lips puffy madly running through an open field in slow motion (as a version of the classic song "Love Hurts" plays over the titles). We watch her run slowly directly towards us as the credits roll, introducing Willa Fitzgerald as "The Lady" and Kyle Gallner as "The Demon". That's pretty bold...to have Gallner's character described as a "Demon" certainly raises the stakes and our expectations of just how bad a killer we might be dealing with. Then we're told that the film will be in 6 chapters. And, we start with Chapter 3. Then 5, then 1. You get the idea.

Many film-makers have told movies out of order (Tarantino springs first to mind, as many of the early moments of this film evoke him quite strongly, even the style of the opening credits), but STRANGE DARLING requires to be told out of order, or there is little fun to be had in watching the film. It plays with our assumptions right from the start. We think we know what kind of film we're watching (and it's a tense and terrifying film) and yet we are watching something else, even MORE tense and terrifying. It's a blast of bloody good fun.

When we do eventually go to Chapter 1, we see that The Lady and The Demon are in his truck, parked by a cheap motel. Given what we know already, we really, really don't want The Lady to go through with her one-night stand. Their conversation is full of teasing, and not only do we hear Fitzgerald telling her prospective beau how dangerous the world is for women just looking to "have some fun" but she bluntly asks him if he is a serial killer. It's a joke, sure...but she's also quite serious. But how would you expect a real serial killer to answer anyway? (Maybe she hopes to see something in his eyes as he answers?) Their scene together in the truck is a marvel. All the filming is done in the truck (we never look in on them from the outside) and we very much feel how tiny and intimate a space they are in. Colored purple by garish lights from outside, it feels like they are trapped in a dangerous lava lamp or something. The movie progresses (out of order) from there, and it is simply full of one credible surprise after another.

There are a few other characters in the film certainly (including a mountain home dwelling "old Hippie couple" played delightfully but distractingly by Ed Begley Jr & Barbara Hershey...distracting because we know them so well and we're aware, "hey, familiar actors"), but this is pretty much a two-hander. I was only vaguely aware of Gallner, but he is excellent. When we first meet him, chasing The Lady in his truck and eventually leveling his rifle at her, we know this is a single-minded man no one should want to mess with. But he's also convincingly charming in the early scenes. Just a guy who was out on the town, looking to enjoy some beer, and if he's lucky, a night with a fun woman. Gallner is certainly on my radar now. But Fitzgerald is in another category. You've not seen a character quite like this before. Even the scene where we see her running in terror in slow motion is not ordinary. Emotions play across her face. Terror. Anger. Thinking ahead to her next move. Enduring pain. And when she's in the truck with The Demon, we see her teasing, her trepidation, her desire and her sharp wit. While we don't really find out much about either of these characters, they still seem like real, complex people. Fitzgerald is called upon several times to do long, single takes where she doesn't say a word, but we understand quite well what she's thinking. In a fair world, this would be a star-making performance.

The violence of the movie IS disturbing, but not terribly gratuitous. A lot happens of screen, and we only see real "gore" on occasion, when the shock of what's happening is important to advancing the story and our understanding of what's going on, not just to make us cringe.

The movie is short, but it felt even shorter. It's just immediately gripping and it never lets go. For much of it, I felt like I was holding my breath. It is shot full of humor, a welcome relief, but never forgets for a moment what it is about. It is about propelling us through a horrific story that we are nonetheless glad to be on.

Mollner is to be congratulated on taking the viewer on such a creative rush of filmmaking joy. You can feel him, and thus everyone on the film, just sensing that they are on to something special here. It is unapologetically good, and feel it while watching it. That sense of "we made this amazing thing; grab hold!".

Is it perfect? No. Many of the tiny supporting roles are actually performed quite poorly. I might argue that there are one or two too many tight close-ups; I became aware that I was seeing a lot of close-ups. But these nits I'm picking are quite small. This is a film that I can recommend to anyone (not kids!) without reservation.

If you can see it now, on a big screen...do so. Let it swallow you up.

Alien: Romulus (2024)

A worthy entry

[7/10 · 19 August 2024]

The world most certainly did not need another ALIEN movie, and yet, I've discovered that "ALIEN" must be some kind of siren call for me. I'm old enough to have been around for the original ALIEN, and I saw all its sequels in movie theaters, usually opening weekend. Apparently, I'm a bit of a sucker for a simplistically brutal story, whether told by Ridley Scott, David Fincher (the least successful of the bunch) or James Cameron (whose take is the one I watch the most). Now, add horror director Fede Alvarez to the mix. He built it, and I did go.

So, let's just get this clear. This is not a great movie. But ALIEN: ROMULUS is a very solid entry in the series, and had much to admire. It certainly also has weaknesses, but when the closing credits began, I felt I had been well entertained. Just a gut reaction, which really is what this sort of film is all about. Getting you in the gut. You either happily go along for the ride, or you wonder what you're doing wasting two hours of your life.

ALIEN: ROMULUS (from now on, just ROMULUS) begins with an quick opening segment showing the giant space craft Romulus & Remus collecting a giant "rock" sample from some space wreckage. The wreckage happens to be from the Nostromo, which ALIEN fans will recall was that original film's spacecraft. Where we first got to experience the xenomorph and its sharp, pointy teeth, acid blood and unfortunate breeding methods. This rock, they believe, has a dead monster in it. The ship heads back into deep space, ready to begin its exploration of the creature they've brought on board.

Jump ahead some time (and space) to a mining planet that literally never sees daylight, and we meet Rain and her gentle, thoughtful and possibly slightly "off" friend Andy. Rain has put in her required 12,000 hours of work and we meet her as she eagerly goes to what passes for an HR office to ask for her transfer off-planet. She's told there is a worker shortage, and her contract has been increased to 24,000 hours. It clicks pretty fast for Rain that she's essentially enslaved on this absolutely horrible planet (no daylight, lots of mud and uneducated jerks everywhere). So she is in the right mood to go along with her boyfriend Tyler's plan to take a ship, fly up to a derelict spaceship hovering in orbit (but merely 36 hours from hitting the planet's rings and being destroyed), grab some of its cryo-tubes (you know, to allow for years of suspended animation) and fly on to a planet 9 years away, that offers a respite and sunlight. Tyler's sister Kay, as well as a couple of friends (Bjorn and Navarro) join in on the ride. They're all young people, full of energy and maybe not so much good sense. It's an adventure for them, and it's a very understandable grab for a better life.

Well, you guessed it...the ship turns out to be the Romulus and Remus, and I'll bet you also guessed that the xenomorph was not, in fact, dead. And maybe even that the experiments scientists conducted before meeting their doom where not all that wise.

The small group docks with the much, much larger space station and begin their salvage efforts. But were it not for those pesky aliens, they would have succeeded in their quest. But, this is ALIEN: ROMULUS afterall, and they are in for quite a lesson in jumping to poorly thought-out plans.

Rain is played by Cailee Spaeny (PRISCILLA & CIVIC WAR). She's had quite a last year or so, and this was the perfect movie for her young career. Much like Sigourney Weaver did 45 years ago, Spaeny gets to show us a tough, resourceful, fast-thinking but empathetic character. She's an action hero both tough and vulnerable (she's a small young lady who looks even younger than her 25 years). She gets to kick *ss! She is also, quite frankly, the only human character with much character development at all. She's strong enough to take us through this adventure rooting for her and urging her on.

And that's good, because the other performers (with the exception of David Jonsson as Andy, who has his own interesting acting opportunities) are just about as generic as they come. The ALIEN films often have thin characterizations, but ROMULUS may have the most flimsy of all. I think back on Bill Paxton in ALIENS or even the generic actor Logan Marshall-Green being generic in PROMETHEUS, and they look practically Shakespearean compared to ROMULUS's offerings of alien fodder.

But, think back on director Alvarez's other films. THE EVIL DEAD starred a fantastically tough Jane Levy and then mostly a bevy of generic young actors. The deeply creepy and effective DON'T BREATHE again featured Levy as a tough but vulnerable young lady, accompanied by a bunch of very stock young actors. (To be fair, it also featured Stephen Lang unforgettably as the monster of the piece). I think Alvarez is only interested in these other characters as not just fodder for the baddies, but as something against which his leading ladies can react. We experience their deaths often through the eyes of the lead character. I don't know if this is a deliberate choice (and Alvarez writes or co-writes these films as well), or a directorial blind spot. His focus is so tight on his lead. And putting that lead through increasingly stressful and icky situations. Fortunately, he does so EXTREMELY effectively. Alvarez can build a nice action sequence, but he understands even better the power of dread. Not just dreading something happening, but dreading that it will happen in an icky and painful way.

In ROMULUS, he comes up with a few new spins on just how the xenomorphs can dispatch their prey. And towards the end, we meet a variation that's just so...WRONG...on so many levels that we can't help but shudder. Yes, it's a creature that can kill...but it's a creature that shouldn't exist. Alvarez wrings fun from the film by not so much re-inventing the wheel as running that wheel over its victims in new and creative ways. High art, this is NOT! But it does get the heart pumping, and I heard more than one person talking back to the screen at time. To me, that's a sign that the movie, despite any storytelling or characterization shortcomings, has gripped its audience and dragged them along for the ride.

I'll also note that there are some cool visuals here. The scenes featuring the rings around this mining planet are just lovely to look at.

Finally, for fans of the series, a "fan favorite" makes a return of sorts and plays a big part in the outcome of the proceedings. I won't say more, because I want you to be as pleasantly surprised as I was.

Just put aside your wariness, and put aside the "literary" side of yourself, and immerse in the fun, gross, loud and gripping world of ALIEN: ROMULUS.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

A bit of a missed opportunity

[6/10 · 9 August 2024]

GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK is an always interesting and intermittently engrossing film that just missed out on being a classic. It seems likely it was made, at least in part, to show that the McCarthy "Red Scare" hearings (by the House Unamerican Committee) were a warning about what could happen in 2005's "just a little after 9/11, 'if you see something, say something'" climate in America.

If director George Clooney, his co-writer Grant Heslov and the cast had that in mind, it feels like a quaint, right-wing baiting notion that misses its mark. It makes some really powerful warnings about the need for a free press and how the press itself is willingly tossing its freedom's away in exchange for money & celebrity. But it does so in a universal way, not in a specific to the Bush-era way. And now, nearly 20 years later, the message about the press resonates even more powerfully, as I watch how most of the media has given Kamala Harris a free pass to be the presidential nominee and a free pass in her avoidance of even the semblance of tough questions. (But then again, GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK also seems to posit that journalists MUST take sides if the issue is so clearly one-sided. That's another slippery slope the movie doesn't want to address. Noble, pushing an agenda press = good. Newsroom bosses cow-towing to sponsors = bad.)

But I'm sure not here to get political. GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK likely was, and it falls short. Where I really enjoyed it was in being immersed in the time and place of the McCarthy era and learning more about how broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn) , his producer Fred Friendly (George Clooney) and their colleagues dared to take on the dangerous Senator Joseph McCarthy, at the height of his hearings designed to root out communists and to destroy anyone who was ever communist-adjacent. Encouraging people to get themselves out of trouble by turning on their friends and neighbors (whether justified or not). Just a really bad time that destroyed careers and lives.

The look of this black and white film immerses the viewer in the time. (As does the constantly swirling cigarette smoke!). Everyone looks the part and virtually every role, no matter how small, is played by a well-cast familiar face. The costume team, production design team and cinematography team worked very hard to create a convincing vibe and the cast (for the most part) embraced it all and immersed themselves.

Strathairn (who was nominated for an Oscar for this role) leads the pack with his rich voice and carefully mannered outbursts. Clooney downplays his usual charm but is convincing as a man who is okay being off-camera. Jeff Daniels, as network exec Sig Mickelson, is, as ever, totally convincing as a powerful man still suffused with weakness, trying to walk the line between keeping HIS bosses happy and keeping his employees happy. The cast is nicely rounded out by folks like Patricia Clarkson, Alex Borstein, Ray Wise, Tate Donovan, Tom McCarthy (who captured the rhythms of a newsroom so well in his directorial effort SPOTLIGHT) and Frank Langella, who has some great scenes near the end. Robert Downey Jr., to my estimation, flounders a bit in his little role. He's called upon to be a normal, soft-spoken kind of guy, and he looks a bit lost, particularly opposite the subtle Patricia Clarkson, who specializes in making "ordinary" characters anything but.

The film COULD have served as the definitive piece on the McCarthy era. Convincing looking. Well-acted. Lots of juicy dialogue neatly summing up the issues at play. A newsroom setting that can serve as the jumping off point for so many different directions. It was teed up nicely. But the film is a brisk 93 minutes, and that just isn't enough time for what I'm suggesting. Another 30-45 minutes would have allowed for some more background (the film assumes we know most of the background about the Red Scare already) and for a more satisfying conclusion. (It makes us feel like McCarthy was taken down by an HR issue that would have happened even without the great Edward R. Murrow interviewing him.) For all the dramatic build-up to Murrow's big one-on-one with McCarthy, the film fumbles the ending. Yes, it's a true story and sometimes those don't end as we'd like them to. But the film felt rushed. I guess if you look at it as a cautionary tale about 2005, then it makes sense that it has a different "agenda" and intent than simply teaching us about this important and astonishing time in our history. But that's where it would have served best!

Having said all that, I still really enjoyed the film. Juicy writing with crisp, solid, professional acting (and a fairly unfussy directing style from Clooney) means the film has plenty to offer. But the strong feeling of "oh, if only" hung strong in the air for me after hitting the end.

Anything for Jackson (2020)

Got so close to sticking the landing, but then fumbled it all

[5/10 · 29 July 2024]

ANYTHING FOR JACKSON is one of those low budget movies that essentially went directly to the Shudder network, and to physical media (I saw the blu ray of it). It has so much going for it, but in the end, falls prey to that most predictable and frustrating element that dooms so many horror movies: it fumbles the ending. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that this movie might have actually had a decent theatrical release if someone had told director Justin Dyck and writer Keith Cooper to completely scrap the last 10 minutes or so (and in particular the last 1 minute) and try again.

As it stands, this was a 6 star movie for me, until it became a 3 star movie in its final minutes. I'm giving it 5 stars, rounding up because most of it was, indeed, enjoyable.

And elderly couple, Audrey (Sheila McCarthy) and Henry (Julian Richings), a family practice doctor, recently lost their daughter and grandson tragically. And because they are satanists, they believe they can bring their beloved Jackson back to them by conducting a sort of reverse exorcism in which they spirit of Jackson will be forced into the body of an unborn child (who is being carried by Becker, a patient of Henry's, played by Konstantina Mantelos). Good idea, right? What could possibly go wrong?

The movie doesn't shy away from violence and it doesn't shy away at all from the horrific nature of the plan this kooky couple has concocted. But it is also a bit playful with some sly humor. One example: the small satanist society gathers for "prayer meetings" in a dingy community center, around folding tables, with snacks being brought for afterwards by one of the members. They feel more like a very small AA gathering than a group of dangerous Satan worshippers. Audrey and Henry have many amusing interactions, particularly when Audrey gently (or not so gently) berates Henry over little mistakes and oversights. A fellow church-goer, Ian (Josh Cruddas) lives in his mom's basement...hardly a new idea, but it takes a known movie cliché and spoofs it by emulating it.

As things, inevitably, begin to go wrong, the violence ratchets up, as does the pressure on Audrey and Henry. We find they will, indeed, do pretty much Anything for Jackson, but that they've also selected in Becker a victim who is just going to go down without a fight. And the supernatural elements that invade their house have agendas of their own too.

It's all bloody good fun, walking a nice line between taking itself seriously and have a bit of fun. And while most of the performances are perfunctory at best, McCarthy & Richings are delightfully off-kilter and clearly having an absolute blast. They are the best reason, by far, to watch the movie.

But, as I mentioned, the ending is botched. First, we're treated to over-the-top supernatural shenanigans and violence as the movie nears its end. Rather than turning up the tension or adding to the fear, everything just becomes loud and confusing. Events happen TOO quickly and dialogue gets trampled over by everything else going on and much is left unexplained. There seems to be no reason for much of the horrible things that happen, other than to just be creepy and awful. And the final scene of the film completely falls flat; I couldn't even quite see what was going on, much less infer any meaning. And then it ends. I wanted to hurl my remote control at the TV! I had enjoyed so much of this film, and was SO let down.

So, despite some surprisingly fun moments, I just can't bring myself to recommend it. ANYTHING FOR JACKSON is a near-miss, but it's still a miss.

Le Beau Serge (1958)

Melodramatic but engaging and meaningful

[7/10 · 28 July 2024]

I have a "strategy" for watching the movies in my Criterion collection. I have many, and one of the great things about Criterion is that generally their releases are of significant or important films, from all around the world. The type of movie you might not necessarily pick on a Sunday evening, as you're chillin' with some chips and beer. And when it IS time to watch one, if I were left to my own devices, I know I'd tend to watch more modern films and very likely, those in the English language. It's a stupid tendency, I know, because I've enjoyed, over my decades of movie-watching, MANY amazing foreign films, older films or both. Occasionally, something doesn't quite work for me, but for the most part, I greatly appreciate every Criterion film I've seen. So, to avoid falling into my self-made trap, I watch the movies in alphabetical order. It gets me as close to random chance as reasonably possible.

Today, I watched LE BEAU SERGE. Yes, that makes it look like I'm only through the letter "B", but when I add to the collection, I go back and catch any that come earlier in the alphabet. Anyway, today was a good random chance day, because I was completely unfamiliar with the works of Claude Chabrol, an extremely prolific driving force in the French New Wave. And LE BEAU SERGE was his first film, and based on what I learned in the bonus materials, considered one of the first French New Wave films, period. While I have seen and enjoyed French New Wave from Godard and Truffaut, Chabrol had thus far not come up.

I enjoyed the film very much. Made in 1958, it tells a seemingly simple story. Young Francois, a twenty something Parisian, returns to his hometown of Sardent, a tiny village in the middle of nowhere, France. Francois has been seriously ill (probably with TB), and spent some time convalescing in Switzerland, but now needs a few more months of low-key activity to finish his recovery. He has rented a room in town, and arrives on a bus, to be greeted by old friends and acquaintances. He also sees his oldest, best friend Serge, wandering drunkenly through the main street with his father-in-law. Francois is shocked to see the condition his friend is in, and he learns that the drunkenness is common for his old buddy. Eventually, Francois is able to speak to a more coherent Serge, and he discovers that Serge (who, it seems, was the most promising of all the young men in their friend group) got a local girl (Yvonne) pregnant years ago. They married, and unfortunately, their child died in childbirth. Yvonne is pregnant again now, and Serge has sunk even deeper into the bottle, convinced he's going to lose another child. Into the mix is thrown Marie, Yvonne's younger sister, a very sexually curious seventeen year old who brings chaos into an already disrupted dynamic.

Francois is deeply (some would say, inordinately) concerned about his old friend. He, himself, has been able to leave town to pursue his studies and can't believe is friend has been left behind as a broken wreck. And alcoholic of the first order. Does he feel guilty? It's hard to say, but he does see himself as a potential change agent for his old friend. At first, Yvonne is wary of this new presence in town as she senses her husband is staying drunker longer and deeper than ever before, starting just when his old friend arrived in town. Francois also begins a relationship with the insistent Marie. He seems like a pretty decent guy who is just wanting to help out these folks who are stuck in this dreary, provincial village. Initially, we see Francois as a naïve but basically noble guy, and Serge (particularly when he hurls insults at his wife) as a complete worthless villain. Yvonne is the steadfast wife, who still loves her horrible husband, and Marie, surely, will be the respite from all this drama that a young man like Francois needs. A more-than-willing girlfriend, eager to explore her sexuality.

Before long, our notions of how these people will react to and impact each other is slowly turned askew. Secrets are revealed, but so are darker sides of the "good" characters and hopeful sides of the seemingly beyond hope "bad" characters. The events that ensue are pure melodrama, but they are somehow shocking nonetheless. We expect Francois to learn some lessons...and boy, of boy, does he. I won't share any more of the plot developments, but suffice it to say that path to redemption doesn't run true and the path to love hits some dead ends.

Chabrol has a simple visual style. He just shows the action and the dialogue. Occasionally, he lets his camera run randomly over the wild countryside. Although set in a very pastoral area, it is not presented as beautiful. The buildings are crumbling. The sky is dreary. And the black and white photography (which can be stunning) is drab. Part is no doubt the fact that this was filmed on less than ideal equipment by a team that was just scraping by budget-wise. Part is an effort to show just how hopeless the lives of young people in this tiny village (and by extension, I imagine, any similar village) are. There is a town dance late in the movie, and EVERYONE shows up. There's nothing else to do in this place, and you see how urgently couples of all ages cling to each other...eager to squeeze any tiny drop of enjoyment they can from their existence. It's all pretty bleak.

It's important to remember, I think, that this is 1958, and these characters would have been kids during WWII and during the Nazi occupation (and we know from the bonus materials that Chabrol grew up in this very town and did indeed live under Nazi rule). This MUST have impacted them all. These young men and women remember how fearful it was to live in this town, and now it gives them little comfort. What has the world offered them since the end of the war? During a time when much of the world was booming (think of what was going on in suburban US at the time)? It has offered very little indeed.

I think, ultimately, writer/director Chabrol is very sympathetic to his characters (with a couple of exceptions; even a New Wave film can punish the promiscuous woman). And the prevailing feeling at the very end is, almost surprisingly, one of hope and compassion, rather than sympathy. It's not a feel-good movie, but it does wrestle a few hard one glimmers of something better just on the horizon out of the dreary current circumstances. Francois learns some lessons about himself. Yvonne, perhaps, finds a small reserve of inner strength, and poor Serge finds something to smile about.

I eluded to the bonus materials. There are a couple of interviews with Chabrol that are helpful to see, and in fact, one is set in the same town about 11 years after the movie was made, and we discover that some of the characters in the film were actually residents of the village and in some cases, old friends of Chabrol. (Early in the film, we meet a delightful friend of Francois', who is the town baker. Turns out, the actor really is the town baker. Seems like a great guy in real life too.) I often don't watch the films with the commentary, but I did go back and do so this time, and the very academic commentary turns out to be very enlightening and helpful to appreciate the film and understand its context in the broader cinematic movement it heralded. So if you have the time, I recommend carving out another couple of hours for the full LE BEAU SERGE immersion!

La Bamba (1987)

A pretty clunky movie, but the music is great

[6/10 · 27 July 2024]

Somehow, as a 1981 high school graduate and lifelong movie buff, I had not seen LA BAMBA until July 2024 at the age of 60. I am glad I saw it (for sure), but I do wish I had seen it as a younger, less critical viewer.

In many ways, LA BAMBA is a terrible movie. The script is actually pretty clunky and some of the acting is even more ham-fisted. But there is a joy and a the hell-with-it over-the-topness to it all. It flings itself, amateurishly, at its subject with obvious pride and fun and sadness, burning through the lack of subtlety into something more impactful. I imagined myself watching in back in 1987 and as the young man I would have been then, I would have embraced the rags-to-riches story and the vibrant energy with enthusiasm.

So, what's so bad about it? Well, the story itself, while true, has the feeling of a very cliched "young kid from the poor side of town makes good" story. (Yes, yes, that is actually exactly what it is, in part.) The script is written rather broadly, and you never need to wonder what characters are feeling, they just tell you. And perhaps some of the Chicano culture being shown was fresh and unusual in 1987, but in 2024, it seems often to teeter on the edge of stereotypes. And perhaps most jarring of all is the insanely unconvincing performance of Esai Morales, who on some of the posters for the movie actually got top billing.

Let me take a step back. LA BAMBA is the story of Ritchie Valens (or Ricardo Valenzuela), an early rock-n-roll star who became a national sensation (and produced three hit songs) by the time he was 17. Sadly, he also was killed in the same plane crash that took Buddy Holly and The Big Bopper from us, on "The Day The Music Died." The movie traces his journey from working in the farmlands of California, to moving to a very run-down neighborhood near LA, to his meteoric success. The primary antagonist to Valens (played by Lou Diamond Philips in a role he would never top) is his brother Bob, played by a pompadoured Esai Morales in a manner that suggested he felt over-acting was an impossibility. Scarcely a moment of his time on screen is credible. He's not helped by the poorly written dialogue, but Director/writer Luis Valez apparently was getting just what he envisioned. Bob is troubled. A ladies man who steals his younger brother's girlfriend and impregnates her (as well as rapes her at times). He drinks and smokes too much. He resents the clearly more talented Ritchie and resents the idea that he might need to settle down and become a man. Ritchie is a sweet kid who loves his brother and occasionally emulates him, but Bob gets in his way more than he helps. He is a time bomb waiting to explode.

The movie is saved, not surprisingly, by the music. Hearing these old songs from the mid-50s (before I was even born) is great fun, and they are often presented with great gusto and verve. Philips lip-synchs his songs to the covers provided by that quintessential band Los Lobos. Even though Philips doesn't sing, his guitar playing (also fake, I assume) and his verve and delight in performing put these songs over completely. We don't hear La Bamba itself until near the end of the film; it's a smart choice to wait that long, because the songs is a true climax for the film, a release for any tension that's built up and a blast of pure, rock 'n roll awesomeness. The audiences on screen are instantly smitten by the song, and we see and hear why. It's a scene that transcends the movie. While Philips is perhaps only okay through most of the film (he's mostly a goofy, naïve kid), when he plays, we see him taking command not only of the audience but himself. He comes into his own right before our eyes.

I recommend the film if you haven't seen it, because the music is so much fun.

I watched the Criterion Collection Blu Ray, and there are some excellent supplemental materials here, so a lot yourself about 90 minutes extra to dive into these, particularly a really interesting interview of Valdez by director Robert Rodriguez.

Nitram (2021)

A brilliantly acted exploration of a horrific person & event

[8/10 · 26 July 2024]

NITRAM is a movie based on the true story of the man who committed the worst mass killing in Australian history, back in 1996 in Port Arthur, Tasmania. I'm sorry to say that I did not remember this event; I'm sure it was on the news even here in the US back in '96, but I had no recollections. But I imagine it continues to loom large in Australian collective memory, as it was not only a horrific event but led to massive overhauls of gun laws in the country.

I do think having that context is important to watching NITRAM, but perhaps not essential. I only knew in advance thanks to the blurb on the BluRay box mentioning the event, so I quickly looked it up before getting into the movie.

Director Justin Kurzel clearly has an interest in exploring violence in Australia. An early film of his, SNOWTOWN (which I have not seen) is about Australia's worst serial killing, and the nuanced and interesting TRUE HISTORY OF THE KELLY GANG is, in fact, a history of the Kelly Gang, the most infamous outlaws in that country's history. I'd venture to guess, though, that NITRAM is the most mature and powerful work of the 3. I was drawn deeply into this sad story.

Kurzel and writer Shaun Grant (who worked together on the other two films I mentioned above) successfully walk a fine line in this movie. They want us to have some insight into the character of the man who eventually became this mass shooter. And insight invites sympathy, which the director's don't really want us to have. We are allowed to see how his parents and his own brain chemistry have conspired against him (Nitram is the teasing nickname his schoolmates gave the eventual killer; the filmmakers never utter than man's real name...an effort to ensure his fame isn't needlessly expanded). He was bulled for being different, not only physically (he's an unusual looking guy) but mostly socially. He is deeply introverted, indifferent to personal hygiene and dressing "normally." He is on meds, but we still see bursts of fiery temper and irrational acting out.

His father (a very against type, but excellent, Anthony LaPaglia) tries to show the boy love and attention, but he often fails to counter-balance this with good discipline and guidance. A weak man who is more perplexed by his son than anything. But Nitram clearly loves his dad (probably because the love he receives from the man is freely given), and has a deeply complex relationship with his mother (Judy David). It's always the mother!!

Let me just say that Davis and Caleb Landry Jones in the title role are the most compelling reasons to see the film. Davis, as usual, is casually stunning in her role. She looks every moment of her 65 years in this film...stripped of adornment of any kind, a chain smoker and just deeply, deeply weary (and wary) of raising her mid-20s son who has brought her so much grief over the years. You see her love, but it pokes out only occasionally from her very prickly armor. We see how her casual cruelty to her son impacts him, but we also see that she wasn't always this way. It has fallen to her almost exclusively, to be the bearer of discipline to her son and it has nearly whittled away her compassion. It's an amazing and subtle performance that should have netted her serious awards consideration, if the world were fair and awards committees actually watched small, difficult movies.

Caleb Landry Jones is something remarkable and unexpected too. As the main character, and in virtually every moment of the film, we have to follow this deeply weird guy around and remain interested in him. Jones makes Nitram complex and unpredictable. When will he explode? When will he act "normal"? And in an early twist (completely rooted in reality), he meets a neighborhood widow (Helen, played very well by Essie Davis) who is a recluse but forges a very unlikely friendship with Nitram. He moves in with her and actually begins to show signs of what might be called happiness. He's always known he's weird and probably always hated himself. But a dose of uncomplicated kindness and understanding begins to soften him. But his impulsive instincts bring this time of peace in his life to an abrupt end.

Other unfortunate events transpire, leading Nitram (if I can invoke an over-used metaphor) from light back into the darkest darkness. And sadly (very sadly), the only place he manages to find anything resembling respect and friendship, is when he spends time with gun dealers, carrying wads of cash. He buys acceptance into this world, and thus, his tendency towards abrupt, inappropriate outbursts is focused into a much more evil direction.

The climactic events of the movie are barely shown, but are all the more powerful for taking place off-screen. When he shows up at the tourist site Port Arthur, bag full of guns, and sits down to eat a little snack and survey the folks around him...I felt goosebumps on my arms. His regard of his fellow man isn't even cold; it's empty of feeling.

The compelling story, sensitive script and most of all, fantastic performances make NITRAM a must-see. It's difficult movie, to be sure, but a journey I appreciated intellectually and emotionally.

All the President's Men (1976)

In the end, it just didn't outrage me...at all

[6/10 · 23 July 2024]

I was born in late 1963, so I was a kid when Watergate happened. I was also living in Europe as the son of an Air Force Master Sargent stationed in Italy. So mostly, the events, the hearings, etc. Were just things that interrupted regularly scheduled programing on the radio. Annoying to a kid, but not meaningful.

Growing up, Watergate was that break-in at the Watergate in DC, where the cover-up was much, MUCH worse than the crime and it caused, ultimately, the resignation of the President. In other words, it was a historical event that was interesting to know about, but not terribly urgent or, again, meaningful to me.

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN tells the story of this scandal, arguably the one that "started it all' with regards to modern, presidential scandals. Iran Contra. Fast & the Furious. Everything that the last couple of guys tough. What is cool about ATPM (my newly adopted shortcut for the long title), is that it was made almost at the same time as the scandal. Watergate was 1972/73. ATPM came out in 1976. It is, therefore, suitably shocked at the shenanigans being uncovered. You can feel the righteous indignation pouring off the reporters at the Washington Post who are peeling the layers of this very big, complex onion. While I wouldn't say the film has a documentary feel, it is certainly hung up on the details. (It's great fun to see this world where the reporters only have typewriters and pencils & paper and maybe a tape recorder. They use rotary dial phones and giant phone books.)

I'll say right here that this movie felt a lot like SPOTLIGHT, another movie about Washington Post reporting. It's a detective story more than anything. We follow the investigation in the way the reporters did.

The cast of the film is stellar. Robert Redford as Bob Woodward and Dustin Hoffman as Carl Bernstein are very solid. (Hoffman doesn't even sound like himself yet, he's so young.) They are convincingly earnest and outraged. Tenacious. Just what you want your reporters to be. And seeing Jason Robards, as Post Editor Ben Bradlee, is great; he was such a giant of a character actor. And to have Jack Warden and Martin Balsam in the same room with these other three...well, that's just terrific. There are familiar faces everywhere in this film (look for a very young F. Murray Abraham as "Arresting Officer #1" in some early scenes. It's a male driven film, for sure, with the women relegated to mostly small parts. It's like MAD MEN that way; it was still okay to call your female co-worker "honey" or "darling." Well, not okay, but not yet frowned upon by the men in charge.

The pace is pretty brisk. Director Alan Pakula was no slouch. William Goldman's Oscar winning script is intelligent, but still easy to follow. A lot of names get thrown at us, but it's not impossible to keep up. The production values, camerawork, etc. Are all very competent and workman-like. Nothing gets in the way of the actors and the words they're saying.

But in the end, I didn't love the film. I admire it greatly, and I appreciated learning so much more about Watergate than I ever knew before. But it didn't grip me. A small part was a fumbled climax. The film didn't build to any kind of crescendo. They published the story. End of story. But the biggest part of my coldness to the film is my perspective; this scandal was pretty tame compared to what has come since. I'm too jaded to be even moderately outraged by the low key cover-up. It's a slice of history, well told by a group of artists who were very contemporary to the event itself. It was hard to bring 60 year old me back 50+ years and feel immersed. When it was over, I turned it off, but the disc back in its container and started watching an episode of WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS. It passed through me like nothing.

It's a shame, and it's not the problem of the film, I don't think. But I want to be more than intellectually stimulated; I want to CARE about what I'm seeing, and I really didn't.

Longlegs (2024)

Creepy, creepy and then creepy some more.

[7/10 · 16 July 2024]

So, here's a once sentence review of LONGLEGS if you want it short and sweet: it is CREEPY AF!

So many things contribute to this one sentence, two word summary. But I had that all too rare experience of feeling unease, disquiet and worry throughout the movie. With virtually zero relief. It's 100 minutes of feeling creeped out. The color palette is autumnal and offers no rays of sunshine to wash over you. The sound work always has just a tiny sense of echo, as though there are unexplored (and creep) places just out of view. The cinematography and editing work hard to show you stuff, but not all the stuff. Like your flashlight just isn't bright enough or you haven't pointed it in the exact right place. There are a couple of jump scares (and they literally made me jump), but this movie relies on mood and a sense of wrongness. It's like we're in a world that IS ours, but has shifted ever so slightly. A world that would make a character like Longlegs possible.

Director Osgood Perkins, who has done some decent work (BLACKCOAT'S DAUGHTER) and some purely boring work (GRETAL & HANSEL), is firing on all cylinders here, at least for his aesthetic. He likes the dark. He likes the idea that you can't quite see what you want/need to see. He knows that throwing illumination on something can make it less scary...so he never illuminates it! So he's got the notion of making his films creepy down pretty well, but LONGLEGS, for me, was by far the most successful he's been. He is aided by the very interesting Maika Monroe in the lead role of an FBI investigator.

But, I've not told you anything about the film. It starts as a kind of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS take. A "fresh out of training" FBI agent (Monroe) is mentored by an experienced boss (Blair Underwood) as she takes on the job of tracking down a long elusive serial killer. What's interesting is that it cannot even be proved that this killer exists. It would seem that some person is poisoning the minds of fathers who are compelled to violently kill their families and then themselves. Murder/suicide. Except it appears that these killings were compelled by an outside person or force. It's not spoiling anything to say that this force is Longlegs, the deeply, deeply creepy character played by Nicolas Cage. Let me just say right here that this character is quite squirm inducing, just by his appearance. Cage is nearly unrecognizable; Longlegs is a grotesque distortion of a human. But surely all he is, after all, is human...right?

I really don't want to give away much, because not only is the movie creepy, but it has story twists and turns aplenty. Even the ones you think you see coming don't turn out quite as expected. And in the midst of it all is Monroe. Monroe (IT FOLLOWS, WATCHER) is an interesting screen presence. She is slight almost to the point of emaciation. She's smart but often nearly affectless. She is far from the typical "final girl" and certainly more interesting. In LONGLEGS, she seems to be more emaciated (which works for the character; we believe that she would forget to eat), more sullen and emotionless and smarter than many of those around her. But her Agent Harker is closer to all the goings on that anyone (including Harker) might suspect.

The women in the film are all in fine form. Monroe makes a compelling, unsteady anchor for all the goings-on. Alicia Witt plays her mother in a performance unlike any I've seen from her. And Kiernan Shipka (Mad Men) is in a tiny but immensely critical role, and she is remarkable in it. Underwood and other male performers fare less well (Cage is an exception, but his part is special). Underwritten parts, mostly. But it is almost on purpose, I think. The "strong" men, mostly law enforcement, are ultimately ineffective in their roles as protectors. They are background noise to what Monroe, Cage and later, Witt, are up to.

So, it's clear that I find a lot to admire in LONGLEGS. But bear this in mind. It is not necessarily enjoyable. It is effective, but unlike less adept horror movies, you don't get to the final credits thinking "whew, that was good, clean, blood fun" where you even may think how silly you were to get nervous at some scenes. It infuses you and does not give you a catharsis. Yes, the story wraps up...but you still feel creeped out. I deeply appreciate a film that can create and sustain a mood that is consistent and is felt in all the elements, from writing and acting to costumes and sound. But a rollicking good time, it is not! I recommend it, but don't be surprised if you have a bad dream the night you see it.

Being There (1979)

Simply put, a classic

[8/10 · 14 July 2024]

I probably haven't seen BEING THERE in at least 30 years. I saw it in the early '80s on VHS, and then probably about 10 years after that. I always enjoyed it, but now I am 60 years old and it had new resonance for me. A resonance that I think required some life experience. To lose most of one's idealism and to be crusted in cynicism. That's me, to a large extent, although I still feel optimistic about many things, but I think it's tinged with realism.

Anyway, BEING THERE is many things. It juggles many themes, but perhaps the biggest is the relationship between politics, media, the news and celebrities. This is in 1979. These 4 items continue to consume the populace. Yes, via very different mechanisms, but the underlying tug-of-war between those elements is the same, if only more out in the open.

BEING THERE follows the character of Chance (Peter Sellers), a very peculiar man who has spent his entire life living within one fancy old brownstone in the heart of DC. He is the gardener for this estate and loves all growing things and nurtures them well. He spends the rest of his time watching TV. At the beginning of the film, we find that his boss (we never really find out how Chance came here as a child and if there is any relation between boss and gardner. We just accept that Chance has spent his life here and nowhere else) has died and that Chance is about to be kicked out of the house, because no arrangements have been left for him. We see that Chance is a VERY peculiar man indeed, with an odd voice and virtually no facial expressions. He's friendly to all, but really doesn't understand people or much about how the world works. He knows talk show hosts and understands that president's exist, but has no broader sense of how the world itself works. He doesn't read. He doesn't understand money. But he also doesn't understand irony or sarcasm. And he feels no distinction between people. Everyone should be treated the same. He isn't impressed by anyone in particular nor does he carry resentments. He is a nearly blank slate.

So Chance leaves his only home, and we discover that this mansion, that likely was once in a nice neighborhood, is now in the middle of the worst ghetto in DC. Chance's early encounters with the population are very amusing, but we worry for him He sees a lady carrying a grocery bag and asks her if she can make him some food. "I am very hungry" he says. It's sad and drives home just how lost he is.

But it doesn't last long. He is accidentally hit by a car that happens to belong to the vastly wealthy Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine). Chance's leg is hurt, but not seriously. She has her driver bring Chance to her mansion (they used Asheville NC's Biltmore House...if that gives you an idea of how well-off these folks are!). The idea is that they will provider care for Chance for a couple of days (and maybe figure out if he plans to sue for the injury) but he ends up becoming a sort of permanent resident. Eve's husband, the elderly Benjamin Rand (a stellar Melvyn Douglas, who won an Oscar for this role) takes a liking to Chance and begins to confide in him and discusses giving him a lot of power in his company. Ben is dying of cancer, and Chance gives him one last breath of vitality.

How does all this happen? Because Chance says very little and is very agreeable. He answers questions mostly in terms of gardening, and everyone around him assumes he's making clever metaphors about politics or business. And those metaphors are spun by the listener (whether it's Ben or even the President of the US...Jack Warden is great as the president, and his scenes with Ben and Chance are quite humorous). Chance dresses well because he had access to his old bosses beautiful and stylish suits. So everyone around him assumes he's well to do and smart. From these mis-understandings, a beautiful story emerges, full of bittersweet regrets and biting satire. It's a movie full of feeling but with Chance in the middle, it's full of a curious hole, which those around Chance fill with their own longings.

BEING THERE ranges from funny scenes (such as when Chance appears on this favorite talk show and impresses the nation with his profound thoughts...when all he was doing was talking about planting trees) to political satire to failed romance. In this viewing, I was struck with how deep the relationship between Chance and Ben really is. Ben sees the son he never had in Chance, and Chance just absorbs the good feelings from Ben with all the seeming feeling of a sponge. His enigmatic smile never fades. He never gets angry or even very anxious, unless he's feeling hungry or too far away from a TV. He asks for nothing more. He'd love to garden for these nice people, if they let him, but that's about it.

Sellers, who died just months after this came out, is brilliant here. He doesn't seem to do anything different from one scene to the next, but it's really the most finely modulated performance...one that hinges on tiny, tiny changes to the eye or the posture. We, as viewers, almost begin to see Chance as the people around him do. We can't help but put our own perspectives and feelings on him. They don't belong there, but he never pushes back either! It's one of the great performances for the ages, in my opinion. Everyone around him is excellent, but Douglas and Sellers develop a chemistry that's palpable. And in one crucial scene, Chance suddenly is flooded with strong feelings, and it is heart-rendingly lovely to watch.

The movie is 130 minutes long, and director Hal Ashby seemed very content to have a languid pace throughout. It was tempting for me to say "the one flaw of the movie is that it could be tightened a bit" because it does clearly move slowly. And yet, I can't think of one scene I'd cut out or any moment that needed to be sped up. The pace is that of Chance himself, and it pulls us along. I never, in the end, felt that the movie was too slow, and in fact, was sorry to see it end.

If you've never seen it, I think it's a must. If you HAVE seen it, but not recently, please make the time. I think you may find you react differently each time you see it. That is a gift as well; the same movie hits different as you age and gain experience.

The Criterion Blu-Ray is outstanding. The picture is absolutely lovely and pristine. And the bonus materials are rich and engaging. The 45 minute making of is really detailed and enjoyable. But if you don't normally watch the bonus materials, at least let yourself watch the 8 minutes of Peter Sellers being interviewed by the annoying Gene Shalit. Seeing this immensely odd man in "real life" is a treat. But really, take the time to watch all the bonus materials. It's all top-notch.

The Awful Truth (1937)

After 87 years, it still reigns as an all time comedy classic

[9/10 · 12 July 2024]

It's been 30 years or more since I last watched THE AWFUL TRUTH. I was a young adult then, and I remember really enjoying it. Now, on July 10, 2024, as a 60 year old, I sat down to watch this 87 year old slapstick classic via the Criterion Blu Ray. Let's just say, I had a blast.

Arguably the movie that created slapstick as a genre, Leo McCarey's 1937 comedy did a few important things. It truly cemented Cary Grant as a star, and really created the "Cary Grant character" that so many of us know and love. It ensured Irene Dunn's everlasting fame; she was great before and great after, but this movie is a sterling showcase for her range. And it set a bar for how briskly and wittily dialogue could be thrown at the screen. A few years later HIS GIRL FRIDAY might have upped the words-per-minute ration even more, but the jabs and jokes fly fast and furious here. And most important, it made me laugh my butt off. I surprised myself with laughter at time. The overt goings on are amusing enough, but it's the asides, the risqué jokes, the clever jabs and even wittier comebacks, and the facial expressions that really make this film special.

The basic story is that Jerry (Grant) and Lucy (Irene Dunn), his wife, are a well-to-do Manhattan couple (we never really learn what they do well to be so well-to-do). Each is convinced of and tired of the other's infidelities and lying, so they agree to divorce. It's an amicable parting, except for the fight over custody of their dog. Dunn, lonely, thinks she needs to meet a man (at that time, a women couldn't go out for a night on the town without an escort)...and sure enough, she meets the very gentlemanly but quite dull neighbor Daniel (a hapless Ralph Bellamy...hapless in a good way), a land baron from Oklahoma who immediately falls for Dunn. Their impending betrothal sets the stage for Grant to be able to mercilessly taunt his soon-to-be ex about her choice. But Grant winds up with a worthy target for mocking himself, and the two spar quite hilariously. More happens after that, but it's really all about wit and some pratfalls (Grant pulls of at least on astonishing stunt when his chair slides out from under him at a recital; I had to laugh in startled delight. It was perfectly executed and utterly unexpected.)

I just want to emphasize how very good Dunn and Grant are here. Irene Dunn is charming in everything, but she is just this side of crazy in THE AWFUL TRUTH. A free spirit who tries to hide the fact. But her husband knows, and this is perhaps his biggest weapon against her...she can't help but want to be socially unacceptably silly. And Grant's performance is every bit the equal of the more experienced Dunn. Grant was 33 when this came out; Dunn was 38. These are not kids goofing around. These are well past "grown up" adults who are complete nutjobs around each other. Their jabs and scathing jokes land as lightly as feathers on the other. They can't hurt each other's feelings because they are too busy being amused by the other person's wit, even at their own expense. McCarey (as we learn in bonus materials) largely had his (terrified) actors improvise most of their work, which is truly remarkable. Grant, apparently, tried to quit the film and Bellamy was lost at first. But everyone got into the groove, and what emerged is an all time comedy classic that doesn't even need all my explanation or fawning or any prior knowledge of Grant or Dunn. It's just funny. It was, no doubt, hilarious in 1937 and it's flippin' hilarious in 2024. The 90 minutes fly by and I had the hugest smile on my face at the end. Please do yourself a favor and see it, for the first time or the fiftieth.

And if you can, see it via Criterion's excellent blu ray. The picture is nearly flawless, and the sound is immaculate too. A full restoration of both audio and film was done, and it's great. The bonus materials, although not plentiful, are a must. There is a radio interview with Dunn from the late '70s, and that's a great little appetizer to the truly excellent video essay that shows in detail how Grant struggled as an actor until THE AWFUL TRUTH came along and set him free. This is followed by a lengthy doc (60 minutes) about McCarey and how he worked, particularly on this film. Plan to spend a whole evening immersed in the movie and the bonuses. It'll be time very well spent indeed.

The Hitch-Hiker (1953)

A lean, mean b-movie classic that has much to admire.

[6/10 · 10 July 2024]

For years, I had been aware of Ida Lupino's "only film noir directed by a woman" THE HITCH-HIKER, but finally, in the summer of 2024 (71 years after its initial release), I watched this very brief, just over 70 minute long classic.

In some swiftly presented scenes (many while the opening credits were still rolling), we meet a mysterious, murderous hitch-hiker who is going on a killing spree in the Southwest US. He hitches a ride and eventually shoots the drivers. We then meet two friends, Roy (Edmond O'Brien) and Gilbert (Frank Lovejoy) as they travel along the Mexican border on a break from their families to go fishing. They kindly pick up a hitchhiker, and find themselves abruptly in a nightmare situation. Because, of course, they have picked up the infamous murderous Emmett Myers (William Talman), who holds them at gunpoint and forces them to drive deep into Mexico to aide in his escape plans. He makes it pretty clear that they are only alive at his pleasure, and that at the end of his journey, he is likely to kill the two friends.

Surprisingly little happens in the film. The two men are relatively stoic, and other than one quickly thwarted effort, make no moves to overpower Myers or escape from him. But, the film remains gripping because these two men are so relatable. While both solid, familiar actors (at least in their time) they have everyman qualities about them. Lovejoy, as Gilbert, is more quiet and grim-faced, but we get glimpses of how much he missed his wife and kids, and see the father he would be when he briefly interacts with a little girl at a grocery store. O'Brien is a bit sloppier and unkempt, and the toll of days with a killer pointing a gun at him really begin to take their toll on his psyche. So we relate to these two men, and the film subtly but effectively shows the strength of their friendship. Very little is said, but we feel how neither man is willing to make a dramatic attempt to end the situation for fear of putting his friend in more danger. The movie is spare with its dialogue and in keeping with "manly men" of the '50s, the guys don't exactly over-emote...but Lupino gives them little opportunities to show depth and the two actors take those chances and make a lot out of a little.

And Talman, as Myers, is a creepy presence. The motivations of his character are not very clear, and his actions don't always make sense. Is he just a psycho killer (think Rutger Hauer in THE HITCHER a few decades later), or is he just a criminal who has learned to hate the world and de-value life? Either way, Talman does a great job depicting the corrupt spirit of Myers. He has one eye that is half shut all the time. Even when he's sleeping, this one eye remains half open. This is an incredibly simple but extremely effective idea, making Talman somehow monstrous. While I wouldn't put Myers in the pantheon of great movie serial killers, his portrayal is effective and he is relentlessly unsympathetic. Even when he takes a minute to share about his upbringing, we feel no compassion for this guy.

The final minutes of the film are perhaps not handled too effectively, and the whole thing feels anti-climactic. The drama should have somehow been resolved between the 3 men, and not the 3 men plus a bunch of wooden police officers that we've barely been introduced to. It's a lean, mean movie that did not benefit from being "opened up" at the end.

I watched the Kino Lorber blu-ray, and I'll admit I was disappointed in the image quality. There are lots of scratches and other flaws in the film and Kino apparently made no investment in cleaning up the image. I was hoping for something akin to Criterion Collection work (which a famous film like this arguably deserves), but it is a far cry from that. It's perfectly acceptable, but could have been a lot more. The only bonus materials on this disc are some trailers for other films and a small gallery of publicity stills. A bit of a let down.

But the film itself is absolutely worth a look. The three leads do understated work, and the scenery is gorgeous. Lupino keeps it all moving briskly. A high quality B-movie!

Dom Hemingway (2013)

Jude Law is memorably unhinged here

[5/10 · 10 July 2024]

DOM HEMINGWAY really only has one reason to exist and to be seen. Jude Law. If you're a fan of his, which I am, you'll be highly amused by his over-the-top, titanic performance. Titanic as in huge, unrestrained and heading for an iceberg.

Law plays the titular Jude, and when we meet him (in the first scene/shot of the movie) he is standing in his jail cell, spewing forth a self written ode to his own genitalia. He's fairly in love with them, and while his cell mate shows his appreciation (just offscreen), Dom goes on and on about how fabulous his little Dom is. It's shocking in a hilarious way. We know this character and this movie will be pretty unrestrained.

Dom is released from prison after serving 12 years, when he could have saved a LOT of jail time if he had only ratted out his boss. But he's an honorable safecracker, and he's kept quiet. But now he's back on the streets of London, and reunites with his friend Dickie (Richard E. Grant...always amusing, but really probably mis-cast here). They drink and talk and Dom then enjoys a night on the town, which you might expect is booze and sex filled. But he's then ready to travel to France to visit his old employer, the Russian mobster Ivan (Demian Bechir, not at all convincingly Russian.) Hijinks ensue, Dom receives and promptly loses a lot of cash and other awful but somehow not gripping things happen.

Back in London, Dom tries to reconcile with his daughter (a young Emilia Clark) whom he last saw when she was 13. She was abandoned by dad, and her mother died of cancer...leaving her understandably bitter at her father for going away so long just because he wouldn't rat out a really bad guy. Dom wants to reconcile, but he also wants to get back to work, if only someone would employ him.

Law sputters and yells and drinks constantly. He is a chaotic force of nature in this film. While I wouldn't say he was an actor of great restraint, his turns in films as diverse as CLOSER, ROAD TO PERDITION, "The Young Pope", A. I. and many, many more at least had him playing real, believable people. And quite well, too. Here, he goes berserk! It's a blast to watch him if you're a fan. I found myself smiling at the great time he seemed to be having playing a completely unbelievable man.

BUT, that's awfully thin stuff to hang a 98 minute movie on, and he (and the film) grow tiresome. The plot, while easy to follow, is utterly uninteresting. Dom is a character is search of something interesting to do, but then you realize his thin charms wear out their welcome before the closing credits begin.

Director Richard Shepard brings a workman like competency to the film-making (he wrote it also, but I don't want to slam him too hard for that), and the film features a slightly over-saturated color scheme that fits well and leads to a few attractive scenes. But really, I'm stretching for more to say. If you like Jude Law, give it a whirl. If you've never been a fan (or he's never really been on your radar), just don't bother.

Au hasard Balthazar (1966)

I just didn't get it.

[4/10 · 8 July 2024]

The Criterion edition of Robert Bresson's AU HASARD BALTHAZAR is a stunner. The relatively recent restoration has resulted in a beautiful image, full of depth, and the soundtrack is also sharp and clear. It's a simple 1.0 mono soundtrack, but there are moments where I swear it was a stereo soundtrack. Sound effects felt immersive. It's simply gorgeous all around. When watching the included bonus materials, you get to see some unrestored footage (now granted, it was taken from a 1966 French TV broadcast, so it wouldn't have looked great in that venue), and this helps one appreciate just how lovely the restoration is. The difference in depth and gradation is remarkable. The bonus materials are really limited to two, the aforementioned documentary, a full 60 minutes long, with lots of interviews. It's fascinating to see the cast of the film speaking, and it's very interesting seeing directors like Godard or Louise Malle commenting as well. And Bresson himself is a central figure. There is a briefer discussion of the film by critic Donald Richie which also has worthwhile insights. But that's about it. No commentary track.

Normally, if I'm reviewing a Criterion film, I reserve my commentary for the end of my thoughts on the film itself. But I started with them because at the end of watching the film and then the bonus materials (and reading the brief included essay), I still don't understand what I watched. I would have loved to have more bonus materials, including actual interpretations of the film. It is widely considered a great classic (and I often read that the final scene is one of the most powerful in movie history). I feel like I missed something. To me it was boring and frustrating and even amateurish. I really, REALLY wanted to be taken by the hand and shown a way to appreciate this film.

We are introduced to the young donkey (soon christened, literally, as Balthazar) and we follow the donkey through his life. He is owned by various folks in his rural area of France, some of them kind to him, but most indifferent to his labors or even downright cruel. He works a mill. He carries hay. He pulls a heavy cart uphill. Balthazar is a hard-working donkey, and he puts up with a lot of mis-treatment. But Balthazar serves more importantly as an observer of little human dramas playing out around him. Whether it's the blooming romance of a couple of childhood friends, or the drunken ravings of one of his owners, to, most importantly, the exploitative relationship between local thug Gerard and the innocent but curious beauty Marie, who owns Balthazar for much of his life, and is one of the few people who shows the donkey kindness. Gerard is a seductive rake (if one is feeling very generous) and his is, potentially, a rapist (while this movie shies away from showing anything too explicit, it's pretty clear that he takes advantage of Marie's ambiguous feelings about the physical side of their relationship). Marie ruins her reputation in her village and this ruination seems to bleed into her beloved father's efforts to run a farm (a former schoolteacher, he stubbornly believes his "modern" farming methods will make him rich and maybe even famous). Their financial situation grows more dire as Marie's attachment to Gerard grows more self-destructive.

Meanwhile, Balthazar is an impassive observer to all this drama (what else can he be but impassive; he's a donkey, after all). Is this beast really a Christ like metaphor and the whole film an allegory, as some say? I don't see it. Christ impacted those around him. Balthazar is seldom anything but a background player in the character's lives. Is Balthazar the innocent victim of the casual cruelties these very flawed humans toss around? Is he even the vessel for frustrations to be taken out on? Maybe, but if so, there's nothing illuminating or inherently interesting in that idea. I just don't know how to take this film, but I was left unmoved by it.

In part, this lack of sympathy or even involvement is due to the performances, which are uniformly amateurish and even cloddish. I feel Bresson has made this a deliberate choice (this is my first foray into Bresson, so I acknowledge I may not understand his world-view or aesthetic yet). But why, then? Why is watching a bunch of stilted actors incompetently uttering their lines, with pauses where they don't belong? Everyone in the film is uniformly dreadful.

The camera work of the movie is perhaps the only truly interesting thing. Bresson often focuses his lense where you least expect it. The legs of a character. The hands. Things happen off-screen that are pretty important. We hear them, but don't see them. (Often, what we see is Balthazar in semi-close-up.)

And in the end, we are meant to care (it would seem) about Balthazar's fate. Sure, I care because he is an animal who didn't deserve the ill treatment he received. But clearly, I'm supposed to care and understand more...I missed it. A bunch of very flawed people (badly portrayed) do various mean, cruel or thoughtless things to each other, and sometimes to the donkey. Is this a commentary on man's inhumanity to man and beast? I don't know. And because of the movies many flaws, I don't care either.

Proceed at your own risk.

The Girlfriends (1955)

So modern, it's hard to believe it's from 1955.

[7/10 · 29 June 2024]

In many ways, it's amazing that Michelangelo Antonioni made LE AMICHE in 1955. While clearly of its time, it is so modern and you can see a line leading right from this film right to works like SEX AND THE CITY or almost any movie or TV show centered around the complicated relationships of female friends, with men mostly being distractions or sidebar characters.

The film starts with the introduction of Clelia (Eleonora Rossi Drago), who is preparing to luxuriate in a hot bath in her hotel room in Turin, when the maid interrupts her, asking if she can use her connecting door to the next room, where the guest hasn't been answering any summons. They discover this guest (later revealed to be Rosetta, played by Madeleine Fischer) who is laying unresponsive on her bed, having attempted suicide by sleeping pills. Clelia then meets Momina (Yvonne Furneaux), Rosetta's friend who has come to check on her. They immediately strike up a conversation that blossoms into friendship. We find out that Clelia has come from Rome back to her hometown, to supervise the opening of a new fashion salon (a sort of franchise. She is NOT the founder or designer; she will be the manager on behalf of her boss back in Rome). Although Clelia comes from a poor background, she is quickly swept into this new friend group, led by the married (but separated) Momina, but also encompassing the morose Rosetta, the artist Nene (Valentina Cortese) and the young, blonde and very silly Mariella (Anna Maria Pancani).

Momina is very interested in knowing why Rosetta has tried to kill herself, and while I won't reveal any plot points here, the answer is given fairly quickly. But the movie overall follows these higher-class women as they gallivant around the city, tormenting men and gathering them up as lovers both casual and not so casual. Although a couple of the friends are married, this is taken with varying degrees of importance. The men often barely know what has hit them. They are easily smitten by this attractive, well-heeled and seemingly fun-loving women. A loose friend group forms, but the movie is really always about the women. Their relationships. Their dialogue. Their fears and foibles. Their spats and their making-up.

While nothing explicit ever happens on screen, it's pretty clear that a lot of hanky-panky is going on here. It feels like what you'd see in a modern film. Women claiming their agency through deciding if or when they need a man and if/when they no longer need him. Or not needing a man at all. Certainly no one in the film is interested in starting a family; even if marriage might be part of their lives, there is no intimation that children are ever going to enter the picture. Young Mariella is naïve and just enjoys being with these older women and her new boyfriend. She hasn't learned any truly hard lessons yet, but we can see it coming. Nena, faithfully married to fellow artist Lorenzo, struggles when she finds out she will actually be the successful artist of the two. And perhaps her husband has a wandering eye. And perhaps it is because of his lack of success or his resentment. Or maybe he just doesn't love her and never has. Rosetta is clearly going through a severe episode of depression, one which she doesn't readily shake off. She feels very deeply and is mocked for it by Momina, the de facto leader of the group. She's got the most life experience, and the conclusions she has drawn is that life needs to be grabbed and lived and enjoyed FOR ONESELF. And she is quite cruel when others believe differently or want someone truly important and long-lasting in their lives. New friend Clelia fits in well, but we also see her observing and silently (or sometimes not silently) judging the actions of this class of women she has never been part of before, and probably only is now by luck and by virtue of managing a fashion salon.

So it all feels very 1955 but also very modern. You see the seeds of many "friend group" movies to come. At one point, I thought of THE BIG CHILL. Although in CHILL the men are key characters also, the easy banter, the loaded asides and the secrets could easily be traced back to Antonioni's film. Or, as one of the experts speaking in one of the (skimpy) extras on the Criterion Blu Ray says, the characters in the divisive HBO show GIRLS could just be LE AMICHE 60 years later.

Movies from the 50s of course, even from Italy, have a feel that is unmistakable. Everyone smokes. Banter is faster than it is today. Even the way people kiss on screen is a giveaway. And I worried at first that this film would not draw me in. That I wouldn't really care what happened. But it was pretty sneaky in making me wonder what would happen next and in actually caring what that would be. First, many of the performances are surprisingly naturalistic for 1955. Yes, in the US, method acting (think Marlon Brando) was coming to the forefront, but many of these performers were also making an effort to ground in reality what is, after all, a melodrama. With the exception of Fischer's Rosetta (the weakest performance among the 5), the rest of the ladies give convincing, lived-in performances. In particular, Drago and Furneaux reveal as much about themselves through their faces and what they don't say as in any dialogue they deliver. The male actors circulating around these powerhouses give more traditional "actor-ish" performances, but the leads are truly playing a different game. I assume Antonioni helped encourage this style from them, and it works remarkably well.

Some commentary on the films speaks to its revolutionary style. To me, the filming style felt very conventional. Not uninspired, exactly, but lacking zest or flair. I think it was a departure from Italian neo-realism that was the default style of the time, and again, it was something that today feels relatively modern. Radical in 1955; ho-hum in 2024.

I enjoyed the film very much. It would appear that Criterion had to do more work that usual to piece together this excellent restoration, and I'm glad they did. It would have been a real shame for this film to molder away. I wish Criterion has lavished more on the film than the two 25 minute talking head mini-films. They were both informative, but I would have hoped for more. More archival interviews with cast & crew. Maybe a commentary track. It's still a commendable restoration, but an overall mild disappointment.

An Angel at My Table (1990)

Just too long and rambling.

[6/10 · 16 June 2024]

AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE is a lovingly crafted and beautifully acted story, based on the biography of Janet Frame, New Zealand's most beloved author and poet. It juxtaposes views of grand vistas with highly specific and intimate glimpses of a family and specifically, Frame herself. Her story is the stuff film biographies are often made of. She comes from very poor circumstances and of course, in her large family there are occasional tragedies. She faces obstacles both personal and societal, some of them quite compelling (her stint in a mental hospital is the most alarming). Certainly that she was able to emerge from this squalor and hardship is a testament to her spirit and to her will to write.

And yet. And yet, I didn't love the film. The easiest knock on it is that it is quite long, coming in north of 2.5 hours. But as I reflected on it afterwards, the length would have been okay if there had been more narrative drive or more pace. Frame is a deeply, painfully shy girl, teen and young lady. The movie dwells on this too much. We get it, she's pathologically shy. But again and again and again we are given scenes where her role is to essentially be a wallflower, watching those around her, wishing she could join in or perhaps hoping she'll just continue to be ignored so she doesn't have to muster up social graces. Frame is a character worthy of getting to know, but it's as though director Jane Campion didn't trust that showing her main character as deeply shy only 10 or 20 times was enough. Not when she could do it 30 or 40 times.

To my mind, the movie is also hampered by a sketchy sense of time. We meet Frame first as a little girl, then a teen then an adult...each time played by different performers (and always very well), so we know time has passed. But otherwise, there are very few clues as to WHEN we are. WWII starts and ends during the course of the movie, so that helps root us a bit. Towards the end, Frame is listening to The Twist on her radio. That gives some idea. But I cannot tell you how much time she spent in the mental hospital...not even a guess. (Yes, much later in the movie, she tells someone when they ask.) She goes to Europe on a literary scholarship. Does she spend 2 months or 2 years there (or more or less?). No idea. I think they may have aged actor Kerry Fox, who plays Frame very convincingly, but it's hard to say, and if so, I'd be hard pressed to say how many years she was aged. It is as though the film is showing us vignettes, in chronological order, but each vignette exists on its own, with no idea of how closely it follows upon the prior vignette.

Finally, and I really hate to say this, but I feel that this movie was made for people familiar with Frame and in particular also devoted to her work. I'll admit that I had never heard of her before, but I'm not from New Zealand. The camera dotes on her as though she is a near saintly figure, enduring trials, but knowing that in the end, her "martyrdom" will be rewarded by literary success. I am happy she was vindicated after her hardships, but I wasn't moved by Janet Frame or her story. At the end, I didn't want to run out and read any of her work. Simply, the movie didn't grip me. I've had that trouble with Campion movies before. I know everyone loves THE PIANO, but it didn't do that much for me. THE POWER OF THE DOG has a great plot twist or two, but it also frequently plods along. Campion likes to take her time, but sometimes, I think, she forgets she is supposed to engage and entertain her audience.

I viewed the Criterion Collection version, and was somewhat disappointed that the extras were pretty skimpy. Despite it all, I was interested in hearing from and seeing Frame herself (on film, she is a very striking looking person, with a huge mass of curly, untamable red hair), but all we have are a radio interview. It's mildly interesting (and apparently one of the very few she gave), but I was disappointed. There is a making of featurette that I was actually interested to see, but it was only 10 minutes long. The accompanying booklet has a nice essay and also excerpts from Frame's autobiography (the three volumes of which are the basis of the script). I did not read them; that should indicate how I had become a bit weary of spending time with this person. Yes, I know, I'm a terrible, terrible person to say this. But the movie wasn't interested in making new fans of Frames work; it was made for New Zealanders who grew up admiring her as a national treasure. There's a bit of a disconnect there.

I still give the movie a modest recommendation. Kerry Fox (and Alexia Keogh and Karen Fergusson as the younger Janets) are uniformly excellent. There are some moving sequences throughout. So don't let me completely scare you off.

Towelhead (2007)

Interesting, but too many flaws

[5/10 · 11 June 2024]

If you're saying to yourself, "Hey, I'd like to watch a film that makes me really uncomfortable, but not a horror film", then I've got a recommendation for you. Try TOWELHEAD, a very uneven movie from 2007 that has very much (and not surprisingly) flown under the radar. I've had the DVD of this movie for 15 years, and just watched it for the first time this week (June, 2024). And I have to admit, I almost didn't care to finish it, but that's not like me, so I soldiered on.

It's the story of a 13 year old half-Lebanese girl named Jasira (played by 18 year old Summer Bishil, an actor who showed promise in this film, but whose IMDB shows little noteworthy work since this film). In the beginning of the film, her mother (hugely overacting Mario Bello) sends Jasira to live with her ultra-conservative dad after her own boyfriend (Chris Messina, appearing in only one scene) helps Jasira in shaving some areas mom's boyfriend has no business shaving. Jasira's dad, Rifat (played by an excellent Peter Macdissi) is a character that's both horrifying and somehow understandable. He's a Lebanese man who has come to America (and become a citizen) to carve out a better life for himself and his daughter. He loves her, but puts realistic expectations on her. She's held up against a cultural standard that is out-dated, particularly in America. He is a racist (when he objects to Jasira's choice of boyfriend, it isn't because she's 13, it's because he's black). He is physically abusive (in one scene, when he's deeply angry with his daughter, he yells at her in the car, and pounds his fist emphatically...on her leg). But we also understand, because Macdissi infuses his characterization with some humanity, that this man is not cut out to be a father, never expected to be a single parent, and is just overwhelmed by the forces of American "liberalism" that are "corrupting" his daughter.

But Jasira is an interesting handful. I would certainly never want to shame anyone about their sexuality or interest in sex. But she is 13 and obsessed with her body, with being clean shave, and eventually, with a girlie magazine that stirs up her lust in ways she doesn't fully understand but which she indulges thoroughly. She takes on a boyfriend more as a tool that she can explore her sexuality with than as a person she might like to hang out with. As an older man with a grown daughter of his own, I was sometimes surprised and sometimes perplexed by this young lady's obsession with sex. I accepted it, but it troubled me.

AND it got her in trouble. Her next door neighbor (Aaron Eckhart), whose son she babysits, spots Jasira's interests in the magazine and begins to exploit her. We see him looking lustily at her, and that is quite disturbing enough. But he eventually sexually assaults her, in an escalating series of events. We see one long, drawn out scene that made me deeply, deeply uncomfortable. It helped (slightly) knowing that Bishil was 18 when the movie was made, but seeing Eckhart's character with an 13 year old and even the actor Eckhart with an 18 year old was just really tough to stomach. Jasira herself is both aware that she has been used, and titillated by the knowledge. Her feelings are jumbled at first, and only become more complex and self-destructive.

This is a coming of age movie for a very specific young lady. Her journey is complicated by being Lebanese-American and having a "traditional father", but in many ways, she's just a typical American kid whose journey of self-discovery is made difficult, confusing and even life-changing by the casually predatory or abusive men around her, and not helped by a mother with her own obsessions. She is well fed and clothed, but she is not "taken care of" or protected by her parents.

It's a sad and interesting journey, even when very uncomfortable, but the film suffers from poor pacing (it feels way too long), some troubles with tone (it continues to try to be light-hearted in some way I can't put my finger on, but which is totally wrong for this story) and a couple of characters (played by Toni Collette and Matt Letscher) that are critical to the plot but completely unbelievable as real people. And in the end, while I appreciated seeing a world view totally foreign to me, but one that's possibly just down the street, I was mostly left wondering why writer/director Alan Ball (SIX FEET UNDER) felt he needed to tell this story and why he was the right person to do so. I can't quite recommend spending time with this film.

After Life (1998)

Kore-eda has made a GIFT to humanity with this gentle masterpiece.

[9/10 · 4 June 2024]

I wonder how many movies have been made that speculate on what happens after we die? It's a topic that offers, I think, endless opportunities for creativity (and clichés). AFTER LIFE, from writer/director Kore-eda Hirokazu, adds a poignant new concept to this packed genre.

Often, these speculative ideas turn the movie into a comedy, or a science fiction piece, or something philosophical and often difficult to interpret or just boring. AFTER LIFE fits none of these categories. In fact, it isn't really that interested in the notion of death and dying. Set in a rundown (even abandoned) government type building, each week, a batch of the recently deceased show up and given an assignment by the compassionate bureaucrats who run the place: Give us a memory that you want to take with you to your afterlife. We'll do our best to recreate it on film. We'll show you the film, and when it actually sparks that memory for you, you'll move on to the next step, forever accompanied by that one moment, and no other.

In the week under consideration in AFTER LIFE, 22 people have arrived to perform this ritual. All are aware that they've died, but noone is upset about it, or screaming for a second chance or any of the usual histrionics we might expect. They are, to some degree, at peace...but really, they mostly just recognize this as another step on their journey's, and they are agreeable (mostly) to the process. Most of the folks are elderly, and they eagerly share details of their favorite memories with the sympathetic and gentle team who work with them.

Not everyone is 100% on board. One older gentleman, whose journey evolves in ways that make him more central to the story than the others, is hesitant to admit that anything has happened to him that made him happy. And a young man simply refuses to play along. He's not angry or aggressive, he just chooses not to let his life be distilled down to that one memory.

Central to all this is the relationship between the workers, particularly between Takashi (Arata Iura), a young man who serves as a counselor, and Shiori (Erika Oda), his young trainee. Both actors are excellent in their understated ways, and the arc of their story makes a deep impact.

The movie has an air of sadness. The decrepit building, the gray skies (and snow), the overall lighting and the slower pace. But as you watch, you realize that it's really more an air of respect and importance. Attention is being paid because these 22 people are about to embark on the most important thing that's happened to them. They've lived their full lives, and that's to be respected. When we see the scenes of memories being recreated and filmed, the movie becomes a joyful documentary. Filmed with handheld cameras, we immerse into this thoughtful process, one that clearly gives everyone involved a great deal of satisfaction.

I won't say more, because although this film is not heavy on plot (as we think of it), a fair amount actually happens, including a number of beautiful and surprising things. It's a slow go, but it's never boring. And what's remarkable about it is that the "dead" folks sharing their memories are all the "real" people...amateurs who have agreed to participate in this unusual film and to share their own actual special memories. You can tell they are amateurs, but they have been given the space to really be themselves, and as these people (particularly the elderly) share their stories, we understand that AFTER LIFE has given us a rare privilege; to be shown that part of these people that they've carried as a kernel of pure happiness throughout their long and varied lives. While the movie is about a lot more than that, just sharing in those revelations is enough to make this film a true gift to the viewer.

If you have the Criterion Collection version, I very heartily recommend the bonus features. The interview with Kore-eda is revelatory and even the commentary, while delivered in academic tones, illuminates and adds so many more layers to this amazing film.

Prey (I) (2022)

A little slow to get going, but lots of fun!

[7/10 · 2 June 2024]

PREY is touted as being part of the PREDATOR series, and I suppose it is. But it absolutely can be a standalone film.

Amber Midthunder plays Naru, a very tough (dare I say scrappy) Comanche, who bristles under the scorn of the male warriors in her tribe, and has trainer herself to be a hunter in a society where no one wants her to be one. However, she's a good tracker and good with medicine (and also has a very indulgent brother), so she gets to tag along on some scouting expeditions and hunts. Set in 1719, in the heart of the American plains, Naru is a competent but smart-mouthed teenager. In fact, the dialogue, to put it mildly, is often anachronistic, or at least I assume it is given I know nothing about how Comanche actually talked to each other in 1719.

But while out on her own, working on her axe-throwing, Naru gets a glimpse of an alien vessel in the sky, leaving after dropping off a Predator. No one believes her, and some of the subsequent carnage is chalked up to cougars or bears. And indeed, they do encounter those animals and other predators. But we certainly know that before long, they're going to run into something just a bit more difficult to track and kill.

PREY is very serious about its action sequences, and while they are impressive, what I really enjoyed was seeing Naru come into her own. She kicks butt, but uses her considerable wits to even greater effect. Her hunting and fighting is clumsy and hesitant at first, but she's a fast learner, and soon has motivation aplenty to mame and kill. Midthunder, I should say here, is excellent and very convincing.

My only real gripe with the film is that it is slow to get started. The sequences early in the film are interesting, but each time we are teased with the possibility that the action is going to ratchet up, and then it does not. Some might argue the film is building tension and character. It feels more like the film wanted to be sure it was 90 minutes long, so padded it with some stuff.

But when it does kick into higher gear, you can't fault it. There is action. There is gore. There is plenty of inventive killing from the Predator. And there is Naru, thinking faster than anyone, acting faster and simply perplexing the heck out of the Predator. It's lots of fun, and if you're looking for a fix of action, but need something different, PREY is your ticket to a good time!

Dual (2022)

Unexpected tone and twists. But hard to love.

[6/10 · 1 June 2024]

DUAL is a frustrating movie, and not easy to embrace. I feel like I get the tone it's going for, and I appreciate it, but it holds me at a distance (intentionally, I'd say) and that's not a recipe for an immersive, enjoyable experience. But, it still offers a lot, and on average, I still (slightly) recommend it.

DUAL takes place in some odd future America, where cell phones and overhead projectors exist together. Where you can surf porn and do Facetime, but search engines appear to be text based. It's also a time when a remarkable technology can not only clone you, but clone you in about a hour. And your clone is, amazingly, exactly the same age as you and both knows things (like English) and doesn't know things (like what kind of food you like). But the details aren't really important or even distracting (until you sit down to write about them!). But you can only get a clone if you're going to die soon, either via a terminal illness or perhaps suicide. It's supposed to make it easier on your loved ones.

Sarah (Karen Gillan) a 30-something woman for whom life is clearly going through the motions. Regular calls with her boyfriend, whose job keeps him far away in another country. Ignoring calls from mom. And just basically going through life like an expressionless robot. Much like most of the people in the film do. This is what life is like now...clamped down emotions and a joyless series of meaningless tasks. BUT, Sarah finds out that she's got a rare and incurable terminal illness. Inexplicably, she finds herself interested in getting a clone. And then, once the clone has fairly well integrated into her life, she experiences a miraculous recovery.

This new society doesn't allow the "original" and the clone to co-exist, so they must fight a dual to the death (broadcast on live TV, of course).

Yep, that's the premise. Is this going to be an action-packed thriller? An over-the-top physical comedy. A thoughtful drama exploring ethical implications? Well, it has a tiny sprinkling of each of these, but be warned, the true tone of the movie is of bone-dry comedy. And I mean dry. As in, it took me awhile to understand that this wasn't a poorly acted effort, but a carefully calibrated black comedy. While I laughed a couple of times, it's certainly not uproarious either. Slow paced (like Sarah herself), absurd (reminded me at times of a film like THE LOBSTER) and full of unexpected turns. The film I expected to see based on the description was NOT the film I got. An existential comedy that posits that life might not be worth living.

This bleak outlook is greatly enhanced by the setting. Out of necessity, the film was shot in Finland. Thanks to the pandemic, this was the only place it really could be shot back in '21. And the low angle light, European aesthetic and the fact that most of the supporting actors are Finnish and have heavy accents makes the whole film seem as though it is taking place someplace we don't quite recognize. I'll admit it takes a bit to just embrace. When you realize director Riley Stearns clearly decided to lean in to the circumstances he had been forced in to, it's easier to accept if not love.

Gillan does interesting work here. Her face is a mask of affectlessness and makeuplessness. Bland and uninspired. She has reigned in her natural ebullience. But her clone is almost exactly like her, but just a little different too. We can always tell which is which by the very subtle differences Gillan employs. It's not Oscar-worthy acting, but it's interesting and certainly increases my appreciation for her. The rest of the cast, including an under-used Aaron Paul, is just adequate. The film focuses on Karen (and the clone) and really not much else. Her worldview is our view of the world she lives in.

As mentioned, this all moves quite slowly. Although the film barely clocks in over 90 minutes, I had to watch it in two sittings, since it felt much longer. (And I started it at 11pm.) Stearns works very hard to give us the feel of Karen's depressive state and the state of the world he has envisioned. It just isn't inherently interesting. He's too successful in plopping us into a world that is, simply, not that interested in existing.

Late Night with the Devil (2023)

A creative & fun horror show

[6/10 · 25 March 2024]

LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL has a terrific, easy-to-explain premise that it largely lives up to. It's the 1970's, the heyday of Johnny Carson, and also-ran late-night talk show host Jack Delroy has a plan to juice up his ratings in the hope of surpassing Carson, even if only for one night. On Halloween, he will feature a series of guests with considerable interest in the supernatural and occult. The movie is essentially us seeing that broadcast again, along with what happened during commercial breaks. And let's just say, Jack gets more than he bargained for.

Delroy is played by David Dastmalchian, an actor I've noticed before thanks to his often off-putting characters. He's an unusual looking actor and as a result, I imagine, often gets cast as strange or off-center characters. He's rather convincing in LATE NIGHT, and very believable as a third-rate talk show host, in the dreadful '70s-era suits and ties. He is the focal point of the movie and in virtually every frame. He carries the film well. He is surrounded by largely unknown performers, but they all pitch their work at the same level. The film is aware that the trappings of the '70s make it look vaguely ridiculous and the movie therefore plays for something akin to satire or comedy, although it is not really a comedy. But it also builds a convincing sense of foreboding. When Delroy tells his home audience that they're going to do things like interview a demon, we know just how stupid a move this is likely to be!

And the movie itself offers just enough tension (particularly during the commercial breaks) that we know we aren't off the hook, horror-wise, just because the proceedings appear to be lightly handled. So for about half the film, I was mostly enjoying the authentic feeling recreation of a cheesy talk-show and enjoying Dastmalchian's performance. Then, things slowly but surely get more and more intense...building to a pretty nutso climax.

I've heard this described as a "found footage" movie, but it isn't. I take the trouble to say that, because some folks won't watch those, either because of their predictable nature or because the wobbly camera work doesn't sit well with them. This is, essentially, a showing of a one hour TV show. No shaky camera work. Just a low budget aesthetic that works very well in establishing a time & place.

I enjoyed the film very much. It wasn't at all the scariest thing I've ever seen, and in my opinion, somewhat fumbles its "on the nose" ending. Some of the actions a couple of key characters take (the psychiatrist in particular) are a bit hard to buy. BUT...I appreciated the effort that went into this, and I want also give a special shout-out to young actor Ingrid Torelli as Lilly, the main attraction of Delroy's Halloween experiment. She's an awful lot of fun to watch.

I'd certainly encourage folks who like horror films to check this out. It's creative, fun and creepy.

The Humans (2021)

It's a horror movie wrapped in guise of domestic drama

[7/10 · 21 March 2024]

What an interesting movie. THE HUMANS was adapted by writer/director Stephen Karam from his own, Tony-winning play. I never saw the play, but the movie does certainly feel like a play at many times. The pacing of dialogue, the small cast in a single location, the "talky" nature of the proceedings and a VERY theatrical ending.

But I love theater, so none of that is off-putting. If you don't care for live theater, I'd still recommend giving this a try if you like movies that are a bit challenging and feature outstanding performances.

It's Thanksgiving, and 3 generations of the Blake Family gather in the newly rented apartment of daughter Brigid (Beanie Feldstein) and her live-in boyfriend Richard (Steven Yeun). They are joined by Brigid's sister Aimee (Amy Schumer), Brigid & Aimee's parents Deirdre (Jayne Houdyshell) and Erik (Richard Jenkins), along with Erik's wheel-chair bound, Alzheimer's afflicted mother Momo (June Squibb). Lots of dialogue and fireworks ensue. The set up is one I feel I've seen in a million films before...the holiday family gathering where we get to know people a little bit and then secrets and grievances begin bubbling up, leading to a series of awards-bait arguments and then ultimately some kind of resolution, either happy or not. These kinds of films provide a great opportunity to gather some great actors because they are fairly quick to make, give everyone a chance to ACT (with all caps) and often are set somewhere appealing, like a beach house.

Not so much in THE HUMANS. The apartment, located over a Chinese Restaurant in NYC's Chinatown, is quite spacious, but ancient. The infrastructure is failing right before our eyes and ears. The layout is extremely unworkable (several very uncomfortable scenes of trying to move Momo from one level to another in her wheelchair...or heck, just through the front door). The action of the film proceeds somewhat predictably. Initial conversation is bursts of forced jolliness, punctuated with pointed barbs that only work in a group that has known each other for decades. We begin to understand some of the dynamics and feel as though we're going to settle in for one of those typical movies I described above. Except...

Except this is really a horror movie. This is a family drama with jump-scares. The apartment is the seventh character. It makes noises loudly and abruptly and startlingly. It oozes. It clanks. And its walls close in. The entire atmosphere of the film is akin to a haunted house film, not a light drama. And many of the characters are haunted too. While we learn a lot about Richard Jenkins' Erik, we sure don't learn everything. He has things on his mind well beyond the secrets we learn about, and they are tearing him apart. Affable Richard, just trying to ingratiate himself with these strangers, has some demons we don't quite get to touch on. And Momo, trapped in her disease, seems to have things she NEEDS to say to her family, but she just...can't. (Or does she?) It's all unsettling, the idea that our family can turn our lives into a horror show, or that our family can't provide relief for our own torments.

Sounds like a lot of fun, you say. Yes, it's a bit bleak on paper. But the performances are all stellar. Jayne Houdyshell, the only actor who worked on the play, is a revelation. I did not know her at all before this film; but she is the relatively quiet one, the aging woman who has no voice anymore (or at least is barely heard) and is just a sounding board and a scapegoat for the disappointments of her family. Jenkins, always very good, is next level here. His natural affability has curdled into something frightening. Schumer, a divisive persona to be sure, is undeniably strong here, as though her character has allowed her to tap into something that resonates with her. Squibb, though mostly silent and unseen, makes the most of her few moments and reminds us of what a terrific actor she is. Yeun almost serves as our host for these events, as he is the most likeable person around. And he's got a very natural style that serves him well here. Feldstein is perhaps the least successful, but honestly, her character is perhaps the least convincingly written; her grievances feel the most generic of all.

The details of these secrets and lies I will not share. You should discover them as you go along. But suffice it to say that it's an unsettling movie that will leave you shaken (and a bit confused) by the end. It's not perfect, with some of the camera work and framing choices more distracting than illuminating and a spotty sound mix that sometimes will push your surround sound system to its limits and at others make you wonder if your ears stopped working. But see it. Enjoy the performances and take a minute at the end to explore your reactions to what just happened. It's a compelling film and illuminating to ruminate on afterwards.

Cabrini (2024)

Often pedestrian tell, but Dell'Anna makes it quite worthwhile.

[6/10 · 20 March 2024]

There is no doubt that the story of Mother Francis Xavier Cabrini is fascinating, and absolutely worthy of being remembered and told. I do wish it had been told more compellingly than in CABRINI, as by-the-book as a historical biography could be.

Cabrini was a nun, running an orphanage in Lombard, Italy near the end of the 19th century. But she aspired to lead a mission in China, with the goal of bringing hospitals, schools and (of course) Catholicism to those people, and then spreading her mission from there. Pope Leo XIII had different ideas and sent her to the US (NYC in particular) to help downtrodden Italian immigrants there. Cabrini and a handful of sisters travelled there, and managed to establish a truly impressive mission that eventually spread throughout the world. The movie primarily hones in on the time when Cabrini arrives in America and overcame the rather daunting obstacles that faced her in establishing a school/orphanage and then a hospital. The rest of her life is only summarized briefly in text before the closing credits. She faces predictable obstacles: no one wants to spend resources on those awful Italians. The mayor is utterly unsympathetic and the local archbishop, while clearly feeling the pull of the feelings that my first have drawn him to the priesthood, is still guided by his desire to keep his church prosperous by maintaining his relationships with local officials. But our title character uses determination, smarts and some well-placed deceptions to "do what is right." In particular, she gets the press on her side.

It's all interesting stuff, and certainly it's easy to feel outrage at the treatment of the immigrants living in squalor in Five Points. But the archbishop (David Morse) and mayor (John Lithgow), among others, are such cardboard villains, the movie just becomes less and less subtle. (And to a large degree, the good guys are pretty cardboard too...the prostitute with the heart of gold, the children who admire Mother Cabrini so much, the kindly doctor, etc. Etc.). Most nuance is missing here.

Thank goodness, though, for the subtle performance of Cristiana Dell'Anna in the title role. I've never heard of this Italian actress. She's a fairly mesmerizing presence. Cabrini dealt with serious health issues and thus was slight and a bit frail. Yet she had a will of steel, driven by her faith and her own ambition. Dell'Anna conveys all of this with seemingly little effort; she really inhabits this role and her performance elevates this otherwise pedestrian film.

And thank goodness she is so good. This IS a story worth telling (and one I didn't know at all); Dell'Anna makes it worthwhile. So while I wish more elements were handled with more finesse (and I wish the CGI was not so bargain-basement), I can still comfortably recommend the film.

Shiva Baby (2020)

Stressful to watch, but worth it to enjoy emerging star Sennott

[7/10 · 11 March 2024]

SHIVA BABY was made on a very small budget (the interviews in the bonus materials with writer/director Emma Seligman and star Rachel Sennot make this quite clear), but an exception cast was wrangled for this brisk little 77 minute film. I almost called it a "comedy" because it does have the sheen of one. But there's too much stress going on in practically every frame to really lock it into that genre. Which is all to the better. It's quite a crazy (if low budget) ride.

We follow Danielle, a college girl who doesn't know what she wants her major to be or even what she hopes to be when she grows up, right after she has a brief sexual encounter with her sugar daddy, Max. She heads from there to the post funeral reception for someone she really didn't know very well. Her mom (Polly Drager from "Thirty-something!") and dad (Fred Melamed) are waiting for her, and she is greeted by relatives of all kinds once she enters the party. Filmed in the Flatbush area of NYC, every character vibrates with a certain New York City intensity, and the fact that everyone (with one exception) is Jewish just creates a level of loud talking that can be over-whelming. Danielle can't get a breather from the questions thrown at her by her folks and her various relatives. Then she spots Maya, a young lady around her age, who, we discover, is a law student and has her act relatively together. That contrast with Danielle is stressful enough for our lead to deal with, but it's quickly clear that these two also had a personal relationship that came to a less than satisfying end. The animosity is tangible. So Danielle is made to feel more like a failure in her own eyes, and that's exacerbated by all the questions thrown at her. The unwanted hugs. The push to eat (or not eat). Her mother making excuses for her. Her father just generally being loud and oblivious to any undertones (he does not "read a room" very well). It's all quite tense for the viewer as the sound of many people talking, talking, talking never lets up.

Then, into the room comes Max, Danielle's sugar daddy. (One of several, perhaps). And his wife. And his 18 month old daughter. Neither expected to see the other, and now they are thrust together.

Discoveries and realizations make up most of the rest of the film, as Danielle becomes more frazzled and the wife and Maya become more suspicious.

This is writer/director Seligman's feature length debut (although, at 77 minutes, just barely feature length!). The script is tight, with lots of background revealed in ways that make it seem like more than exposition to benefit the viewer. Everyone is quick-witted and sharp in one way or another (well, maybe dad isn't). The pace is so brisk. There is hardly a breather in this film.

But really, it's the work of Sennott that elevates the film. It's an assured performance, and Seligman keeps her camera trained on the young lady as she goes from slightly put-out to annoyance to full on stress mode. Sennott isn't subtle, but her features are in constant motion, inviting us to try to keep up with the whirlwind that's in her mind. We can't help but root for her (even as the more old-fashioned of us wonder about this whole "sugar-daddy" thing). Molly Gordon (so fun in things like THEATER CAMP and Season 2 of "The Bear") is also terrific as Maya. She carries her hurt, her superiority and her affection on her sleeve.

Sennott & Seligman teamed up just recently on the excellent BOTTOMS, and they are clearly a team to be reckoned with. (Sennott also made the best impression as part of an ensemble in BODIES, BODIES, BODIES.) While SHIVA BABY is quite fun and satisfying on its own, it's also exciting because it really appears to herald the arrival of two very fresh and talented voices. Get in on it now, then watch BOTTOMS and then wait to see what comes next!

Drive-Away Dolls (2024)

What a shocking disappointment!

[3/10 · 26 February 2024]

It's not an original comment at all, but after enduring DRIVE-AWAY DOLLS, I really felt like I had been left dumber than I was going in. This movie is such a massive mis-fire, I'm really shocked it got any kind of release. What drew me in was my 40 year long affection for the films of the Coen Brothers. I figured with a film from Ethan Coen, I was in for a breezy good time like some of the Coen's lesser works offered (I'm thinking INTOLERABLE CRUELTY or maybe BURN AFTER READING). What I got was a ridiculous mash-up of themes, none of which were well thought out or entertaining.

This 84 minute movie follows Jamie (Margaret Qualley) and Marian (Geraldine Viswanathan), two friends who also happen to be lesbians (but are not "together"). Jamie is a wild-child from Texas, all one-night stands and hedonistic. Marian is buttoned-up and hasn't had a lover in 3 years or more. While not exactly closeted, the 1999 setting of this film means she isn't exactly openly gay either. They decide to take a trip down to Tallahassee (I don't even recall all the rationale for that), and to make it financially viable to do so, they use a drive-away service that hooks them up with a car bound for that very Florida city. Sadly, the owner of the drive-away service thought the two young ladies worked for the criminals who ARE supposed to be driving the car south, leading to a pair of "goons" (as listed in the credits) to chase after the two young ladies in a time before real cell phone coverage or other tech that might have made the pursuit easier.

Antics ensue, revolving mostly around the sexual shenanigans of the two girls (mostly kinda icky), the endless arguments between the two goons (none of which were interesting at all) and the eventual discovery of what was in the trunk of the car that the ladies aren't supposed to know about (involving the creation of plaster casts made of the private parts of certain conservative political figures).

My biggest problem with the film was the ridiculous, over-the-top portrayal of lesbian sexuality. Coupled with the silly plaster casts we are often obliged to gaze at, and you've got a film that feels like it was written by a ninth grade boy who doesn't understand how sex works and REALLY doesn't understand how lesbian sex works. Most of the sex scenes were embarrassing to watch, they were so childish.

These scenes MIGHT have been at least some fun, had they not starred the truly dreadful Margaret Qualley. I've seen her give decent performances before (NOVITIATE, ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD), but here her wild energy is uncontained and generic. Nothing she does feels rooted in any kind of reality, even the skewed reality of this film. It wants to be a daring performance; instead, it is silly and not for one moment did it feel like I watching a real person. Viswanathan, on the other hand, is marginally convincing, and the only character we root for at all.

Pedro Pascal and Matt Damon make very brief cameo appearances. They both look dreadfully embarrassed to be in the film. (I felt actively bad for Damon.) And the film even manages to make the delightful Colman Domingo uninteresting.

A deep disappointment, insulting to lesbians (rather than "liberating" as I assume it intended to be) and simply stunning to be coming from Ethan Coen. Avoid!!