Change Your Image
plpregent
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Possessor (2020)
A visually enthralling, gnarly and nightmarish journey into a world with both Cronenberg familiarity...and uniqueness.
Brandon Cronenberg's latest motion picture had me seriously hyped up for the last few months. Its trailer really sold me "Possessor". Then, after its October release, I read reviews and breakdowns of the storyline, all sorts of exciting comments caught my attention, the likes of "Brandon Cronenberg is cut from the same cloth as his extremely talented father"; comparisons were drawn with the likes of "Looper", "eXistenZ", and heck, even "Inception"; The visual effects department barely relies to any computer generated imagery at all; The film contains this bizarre, organic and bloody imagery that is so reminiscent of David Cronenberg's earlier films; the film intelligently explores themes that are very "du jour", such as the underlying risks of constantly evolving technology, and how allowing the wrong hands to pull its strings can lead to a twisted form of puppetry that most cannot even imagine. The list goes on and on, and it sure fostered interest toward this movie as far as I was concerned.
"Possessor" tells the story of Tasya Vos, a woman who works for a company that wealthy clients hire to commit assassinations of high-profile targets. The company uses a technology that certainly is reminiscent of iconic bizarre imagery and sci-fi elements within David Cornenberg's filmography : It allows Tasya to connect to another body into which an implant has been injected beforehand, and take control of that body, which she uses to fulfill her contract, and of which she then must dispose by making that body commit suicide. Since I do not want to give too much away, I will only say that, at some point, as Tasya is possessing another body, things take an unexpected turn.
Besides the fact that there are various obvious similarities with themes that were so dear to Brandon Cronenberg's father, more importantly (I think!), there are also various reminiscent story codes at the very core of the fictional universe that is on display such as how the abuse of this "organic technology" ends up destroying both the minds and bodies of its users. The parallel with "eXistenZ" immediately comes to mind, and so is the case with "The Fly", "Videodrome" and "Scanners". Let's make it clear, though, that "Possessor" clearly draws us into a world that is closer to the one we know, at least in depiction, than what David Cronenberg's marquee sci-fi films have got us accustomed to.
"Possessor" never over explains things. I think this is a bit of a double-edged sword that may please some viewers and upset others, as there are certain layers of complexity within the story that are somewhat reminiscent of "Inception". But unlike Chris Nolan's film, Cronenberg does not dedicate twenty minutes or so to showing characters walking through demonstrations of the particularities of the world he's creating, or explicitly explaining how the technology that is core to the story works, or the origin and reason for every tiny related detail (artifacts, implants, etc.). Instead, it lets the viewer put all the pieces together, hopefully well enough to get the idea at a more general, "big picture" level. As I said, I'm fine with it, but I can understand the complaints from other viewers too, especially given how much time is spent on a few other aspects that could either have been toned down (i.e., the extended sequences of extreme violence, for instance) or simply shortened (i.e., certain scenes involving Colin's entourage that do not really contribute to character development) without compromising the quality of the film and storytelling. It doesn't feel like any of the above was done at the expense of something else in particular, though, but it could have been time spent on providing the audience a better grasp on this somewhat intangible and bizarre universe in which it is set to spend a hundred minutes, and be more immersed meanwhile.
Cronenberg's direction is superb, allowing this nightmarish journey to unfold in a manner that is just as oddly beautiful as it is terrifying. I particularly enjoyed all the distorted, lurid imagery and those fascinating and psychedelic sequences when the technology operates and Tasya transitions into another human body. What makes it even more impressive is that this was apparently achieved without relying to CGI, and it shows...in a really good way. Cronenberg also plays a lot with symmetry and asymmetry in the framing of his shots, and uses some slow and hypnotic camera movements, which really help create a unique atmosphere. Needless to say, he is a talented director with great visual flair. The ambient-type soundtrack aligns perfectly with the bizarre and nightmarish situations and settings, and makes for quite an interesting sensorial experience throughout.
As a fan of practical makeup and gore effects, "Possessor" was a ton of fun to watch, and those practical effects showing the human body seriously damaged in all sorts of imaginable ways are incredibly effective. Some of the kills on display in this film had me wincing, at times, from being so nasty. It will be off-putting to some viewers, and understandably so, but the violence is an integral part of the story, and I'm glad to see that it was not delivered through a plethora of goofy-looking CGI blood spurts and splats. Personally, I did not mind how graphic it was, although I thought it might have been overstretched in terms of screen time, in proportion with how important it is as a theme within this story, and how other much more central themes do not appear to get such a preferential treatment as far as screen time is concerned.
The cast is all-around great, with Andrea Riseborough as Tasya Vos, and Christopher Abbott as both Colin Tate and Colin Tate's body possessed by Tasya. Riseborough feels truly invested in her performance, and Abbott does a really good job bringing to life two characters within the same body, literally. You can tell when he's Colin, and when he's Tasya. Jennifer Jason Leigh is also pretty damn creepy in the supporting role of an executive from the company that employs Tasya.
Now, on the downside, I wish there would have been a more significant amount of character development involved, although what is actually to be found is coined beautifully. And the limited amount of character development that "Possessor" includes really serves the story tremendously. The ending, especially, speaks volumes on that, and is as powerfully symbolic yet subtle as the ending in "A History of Violence", another film indeed directed by Cronenberg the father. Nevertheless, as a viewer, I have to admit that this deficiency prevented me from being emotionally attached to any of the characters. I do have this feeling, however, that this was exactly Brandon Cronenberg's intention.
Overall, "Possessor" is a visually enthralling, nightmarish motion picture that tackles the fascinating and current topic of how dangerous technology could become (especially in the wrong hands), and successfully spins it to create a fine blend of sci-fi, thriller and horror. Despite a few deficiencies in the writing department, where it feels like certain propensities could be harnessed to his advantage in the future, Brandon Cronenberg truly delivered with "Possessor", and proved that everyone, especially genre fans, can expect great cinema from this filmmaker.
Thank You for Your Service (2017)
Fair undertaking overall, albeit a bit too conventional in its development to set itself apart
"Thank you for your service" is based on the true story of a handful of veterans of the Iraq war struggling to reintegrate society after they're done serving. While I always thought these stories were of significant interest, I do find that most films depicting them often lose themselves in preachy patriotism or some sort of either pro- or anti-war narrative that lacks nuance. "Thank you for your service" avoids these traps for the most part, but unfortunately, its narrative framework consistently remains within the realm of clichés throughout its runtime, and the film never attempts to explore and tackle other underlying issues that could have brought much appreciated depth to its story and characters.
This is all very common territory here, with the typical bureaucrats not being too helpful, the veteran affairs facilities being packed leading to tremendous delays in treatment, veterans stuck in poverty and barely able to make ends meet, and eventually drifting into criminal activity. While this accurately reflects the very disturbing reality of a society that's always ready to send its young, uneducated, vulnerable men to fight in its wars, but will shamelessly abandon them afterwards, leaving them financially and mentally broken, the film seems content to present this various components of this harsh reality such as poverty, the centralization of treatment facilities, the lack of resources, the military culture, and others in a very generic manner, and wrap those up as a more general, overarching issue that has already been exposed quite extensively in movies and television.
The film's main strength is definitely its cast, with Miles Teller starring and offering an impressive performance that is complex albeit on the edge of being a tad too stoic at times. Beulah Koale also shines throughout the film, although much like other characters, his could have benefited from a few more elaborate and less predictable narrative developments. Nevertheless, the dialogue is fluid and adds a ton of credibility to these soldiers' "brotherhood" and to their respective struggles within their relationships. Oh, and Amy Schumer is barely recognizable and impresses for as long as she appears on screen.
The direction is overall pretty good, although, again, it just doesn't feel too much out of the ordinary. The film never seems to drag, and is well paced. The war sequences are somewhat conventional, but there are a few standout shots here and there to let you know that Jason Hall knows what he's doing.
"Thank you for your service" is an overall fair undertaking, not ground-breaking by any stretch of the imagination, but nonetheless interesting enough to keep your eyes on the screen for its entire runtime without looking at your watch. To me it felt a bit like a missed opportunity, because I think this harsh reality that these veterans face is a major issue in our society, and warrants a more in-depth meditation, which this film will not not achieve to spark, unfortunately.
The Predator (2018)
Abysmal garbage in every department without exception
The original "Predator" film is one of my all-time favorite action films. John McTiernan's direction is excellent in depicting the geography of the amazing action on screen and generating suspense and thrills accordingly. The testosterone-filled crew of soldiers led by Dutch (a prime Arnold Schwarznegger) is absolutely legendary among action films. The jungle setting gives the film a special atmosphere, which again would not have been the same without McTiernan's abilities as a director. The one-liners are genuinely delightful.
After quite many sequels, reboots and spin-offs, all of which, in my view, were highly forgettable and pretty mediocre, 20th Century Fox hired Shane Black to direct "The Predator", an astoundingly ridiculous sequel that tries really hard to implement many of the elements that made the very first film so enjoyable, but that fails so miserably that it feels disgraceful in a franchise that already included plenty of terrible sequels. "The Predator" is a complete mess in so many departments, I don't even know where to start. And this has nothing to do with my love for the original film: with all objectivity kept, every aspect of "The Predator" is a failure.
Shane Black's direction is the complete opposite of McTiernan's: You can barely understand what's going on throughout this endless string of poorly filmed, chaotic action scenes that are completely devoid of structure and continuity. At the root of this widespread mess is a scenario of staggering stupidity, probably one of the worst scripts that I can remember in recent years, even by B movie standards. The dialogue is laughable, the characters are beyond archetypical and bland (I can't remember one of their names, even the protagonist's), and the generalized silliness of the story extends beyond that of any of this derailed franchise's outings and spin-offs. Take a second, and let this sink in: the crew of soldiers manages to "train" one of the Predator's pets (those ridiculous dog-like creatures that were introduced in "Predators") at some point. Oh boy.
The cast features some of the least charismatic actors I've seen in a major production in years, especially the protagonist, an incredibly far cry from Major Dutch in the original film. It was quite heart-breaking to see Thomas Jane impersonate a totally anonymous, poorly-written character in this wreck of a film. As the interchangeable members of this crew of soldiers get impaled, beheaded or cut in half, you'll most likely remain totally indifferent. Again, that's if the messy direction even allows you to notice who's getting killed.
Finally, the quality of the special effects aligns perfectly with the overall production: they're mediocre to a point where you'll wonder whether this really is a major studio production. All the creatures (especially the "giant" predator), the spaceship and the gore all looked cartoonish, and the overall cinematography feels like a joke of very poor taste.
Needless to say, "The Predator" is an abysmal mess from start to finish, in every department without exception. Do yourself a favor and revisit the original film instead of wasting your time with this cinematic garbage.
La chute de l'empire américain (2018)
An overall worthwhile film with major dialogue issues
Despite what its title may appear to indicate, Denys Arcand's latest opus, « La chute de l'empire américain », is not the third chapter in a trilogy that would include "Le déclin de l'empire américain" and "Les invasions barbares". It is a film that bears glimpses of the thriller and comedy genres but that, ultimately, is an unapologetic vehicle for social commentary, tackling the very under-explored subject of tax evasion.
The film tells the story of Pierre-Paul, an intellectual young man with both a PhD in philosophy and a heart of gold, who works for a delivery company and frequently volunteers at local community organizations that help the homeless. While he is on the job delivering a parcel, he witnesses a hold up where a significant amount of money gets stolen from a boutique and where everyone involved, but one man, gets shot to death in the process. Stuck in the middle of that crime scene with dead bodies and two bags filled with cash, he decides to take the money and hide it in his truck before the police arrives. He ends up leaving with the money, and teaming up with a luxury escort and an ex-convict who specializes in tax evasion to come up with a money-laundering scheme that bears more similarities with a modern-day Robin Hood tale than anything else.
I thought the film had quite an interesting premise, which was definitely reminiscent of one of my favourite films, "No Country for Old Men". That being said, that's the only thing both films have in common, as "No Country for Old Men" had this obvious classic main theme about the lure of profit and the price that people are willing to pay for it. It also tackled multiple sub-themes with great, powerful subtlety that elevated the film to a whole other level. The use that "La chute de l'empire américain" makes of this premise mostly fuels some of its sub-plots, which bring a thriller aspect to the story in which, oddly enough, the main characters never get directly involved. So, in that regard, the criminal underworld and Pierre-Paul's universe never clash, with the latter remaining in a relatively safe space where the only threat is a police investigation, leaving plenty of space (or runtime) for philosophical speeches and a somewhat preachy and pompous charge against tax evasion that is pervasively (and a bit annoyingly) disseminated in quite pontificating fashion through dialogue that seriously lacks subtlety and often times, fluidity.
The opening scene, which introduces the audience to the protagonist, really exposes this issue from the get-go: We meet Pierre-Paul as he explains to his soon to be ex-girlfriend that his intelligence, in today's society, is a handicap. As he successively spews pompous quotes from different philosophers (and makes sure to name them in the process) to get his point across, while the girlfriend in question remains speechless for the most part, you get a feeling that Pierre-Paul's character was supposed to look incredibly smart, but instead sounds socially awkward and more pretentious than anything else.
That being said, that doesn't make the film unwatchable, as there are many other aspects that make it worthwhile. First, the cast does a very good job despite the deficiencies in their characters' dialogue. Alexandre Landry, as Pierre-Paul, manages to give his character an overall awkwardness that brings credibility to his delivery of dialogue that would have otherwise sounded very unnatural. He also makes Pierre-Paul feel like a genuinely good person with the best intentions. Maripier Morin got her first acting gig in this film, and really exceeded everyone's expectations, as she more than competently impersonates a luxury escort who, against all odds, ends up falling for Pierre-Paul. Rémi Girard, Maxim Roy and Louis Morissette each offer quite entertaining performances, but the standout, in my view, was Pierre Curzi, who plays a wealthy tax attorney. They gave him the perfect look, with the slicked back grey hair, the blue suit and the Christine Lagarde tan. And his performance is absolutely on point, as he's got a glacial look in his eyes, and an imperturbable calmness that is certainly reminiscent of a few bankers that appeared at U. S. senate hearings after the financial crisis of 2008-2009.
Also, what Arcand lacks in writing prowess when it comes to dialogue, he makes up for with his ability as a director. The direction in "La chute de l'empire américain" is one of the film's stronger points, and without it, this could have been a painful film to watch. It takes a while to see where this film is going, as screen time is initially shared in equal parts between many sub-plots, some of which are quite dynamic: the injured survivor of the shootout seeking shelter, criminals looking for the stolen money, the police investigation, the ex-convict choosing whether or not he wants to help Pierre-Paul, the love story between Pierre-Paul and the escort, etc. It is unfortunate, however, that many of those settle themselves without ever being blended into the story to an extent that would have allowed them to be exploited to their full potential, prematurely leaving all the screen time to a main plot that heavily relies on clumsily written dialogue to deliver its social commentary and whose denouement will feel a bit naive to anyone who does not believe in fairy tales. That being said, the film is not without its creative, clever and funny moments, and manages to maintain a pace that keeps the audience interested.
Overall, this is a mixed bag that shows early signs of deficiencies in its delivery of social commentary, but that remains entertaining for as long as it keeps its sub-plots alive. While I sincerely appreciated that someone finally made an attempt at tackling the subject of tax evasion with the best of intentions, when the film fully enters social commentary delivery mode, it unfortunately exposes its own flaws way too visibly, despite being supported by a great cast that mostly appeases the harm, but that can only work around the lack of subtlety and the preachy aspect of the writing. Its qualities, however, make it worth watching nonetheless.
A Star Is Born (2018)
Amazing chemistry between both leads
There is a lot to like about this film, and it translated quite clearly into its worldwide success at the box office and overall popularity. You've got two big stars as the leads playing well-written characters and generating an impressive on-screen chemistry. On one hand, you've got the acting debut of one of these stars, Lady Gaga, and, on the other hand, the directional debut of the other star, Bradley Cooper. And they both impress in these respective debuts.
During its first half, "A Star is Born" is a feel good movie. It tells the (very unlikely) story of a well-known musician, Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper) who falls in love with a super talented yet struggling and unknown singer, Ally, and takes her under his wing, catapulting her into superstardom. As her career takes off, the relationship between the two of them faces a number of challenges, including Maine's alcoholism. If this sounds like a familiar story or film title, here's why: movies with that same title and storyline were released in 1937,1954 and 1976, respectively. So for those who feel like Hollywood struggles to renew itself and come up with new ideas lately, this will not rock your world with its originality. This is somewhat standard Oscar material in many regards, and especially in its delivery of emotion. It's got a big bulky buildup filled with positivity in its first half, only to then go down in a classic (and quite predictable) tragic path in the latter half. Yes, you can definitely expect half of the audience to shed tears as the credits roll.
That being said, "A Star is Born" is highly successful at generating emotions, albeit relatively uncomplicated ones, and the magic operates through the film's main qualities, which are honestly pretty outstanding: the chemistry between both leads, and very well-written characters and dialogue. Both Lady Gaga's and Bradley Cooper's performances are absolutely fantastic and the chemistry between both characters is beyond tangible. It is beautiful to watch, actually. The cast is great, and that brief appearance from Dave Chappelle was a pure delight too.
Bradley Cooper's directional debut is very promising, to say the least, as those concert scenes truly made you feel like you were on stage with a rock band, with blinding projectors partly blurring glimpses of a cheering crowd of thousands of people, giving the audience a nice sample of a surreal feeling that only a handful of major on-stage performers get to experience in their lifetime. Hats off to Cooper and to the whole crew for a visually gorgeous picture. The musical performances are also excellent.
With regard to the script, while the dialogue is outstanding and (thankfully) does not shy away from including a surprising amount of F bombs, the tragic denouement, to me, didn't get a proper development to warrant an event of this significance/dramatic impact. In contrast with the first two thirds of the film, which takes a somewhat lengthy approach at detailing the different stages of a relationship and the psychological evolution of the characters, this seemed like an abrupt turn of events resulting from a shortcut in the psychology of an otherwise beautifully-written character.
Regardless of this, "A Star is Born" is worth watching for the chemistry between both leads alone.
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
Sadistic, twisted, vile...and incredibly fun!
To be perfectly honest, I didn't really like House of 1,000 Corpses. I didn't hate it, but to me, it was not a standout horror flick by any stretch of the imagination. I thought the plot was pretty standard, the visuals were not overly appealing, the tone lacked the kind of humour that I was initially expecting, and the shock value and fancy gore that led the MPAA to force Rob Zombie to tone down the violence in order to obtain an R rating was nowhere to be found.
A couple of years later, I see the trailer for The Devil's Rejects, and it's honestly one of the most intense trailers I've ever seen. So I decide to give the film a try and go see this at a nearby theater.
The Devil's Rejects does not waste a single minute and jumps right into the action as the film begins. From the get-go, the cinematography looks very different from the previous outing, with a somewhat grainy picture, saturated yellows and washed out blues and reds that give the image a warm and dirty look. As an army of police men raids the lair of the infamous family of murderous degenerates, the character of Sheriff Wydell emerges as a threatening, religious zealot looking for revenge, and extreme violence erupts.
From there, I knew that I'd be watching a completely different film, and probably a much better one than its predecessor. The look of the film alone will be a delight to everyone who's a fan of 70's horror/exploitation flicks. Clearly, Rob Zombie wanted to pay homage to a genre and a decade from which he obviously drew tons of inspiration. And it gives quite a special feel to the film throughout.
The Devil's Rejects is one of these extreme "good" versus evil films pitting murderous criminals against an insane policeman, in a fashion that was somewhat reminiscent of French cult classic "Dobermann". It gets to a point where you wonder who's supposed to be in the "good guys" camp...and the answer is absolutely nobody. This is a film in which every character is fundamentally evil, and where any trace of good intentions or kindness gets sliced and diced or beaten to a bloody pulp. And honestly, it's so incredibly balls-to-the-wall and filled with the darkest humour that it's hilarious at times, if you can handle the violence. Captain Spaulding punching that woman and scaring away her kid before he steals her car had me rolling in laughter, so did that piece of dialogue coming out of Otis' mouth about the barrel of his pistol as he talks to two men he's about to recklessly execute.
The cast is just plain great: Sid Haig is an absolute standout here, as Captain Spaulding, a sadistic clown who acts as the fatherly figure to the other two maniacs, Otis (Bill Moseley) and Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie), the latter of which offers quite an over-the-top performance, thereby successfully delivering an over-the-top character whose unpredictability is quite spooky. Bill Moseley has some great moments here too. The show-stealer, however, is William Forsythe, who plays Wydell, a bone-chilling sheriff looking to avenge the death of his brother (who was executed in House of a 1,000 Corpses). That man is by far the biggest maniac in the entire film, and that makes for quite a memorable "villain" among a palette of murderous maniacs. There are a number of secondary characters that are played by legends of horror cinema (Ken Foree from Dawn of the Dead, Michael Berryman from The Hills Have Eyes, etc.), which is a nice addition and adds yet another layer of homage to the horror genre and the 70's.
Some scenes get pretty intense too, including many that involve Sheriff Wydell. I'm surprised that Zombie did not have to make a new cut for this film in order to obtain an R rating, as it's more violent and graphic than House of 1,000 Corpses by a landslide. But overall, and oddly enough, The Devil's Rejects is quite a fun time. The soundtrack features great tracks from the 70's that blend in perfectly, the characters are quite colourful, the dialogue is surprisingly sharp, Rob Zombie's direction is great and the film's look is flawless. On the downside, the story is a bit linear, the few plot twists were a bit predictable, and character development is pretty much nonexistent. But if you take it for what it is, and are among the target audience, you'll be in for quite a ride. As the trailer advertised it, it is a tale of revenge, madness and murder...and a mighty fun one!
Hung (2009)
Two and a half seasons of genuinely pleasant, clever, funny and rewarding television...with a somewhat flawed conclusion
There is no denying that "Hung" has quite an interesting premise: some divorced teacher/basketball coach, Ray (Thomas Jane), finds himself struggling financially when his house gets damaged in a fire one night. Uninsured and afraid to see his ex-wife, Jess (Anne Heche), have full custody of his two kids, Ray desperately tries to find a lucrative business idea. As he attends a class where wannabe entrepreneurs share their ideas, he meets a woman he once had sex with, Tanya (Jane Adams), who convinces him to use the one gift life gave him, a massive d***, and become a male escort, as she would be her pimp and find him clients. As the two embark on this journey, both will go through different struggles businesswise, but also in their respective personal lives.
The first thing that I truly salute about "Hung" is its tone. It's not a series that causes nonstop hysterical laughter, but it's constant fun and at times it's actually hilarious, thanks to some witty, sometimes pretty crude dialogue. It remains relatively light despite being sentimental at times, but it's never melodramatic. It breaks certain taboos and never shies away from embracing its main theme, sex, through quite odd situations, which audiences are not really used to see on television.
The other standout aspect of "Hung" is definitely its characters. While many may appear pretty caricatured at first, as you get to know them, their depth unveils itself quite interestingly. Obviously, the show-stealer here is Ray, played by Thomas Jane, an actor that I didn't know much about, besides that he played the Punisher in a terrible Marvel comic adaptation some years ago. Thomas Jane brings a very likeable character to life through a surprisingly well measured performance, never stepping out of bounds emotionally and always maintaining things within the realm of pleasant comedy, albeit more serious at times (but never even close to being heavy), showing genuine heart and always convincing the audience that he is the man of the situation, whether it be with regard to friendship, fatherhood, coaching basketball to kids, teaching, being a reliable ex-husband, or his "professional" endeavours. Tanya (Jane Adams) is an enjoyable character as well: she is a neurotic, failed poet turned pimp who learns to develop a certain sense of confidence in a world that is so obviously way outside of her comfort zone. And while she is good at cumulating failures and messing up, she always manages to get through them and, somehow, save the day. And so is Lenore (Rebecca Creskoff), a (super sexy) style advisor and life coach hired by rich women, who is the complete opposite of Tanya but ends up sticking her nose into Tanya and Ray's "business". Other noteworthy characters include Ray's ex-wife, Jessica (Anne Heche), a somewhat selfish woman torn between her own propensity to be a superficial gold digger and the genuine love she has for her kids, and Ronnie (Eddie Jemison), her husband, a plastic surgeon whose fortune is seemingly compromised by the crisis that is plaguing the economy. Ray and Jessica's kids, Damon (Charlie Saxton) and Darby (Sianoa Smit-McPhee) are also pretty interesting characters. Needless to say, "Hung" features a pretty sweet cast altogether.
Sub-plots involving Ray's kids truly help shape up Ray's character, despite the fact that they are both outsiders that have very few things in common with their parents physically and personality-wise, and honestly seem like they were taken out of a different TV show altogether. Hats off to the writers for not only fitting them in there, but also making them much welcome additions, especially in those first two seasons. Other sub-plots involve Jessica (Ray's ex-wife) and Ronnie (her new husband), and those actually become more central at some point, which again furthers the sentimental dimension of the show, without ever making it exceedingly present or allowing it to shift the tone.
There are many other comedic sub-plots, which I will not reveal, and many of them involve some interesting (sometimes unexpected) connections between characters, which never feel out of place or distracting, instead bringing funny twists that blend in and flow very well with the story. Another aspect that's worthy of note is the whole Detroit setting in the aftermath of the 2008 recession. Again, it remains somewhat of a sub-theme and never contributes to any shifting of the tone, but it's an interesting addition that brings a hint of social commentary.
As for the technical aspects of "Hung", it's very competently directed, cinematography depicts the Detroit setting very well, and the soundtrack is way on point (that Black Keys song during the intro is perfect). We've all seen those shocking pictures of certain parts of Detroit leaving that eerie feeling of a ghost city, with hotels and houses left abandoned after the economic crisis. While "Hung" does not depict Detroit in such dramatic fashion, in season 1, especially, the sets and costumes truly have that worn out Detroit feel, with decors and clothing reminiscent of nineties luxury that is pretty outdated by 2010's standards.
"Hung" only lasted three seasons of ten episodes each. Each episode lasts close to an half hour. The fourth season got cancelled due to decreasing viewership. So, yes, it is a short series, which means that they did not unnecessarily extend the plot beyond capacity just to create additional seasons. On the downside, I would say that the latter half of the third season fails to bring a proper conclusion to the story when it comes to many characters, although there is nothing fundamentally wrong with leaving certain things to the audience's imagination. That being said, it does feel a bit rushed, and there are a few episodes during that stretch where the tone gets more dramatic than usual. It does remains fun all the way, and it's not long enough for annoying character/story gimmicks to settle in, but you do get a sense that the writers learned that the show wouldn't be renewed for a fourth season midway through that third one. I thought that was a bit unfortunate and did not do the series full justice.
One last thing: to me, having the main character as a narrator is a hit or miss gamble, especially in a comedy. It's a big hit in "Hung", as Ray's character is very well written. In a few instances, as a dramatic situation is triggered, the narration defuses the melodramatic tangent right away, and brings you right back to the comedic, witty tone. Great stuff.
Overall, "Hung" manages to tackle its themes in ways that are funny, intelligent and original. Most importantly, it achieves that through solid characters and a consistency in tone that makes it a genuinely pleasant, clever, funny and rewarding experience, despite a somewhat disappointing conclusion that has more to do with the unfortunate cancellation of a fourth season than it has to do with the writers' ability.
Fugueuse (2018)
Review of both seasons of Fugueuse
Below are reviews for each season of the show.
SEASON ONE: More akin to an educational pamphlet for teenage girls- and their parents - than to an actual fiction series.
"Fugueuse" was a massive hit in Quebec last year. Its textbook depiction of a dramatic situation appears more akin to an educational pamphlet for teenage girls - and their parents - on the dangers of falling into the web of a pimp - from the early signs to the tragic consequences - than it is to an actual fiction series. It tells the story of a teenage girl from a good suburban household, Fanny, who falls prey to a wannabe hip hop producer from the city, Damien, who also happens to be exactly the kind of guy you wouldn't want your daughter to fall in love with: a lying, manipulative lowlife pimp. She quickly falls for him, as he showers her with love, gifts, while initiating her to a lifestyle that most girls of her age would find glamorous. He slowly manipulates her into getting away from her family and friends, and eventually, she flees. A downward spiral of partying, drug use and degrading sexual abuse ensues, thereby breaking her pride and leaving her at the mercy of Damien and his entourage's dirty wills. Next thing you know, she dances for dollars in a strip club, and a couple weeks later, she's a full time prostitute, with Damien no longer being the nice guy she initially met, even though she still loves him. From there, expect things to take the worst possible turns, and history to repeat itself - almost to a point where it becomes a caricature.
There have been dozens of films with identical narratives released worldwide - most of which were low-budget TV movies "based on true stories" with a heavy dose of melodrama - so for anyone who's seen one of those, nothing in the narrative will come as much of a surprise here. The script feels quite mechanical and the writers never bother bringing much depth or nuance to most characters, instead opting for obligatory, functional archetypes through which textbook psychological mechanisms operate. In the latter half of the series, especially, Fanny is nothing but a victim, which becomes her only defining character trait. The same can be said about Damien, who's just the typical, ill-willed textbook lowlife gangster wannabe. Nevertheless, Ludivine Reding's (Fanny) and Jean-François Ruel's (Damien) do a great job impersonating their respective characters, despite having to work around dialogue that sounds phony on a regular basis and being stuck in a Manichean narrative. Ludivine Reding, especially, really does a great job portraying Fanny through every step of her character development, which occurs almost entirely during the first half of the series. Honorable mention goes to Jean-François Ruel as well, who is highly despicable as the villain.
From a technical standpoint, "Fugueuse" looks pretty good (for a series with a relatively limited budget), with competent direction and cinematography. It manages to engender some genuinely tense moments and depicts the contrast between the different environments better than most productions with similar storylines. Again, what's missing here is the key component in a TV series: quality writing. The main deficiencies in the writing lie mostly within the dialogue, which at times sounds phony, and within the lack of a surprising twists and nuanced characters, during the latter half especially. To the writer's credit, however, "Fugueuse" manages to maintain a nice pace throughout, despite certain repetitive or far-fetched turns of events.
As an educational piece, I suppose "Fugueuse" can say mission accomplished as it managed to spark discussions on the issue of sexual exploitation in numerous Quebec households, which might have had the effect of raising parent and teenager awareness on the matter to a certain extent. In the #metoo era, and within a Quebec society where the appetite for local drama series is endless, it was easy to predict that "Fugueuse" would be incredibly popular. And as we've seen countless times in the past, popularity is in no way an indicator of quality.
5/10
SEASON 2: The perfect instruction manual on how NOT to write a fiction series
When it was announced that there would be a second season of this show, the first thing that came to my mind was that it would probably be just as didactic, this time focusing on the aftermath of Fanny's nightmarish descent into sexual exploitation hell, and the impact on her relatives. But it was not, or at least, only very partially. The story picks up four years after the first season ended, and Fanny has become an undercover police officer, and probably the least believable one ever put on screen. We follow her as she infiltrates a group of homeless teenagers in an attempt to track those responsible for the murder of a bunch of teenage runaways whose bodies were found in a quarry owned by a wealthy Montreal attorney. The group that she infiltrates includes Daisie, an aboriginal prostitute, Yohan, a runaway teenager struggling with his gender identity, and Karim, a young pimp.
While I could certainly appreciate the fact that the writers did not opt for an entirely Manichean approach to storytelling this time around, Fanny's quick transition from prostitute to undercover police officer is barely believable at all. At first, I did not find it to be such a big deal. On the contrary, I thought it brought a whole dimension of well-assumed fiction to the table, thereby squashing one of the main issues that I had with the first season. Despite the completely absurd premise, the main plot revolving around the investigation was somewhat puzzling. But it didn't take too long for the writer's bad habits to resurface and, in many ways, for their spectrum to extend even further. Several key characters are severely underdeveloped and barely get any screen time, often at the expense of useless ones. Another annoying aspect is the obvious insistence on integrating characters reflecting hot topics that are "du jour" in Canadian/Québecois society, such as oppressed groups like trans and Indigenous people and communities. While I do appreciate the effort to reflect diversity and agree that it is necessary to break taboos about these groups, the insertion of these characters feels obligatory, over explicative and clumsy. Token, stereotypical characters do not genuinely reflect diversity, sorry. On the contrary, it makes it look like an attempt to check the necessary boxes to get tax credits from the government. A prime example is the restaurant owner, a trans character whose second line of dialogue contains the word "vaginoplasty". Why not have her look at the camera and say "there you go, ignorant folks, that's how it's called" and spell it out, while we're at it. Oh boy.
Another core issue lies in the fact that the main plot becomes totally secondary at the expense of a torrent of sub-plots that mostly lead to nowhere. Many characters are completely forgotten midway through, and you're left wondering why a complete episode was wasted on their story. Again, most times, it feels like it was only to check these famous "boxes" that were mentioned earlier. As the conclusion nears, you can feel that the writer clumsily tries to piece everything back together and recalibrate the story towards the main plot, but it is too late, and the conclusion feels rushed, unconvincing and reflective of the entire season: all over the place and messy.
On the bright side, I did like how they brought back Damien, and the nuances they were able to inject into his character, as he struggles to reinsert himself into society with old "acquaintances" knocking on his door only a few days after he's released from prison. Other returning characters such as Carlo, Nat and Fanny's parents are cruelly underused. The cast is very uneven, and oddly enough, the best performances come from actors mostly impersonating secondary characters: Jean-François Ruel (Damien, the main villain from season one), Iannicko N'Doua-Légaré (Carlo, another villain from season one), Jean-Simon Leduc (Christophe, Fanny's new boyfriend), Kimberly Laferrière (Natasha, a prostitute from season one), Nicolas Canuel (Jérôme Montagne, the attorney) and Kevin Ranély (Karim, a young pimp) each deliver quite convincing performances. Ludivine Reding (Fanny, the protagonist), Jemmy Echaquan Dubé (the aboriginal prostitute) and Robin L'Houmeau (Yohan/Alex, the runaway trans teenager) are average at best. Marie-France Lambert (Fanny's boss, Josianne) delivers an awful performance. Again, it's obvious that the atrocious dialogue did not help, but every second of her screen time is incredibly cringe-worthy. Joseph Martin is not too far behind, as Josianne's sidekick cop. Those scenes where both these police officers have conversations with Fanny were seriously painful to watch.
Overall, while I can salute the willingness to go from a pamphlet-based model to pure fiction, making a second season of Fugueuse was an opportunistic, uncalculated and unnecessary move. The end result speaks for itself.
3/10
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
A genuinely delightful glimpse of Hollywood during the 60s, with some great characters
As is the case with any upcoming Tarantino feature, expectations for "Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood" were high. Tarantino himself had widely praised the Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt duo as one of the most memorable ever put on film. The vague nature of the synopsis, which suggested a link between the Manson Family murders and the story of a has been actor, fed the imagination of fans who could already picture a series of coincidences typical of Tarantino's films, blending both historical events and fiction in the same fashion as in previous opuses ("Inglorious Basterds" and "Django Unchained", to name the most obvious examples).
"Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood" tells the story of a Hollywood actor (who is actually a bit of a whiner) on the downhill slope, Rick Dalton (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double, a failed actor turned stuntman, Cliff Booth (played by a Brad Pitt at the top of his game). The story is interspersed with a few scenes featuring Sharon Tate (played by the sublime Margot Robbie) who, at the time, was a star on the rise.
The film depicts the lightness of being that stemmed from 1960s Hollywood, taking us behind the scenes of the El Dorado of large-scale film production and amply showing the light-hearted attitude of a generation that smoked cigarettes relentlessly, drove luxury cars at full speed on the narrowest roads, hitchhiked with absolute strangers and spent nights dancing to the rhythms of bands that are now absolutely legendary. The many touches of humour and cultural references are very much enjoyable, so was the dialogue, which is delightfully on point. The greatest moments were definitely those few explosions of violence, which were as funny as they were over-the-top. The pace is slow and the characters are voluble. Tarantino took some rather bold liberties in writing: depicting Bruce Lee as a bit cocky and self-loving; implying certain things about Tate and her ex-boyfriend and, of course, the denouement of the story.
If there is one issue with the script, I would say it is a lack of dramatic impetus, as very few significant events punctuate the story, the outcome of which will seem to come from nowhere for anyone unaware of the circumstances surrounding Sharon Tate's murder. Although this cinematic experience is very pleasant, in retrospect, there is not much going on throughout, to be honest.
As a character-driven film, the dialogue largely compensates, but it would have been interesting to learn about these characters through a wider variety of situations/turning points. Also, the famous Booth/Dalton duo could have shared the screen for a greater proportion of the total duration of the film, in my view, as I agree with Tarantino that it was much fun to watch, with both actors bringing a nice chemistry to life with those two characters.
With a terrific cast, including Al Pacino, Emile Hirsch, Luke Perry, Kurt Russel and Bruce Dern and Timothy Olyphant, Tarantino offers us a film entirely driven by its characters, without whom the story would be of rather modest interest. It should also be noted that Margaret Qualley and Julia Butters both offer memorable performances that rank among the film's highlights. The direction and cinematography are stellar, and as in any Tarantino film, get ready for an awesome soundtrack as well.
All in all, in my opinion, although "Once Upon a Time in...Hollywood" does not qualify as one of Tarantino's very best films, it is nevertheless a delightfully fun film of very high quality, from which a contagious pleasure emanates.
American History X (1998)
Interesting subject matter oddly matched with pompous commercial-like visuals ; wonderful cast stuck in shallow characters plagued with oversimplified psychology.
I was in my mid-teenage years when I first watched "American History X", and certainly thought it was quite a striking motion picture, both in its message and in its depiction of violence. I recently watched it again, and I'm not sure whether it did not age well at all, or whether my maturity as a viewer allowed me to put pure emotion aside and to lift the veil on fundamental issues with this film that are just very difficult to ignore.
Over twenty years later, I can definitely say that this film speaks volumes about numerous worrisome truths that are still plaguing American society today. However, I have to say that the delivery feels visually pompous and narratively pretty shallow, if not sometimes incoherent as far as character psychology is concerned.
We follow the story of a teenager named Daniel Vinyard (played by Edward Furlong), whose older brother, a skinhead named Derek (played by Edward Norton) is being released from prison, after spending over three years behind the bars for brutally murdering two black gang members. Through a narrative structure that includes numerous flashbacks, we get to see what led Derek to become a leader among a white supremacist gang and commit such a hateful crime. We also get to see how easily influenced Daniel is, trying to follow the same path as his older brother. Derek comes back home as a totally changed man, and as an older brother that feels the urgency to prevent his younger sibling from falling into the same spiral of hate and violence that ultimately ruined his life.
It is a well-known story that the director, Tony Kaye, didn't want his name associated to this film even before its release, due to his disapproval of the final cut, which apparently involves a tone that differs significantly from what he initially had in mind. I have no idea what Kaye's cut of this film was like, and perhaps we will never know, but one thing I can say is this: despite a relevant message altogether, I found that both the characters' psychology and the moral issues that it explores are oversimplified and tackled in a frustratingly superficial way. Some of the dialogue is clumsy and sometimes unnecessary. The best example: Derek didn't need to say "What did I do" when holding the bloodied up body of his young brother who just got shot. Also, Derek's transition from being a young man filled with rage and hatred to becoming a completely changed man is quite abrupt and feels very unnatural, and so does Daniel's sudden "change of mind", which occurs within the span of barely a couple of minutes, technically. Right after that conversation, they added a quick shot of both brothers running around the deserted street, poking fun at each other right after, just to show that Daniel's moment of clarity paid off. Oh boy. Tried to keep my palm away from my face, but couldn't.
This makes me wonder how badly the film's flaws are due to poor editing choices, and certain parts being left out of the cut that ended up getting released. We will never know, unfortunately.
At the time, Tony Kaye's background as a director was mostly within the world of advertising, which I thought was apparent in a few scenes. On the other hand, other scenes almost felt like they were from a TV movie, which left an overall impression that the direction was uneven. The use of black and white during flashbacks, albeit arguably clichéd, was an artistic choice that paid off visually, as those scenes do look great. That being said, this highly stylized violence left me with mixed feelings, as it certainly contradicts the film's whole point. On that same note, I don't know if the use of slow motion was a result of New Line and Norton's input that ultimately led to the cut that Kaye disowned, but at times it seriously felt conspicuous.
The film's main appeal lies in Edward Norton's performance, which is intense and excellent. Again, some of the dialogue, in my view, is not on point at all, and contributes to blemish the character, along with the scattered, untidy psychological evolution that he goes through. That being said, every time Norton appears on screen, he does phenomenal work. Other notable performances include those of Edward Furlong, Faizura Balk and Beverly D'Angelo, unfortunately playing characters that lack any trace of a nuance whatsoever.
I know how beloved this film is, and I know that this review will probably be very unpopular. I'm not arguing that "American History X" does not have a strong and important message, or some really touching moments. Not at all. However, such an important subject matter deserved a more in-depth and thorough look at the psychological evolution of the film's two main characters, because polished visuals and a few tear-inducing moments enhanced with dramatic music and sequences in slow motion are no substitute for that in a film that tackles issues of this magnitude. I find its IMDb score of 8.5 to be quite puzzling, to be absolutely honest.
A longer portion of the film's runtime is spent on showing physical and psychological violence in an ostentatious manner than on exploring the mechanisms through which hatred and violence is conveyed within a group of individuals - or a family. And that is a problem.
Despite having both the best of intentions and ambition, "American History X" is quite a flawed film that shares traits with most melodramatic TV movies: it takes the easy preachy route and uses psychological shortcuts aplenty rather than thoroughly exploring the social issues that are at its core.
The Shining (1980)
Still one of the scariest films ever made...and a true masterpiece.
Across all movie genres, I think it is pretty safe to say that a majority of people will consider horror to be the black sheep. And, to a certain extent, understandably so. Throughout the years, many filmmakers have seemingly had great difficulty in recalling a basic principle: horror as a genre is first and foremost a subgenre of fantasy. Whereas grotesque and bloody images instantly get the audience to react, fantasy is an immersive genre that, when properly delivered, engenders a momentary detachment from reality, thereby keeping the audience in captivity within an atmosphere in which the oddest stories may unfold. This is the gist of horror cinema, and the films that actually manage to provide this type of experience are a rarity.
Stanley Kubrick, one of the most brilliant filmmakers of all time, has understood and mastered this fundamental principle, thereby delivering a film of unimaginable strength that is a master class in both fantasy and horror. "The Shining" is grandiose in every way. Combining a wide range of fantasy elements (ghosts, visions, madness, disappearances, apparitions, labyrinths, telepathy, etc.), Kubrick tactfully juggles with them all throughout a terrifying yet simple story, originally written by none other than Stephen King.
The film takes place in the huge Overlook Hotel, which is located in a remote corner of the United States. Every winter, while the hotel is closed, a caretaker is hired to stay in the hotel for a couple of months. Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), a writer, ends up signing the contract. Accompanied by his wife Wendy and son Danny, he believes he has finally found the perfect opportunity to be completely isolated from the outside world to better engage in his writing. However, as Jack and his son Danny are about to discover, within the walls of the Overlook Hotel lie obscure secrets of madness and murder.
Each of Kubrick's shots is incredibly sturdy and beautiful. Kubrick was a perfectionist, as evidenced by the fact that he holds the record for the number of takes for the staircase scene in this film. Whether it is his use of steady cam, fixed or slightly moving shots, his masterful direction and use of symmetry is crucial to the terror conveyed by the film. The notion of shot/countershot in "The Shining" is used at the very best of its filmic utility. The pace is slow, which allows the horror to gradually settle in without the audience noticing. Matched with the ghostly music of Wendy Carlos, Rachel Elkind, Béla Bartók, György Ligeti and Krzysztof Penderecki, the terrifying atmosphere of the hotel will subtly invade your mind and emotions in a way only a very few films achieve to do so. Forget the jump scares, as "The Shining" is a truly visceral and sensory experience where anticipation takes on a whole different meaning via cinematic and musical prowess rather than via gruesome images and loud crescendos.
The film stars Jack Nicholson, who is at the absolute top of his game. There's a reason why Nicholson's face bursting through a hole in the door screaming "Here's Johnny!" has become an iconic moment within mainstream culture: This is an iconic role, and a legendary character that nobody would even dare imagine being played by anybody else. Hats off to Danny Lloyd for undoubtedly one of the best performances by a child actor ever captured on film. This was not an easy role to pull off. Needless to say, the rest of the cast is just as superb. I understand those who thought Shelley Duvall looked and sounded hysterical (almost to a point where she becomes annoying), but this is exactly the point, as she is the only character inside the walls of the hotel that does not have the gift of "the shining". Among other memorable performances, there is that of Philip Stone, who plays Delbert Grady, the bone-chilling spectre of the former hotel caretaker, and that of Scatman Crothers, who is also excellent. Performances and direction of actors are absolutely splendid.
Those who have read Stephen King's novel will notice significant differences with the film. Kubrick built his film from Jack's point of view rather than Danny's. Disgrace to the original? That seems to be King's opinion, as he apparently hated the movie adaptation. That being said, and no disrespect to King, I think both the paperback and the film have plenty to offer, and can be appreciated on their own.
Like all Kubrick's novel adaptations, "The Shining" also pays tribute to cinema in many regards. Especially towards the end, there are multiple on-screen references to a wide variety of horror sub-genres, many of which, throughout the years, legions of die-hard fans have been trying to decipher. I know that it is all fun and games, but in my humble opinion, if you try to decrypt "The Shining"'s ending and drag it into the realm of semantics, the whole point is missed. To me, this last bone-chilling shot is just Kubrick having fun, telling his audience that Jack's own memories, whether they be real or not, will forever be within the walls of the Overlook Hotel, and within the grasp of anybody who has the shining who'll ever step foot in that building (and just like that, I fell into the semantics trap myself). And regardless of what it actually means, I am having goosebumps as I am writing these lines and remembering that ending, so mission accomplished.
This is a film that you can watch many, many times, and still be scared. I've watched it over a hundred times, and am still scared by it. Its ability to arouse emotions and drag you into an almost hypnotic state of mind makes it absolutely unique, engendering the kind of horror that inhabits you and grows on you, as opposed to horror films filled with jump scares, where you'll know when to cover your eyes/ears upon a second viewing.
An astounding experience of image and sound combined, and an emblematic figure of fantastic/horror cinema. One of my all-time favorites without a doubt. Brilliant.
Vox Lux (2018)
Audacity as an end to achieve can be costly.
"Vox Lux" does not lack in audacity in several respects, to say the least. When it comes to narrative structure, in particular, but also with regard to aesthetics and overall storytelling. The film opens with quite a shocking scene. From there, character development takes many interesting directions, whether it be with regard to the relationship between Celeste and her sister, or with the protagonist as a character, which is strikingly strong-headed and determined, despite having just survived a terrible tragedy at such a young age.
The first half of this film really sparks curiosity and is emotionally engaging. When it comes to the second half, in which we get to meet an older Celeste played by Natalie Portman, the once likeable young woman we'd grown to have empathy for during the first half has become an ego-driven, mentally unstable pop star diva. The transition is abrupt, given that it all happens through a "chapter" transition layered with narration. That time ellipse, to put it mildly, felt clumsier than audacious, as the narrator, who only gets to speak every now and then, reveals pretty pivotal story elements that are never actually shown. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that, a few times, some of these story elements felt more important than the story parts on which actual screen time is spent. And sometimes, significant screen time, that is. With such an interesting story full of significant events over the course of its first half abruptly jumping into dirty corners within the realm of show business and poisoned relationships, I don't know if this contrast between its halves and the heavy character metamorphosis was supposed to be the main point here, but I honestly struggle to understand the gist of any potential social commentary therein.
The chapters, honestly, feel pretty useless for the most part. The narration was perhaps added to give the story the aspect of some kind of modern tale, which again comes off as quite an unusual approach for this type of film, albeit not particularly effective in practice. Again, why reveal so many interesting past story details via narration, and showing such unimportant ones on-screen throughout the latter half?
"Vox Lux" is nonetheless gorgeously shot and lit. Photography is superb and Brady Corbet's direction is flawless. While the soundtrack isn't my cup of tea musically, I have to admit that it is likely the result of tremendous work and technical prowess. Performances from Raffey Cassidy and Stacy Martin are real show-stealers. Jude Law also does a great job as the manager. On the other hand, it took me quite a while to let Natalie Portman's prominent New York accent sink in, but once I got used to it, I have to recognize that she delivered a complex character with great intensity, while she was playing it (which is only for about half of the film's runtime).
The last twenty minutes of "Vox Lux" had me looking at my watch. Midway through those, I thought "how mind boggling would that be if the credits were to start rolling" after twenty minutes of this stuff? Ten minutes later, that's exactly what was happening. While it was mind boggling (i.e., a huge WTF moment), it also was a huge waste of time, an unsatisfactory ending, and a flawed conclusion to a broken story that fails to drive much of a point home.
So much wasted potential. A clear example that audacity does not always pay off. Or, perhaps, that audacity as an end to achieve can be costly.
Koroshiya 1 (2001)
Shock value at the expense of...almost everything else
Japan, in the early 2000s, had undeniably become a significant leader in the production of niche, cult films, many of which juggle with bizarre, twisted and just plain extreme concepts and ideas. Very often characterized by its extreme violence, that « new » Japanese cinema usually pushed the boundaries of disturbing imagery beyond anything you could possibly see in a North American film. Director Takashi Miike is an iconic figure of this genre, seemingly trying to push the limits in the depiction of bizarre violence the he established himself, via a volume of films that would put to shame even the most prolific B-Movie directors of the 90s. One can think of Audition (which is probably the only Miike film that I've seen and liked), Visitor Q and Dead or Alive, but the most obvious example is undoubtedly Koroshiya 1, also known as Ichi The Killer.
Miike takes the viewer to contemporary Tokyo, where different clans of Yakuza are at war. We learn that the head of the Anjo clan mysteriously disappeared with a large sum of money. Kakihara (Tadanobu Asano), the heavily scarred right hand man of the missing gangster (and a true lover of sadomasochism), took the head of the clan in order to find his beloved master. However, his unorthodox interrogation methods and aggressive temperament create tensions with other Yakuza clans. It is then that we discover the real person responsible for the kidnapping and other carnage, a man named Ichi, psychologically controlled by a former clan leader who retired and who made him believe that he was persecuted by bullies throughout his youth.
Does following that plot seem like a daunting task? It actually is, yes (and imagine how worse it gets when you have to read subtitles). Trust me, many details complicate the whole story unnecessarily. Especially given that, at the end of the day, the script is nothing more than an excuse for bloody and brutal scenes. Although the original idea came from a manga by Hideo Yamamoto, the script adaptation of this one, courtesy of Sakichi Satô, is quite sloppy at times. The intentions here are absolutely unclear, namely whether this is a meaningless, excess-driven show of bloodied up gut baths and necks turned into blood geysers or, rather, a reflection on the love man has for pain and self-destruction, however subtle the latter may possibly be. Whatever this film initially had to say, it gets lost in an exaggerated appetite for macabre, at the expense of proper storytelling. Don't get me wrong, I like mindless entertainment for the sake of entertainment. This film, however, is heavily punctuated with lengthy and messy story developments that feel like a failed attempt at giving this gallery of carnage a deeper meaning. I found the overall entertainment value of Miike's film to be moderate at best.
The main qualities of "Ichi the Killer" lie mainly in the aesthetic department. First of all, the cinematography makes the whole experience feel like a live comic book. Great lighting, textures, and shadows. The direction also has its moments, despite a certain rarity in extravagant camera movements. The credits scene in the beginning of the film in particular, as well as one of the scenes in the Yakuza offices, are put together very well. But again, that is purely in terms of aesthetic value, as it never engenders anything that drives the overall narrative. It's all style, no substance. And to anyone with a taste for competent special effects, please note that this film has some good practical effects, but also over-the-top CGI gore that looks absolutely awful, and plenty of it.
Let's just say that, overall, this is a confusing mess that is way too focused on provocation. When it was released, many called this a "cult classic" and many were very enthusiastic about Miike, calling him a "master" already. I disagree. Years have now passed, and Miike has over a hundred credits as a director. I haven't seen any of his films in recent years, but I assume that he has since matured as an artist. Hopefully he has, because "Ichi The Killer", at least in my mind, felt like a catalog of grotesque and gruesome in which everything else is gravitating filler, from a film maker that should have focused less on volume, and more on quality. Oh, and less on the messy delivery of shock value, and more on actual storytelling, too.
Lost in Translation (2003)
Quietly powerful
I know I'm late (about 16 years!), as it's 2019 and I just watched "Lost in Translation", which received plenty of praise and became almost a cult classic in the eyes of many people since its release in 2003.
Mainly set in a luxurious hotel in Tokyo, "Lost in Translation" is one of those films that slowly cruises its way to its audience's emotions, without ever waving the threat of driving it through agitated dramatic waters en route to a tragic denouement. The somewhat unusual Japanese setting is the perfect landscape for this story of two characters, both of which are quietly going through a life crisis, who each find the other's soul to be of an inexplicably comforting nature. Speaking of unusual, I truly salute the originality in the choices of characters that were made here: Bill Murray plays Bob Harris, a jaded Hollywood actor who's on a work trip to Tokyo to shoot a whiskey commercial, and Scarlett Johansson plays Charlotte, an aspiring writer who is probably barely over half Harris' age, who accompanied her husband, a professional photographer, on a work trip only to spend her days in the hotel room, alone, questioning herself about who she is while her husband is working endless hours.
Through their respective struggles, all of which are depicted with the kind of subtlety that never disrupts the tone of the film, both characters are magnetically brought to one another, despite both being married. As Harris says at some point in the film, when speaking about marriage: "you can drive it but there's still the occasional accident". "Lost in Translation" precisely depicts one of those accidents, but in a very unusual way. Actually, it does so in a very soothing way, where momentarily lost souls find meaningful comfort with one another, instead of two bodies quenching lust. This film is not about infidelity. This film is mostly about these people that life puts in your path and that change it forever, in circumstances that make it impossible for them to remain a part of it. There is a truly bittersweet feeling throughout the film to which anybody who has traveled and made significant although ephemeral encounters will be able to relate. It is hard to explain, but this film shook me more than I suspected it would.
Sofia Coppola finished the film with a (quiet) emotional bang, at least in my view, with both characters whispering in each other's ear something inaudible to the audience. It was one of those brilliant cinematic moments that elevates a film to a higher level, and allows it to stay with the viewer for a while.
The direction sets the tone perfectly, with the kind of delicacy that brings a great clash between those vibrant and colourful Japanese cities and the characters' state of mind. The film also packs great visuals and cinematography. Seeing the reflection of those endless neon lights and buildings on the window overlay a contemplative and thoughtful Charlotte sitting in the back of a taxi was a pure visual delight. The soundtrack also features a great musical selection.
Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson both do an incredible job at giving depth to their characters with even the simplest of actions, and bring life to a quite unique chemistry.
This is a comedy in many ways, but it tackles themes that would usually warrant using a dramatic tone, without ever employing it, and without ever dipping even its toes into the realm of clichés. And that, in itself, is quite admirable.
Fyre Fraud (2019)
The Culmination of Emptiness
Interestingly, "Fyre Fraud" was released on Hulu a few days before the Netflix documentary on the same subject, the latter of which is the first one I watched.
I found it so compelling that I rushed to watch "Fyre Fraud", having read that both docs had plenty of interesting footage to offer, with this one including an actual interview with the con artist behind the scam, Billy McFarland.
Clips of the interview are inserted here and there, but to be perfectly honest, do not provide much insight or reveal anything shocking, besides providing somewhat satisfactory cringey moments where McFarland seems to be sweating bullets and is seen stuttering in embarrassment after being asked certain questions that he obviously won't/can't answer due to ongoing lawsuits. The tone is not overly confrontational, but they did not shy away from asking tricky questions.
While the Netflix piece had a well-organized, countdown type of structure that documented the lead-up to this disastrous event in great detail then depicted the event itself, both with plenty of on-site footage, "Fyre Fraud" uses a different approach, instead focusing on everything surrounding the event and the more philosophical questions that this literally empty shell raises: is this, to a greater extent, the result of a culture of emptiness? And while "Fyre Fraud" is certainly inferior as far as narrative structure is concerned, it digs deeper than the Netflix doc in its study of "influencers" and millennial culture. While they do not get that much screen time, there are two interviews with influencers who attended the event (no clue what their names are) who, after being candidly asked what an influencer is and how they would describe their "brand" (which is basically themselves and the "lifestyle" that they document, one heavily filtered picture at a time), both answered "positivity" after hesitating for a moment, struggling to find a meaning to something blatantly meaningless.
There are several other people being interviewed, only a minority of which are also interviewed in the Netflix doc. As such, it was interesting to get different perspectives and, in many aspects, both documentaries are very interesting in their own right and could very well have been merged into one lengthy piece. Anyhow, as I was not familiar with the lead-up to the event and how it all unfolded, I'm happy I got to watch both docs in that order, as "Fyre Fraud" really focuses on the fraudulent aspect of it rather than all the cringe-worthy logistic and administrative failures that led to the disaster. My suggestion would be to watch both docs, starting with Netflix's. That way, with "Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened", you'll get a really satisfactory depiction of the facts, including plenty of on-site footage prior to the event and during the event, and then, with "Fyre Fraud", you'll get a better picture of the aftermath, as well as an interesting, more in-depth sociological analysis of the psychological and behavioral traits of a delusional generation obsessed with flashing pictures of a luxurious lifestyle that a serial con man was able to successfully exploit.
On its own, "Fyre Fraud" might feel a bit incomplete if you're looking for actual footage of this disaster. However, as a complement to "Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened", it is highly satisfactory and completes the Netflix piece's deficiencies in terms of social commentary.
That being said, if you have to choose between the two, I would suggest "Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened".
Lord of Illusions (1995)
Lord of Illusions brings the viewer into a universe where film noir, pure horror, mystery and fantasy blend together in an almost magical way
My fascination for Lord of Illusions dates back from the video store days, where I would wander around in the horror section of the video store, and would contemplate all these VHS boxes with horror imagery and titles in all sorts of funky, bloodied up fonts. Right next to the Hellraiser films, which all had the highest age restriction rating (18+), there was this new release, which also was rated 18+. This means a lot where I'm from, as only very few films obtain that rating. To be perfectly honest, I would often rent films based on age rating alone, expecting that it would be concomitant with the level of gore (I was fascinated with practical gore effects, at the time). I was ten or eleven years old.
Back then, the screenshots on the back of these VHS cases would spark my imagination, and when I grabbed Lord of Illusions', there was plenty of horror scenes for me to imagine: you could see a man lying down with multiple swords through his body; a screaming man wearing a strange metal mask that looked like a bear trap; a hairy, shirtless Scott Bakula holding a revolver; and what appeared to be a zombie, holding a screaming woman. I tried to imagine what the scenario must have been like in order to pack so many horror scenes that had seemingly very little in common.
Despite our young age, a friend of mine and I ended up persuading his mother to rent the film and let us watch it, to which she agreed, only if she was to watch it with us. Needless to say, it scared the living sh** out of us and, as two native French speakers, we did not understand much of the scenario (the VHS copy at the video store was in the original English version). The first scene alone with the baboon and the spooky cult members had us totally frightened, and we knew my friend's mom was close to stopping it. Then came the scene where Butterfield pulls glass out of his body...boy she came close to stopping it there. However, we somehow kept watching until that one scene which involves Swann and plenty of swords. That's when she turned it off.
Fast-forward to a decade later, when the technology shifted to DVD and video stores were getting rid of their old videocassettes for cheap. I found this film that I had almost forgotten and bought the director's cut on VHS.
I got to watch Lord of Illusions again as an adult who speaks and understands English. I have to say, although it certainly has its flaws, this is a very well executed thriller that offers a unique blend of horror, fantasy, magic, and genuine mystery. The very first scene is very intense and the setting was just as scary to me as an adult as it was when I was a child. You are introduced to terrifying characters that are very unusual to the sound of an excellent, haunting theme song.
From there, the film takes somewhat of a more conventional turn, where you get to meet the protagonist, Harry D'Amour, a private investigator who ends up in charge of protecting a popular illusionist against members of an obscure cult. Despite D'Amour being depicted as one of the lone characters truly grounded into reality throughout much of the film (although there are some interesting flashbacks showing that he's had glimpses of true evil before), it is fascinating to see him step into this world where the line between illusion and magic becomes disturbingly blurry, and where an unimaginable evil awaits. And if you think you've seen scary films before, wait until the final 20 minutes of this one. Oh boy.
Despite some lengthy developments mid-way through the film, a somewhat dreary romance building up and minor pacing issues, Lord of Illusions brings the viewer into a universe where film noir, pure horror, mystery and fantasy blend together in an almost magical way - something that can only stem from a mind like Clive Barker's. The cinematography has a unique feel to it, whether it be scenes in the desert or in Swann's mansion. Clive Barker's direction is also very good.
The soundtrack is haunting, mysterious, and has an almost epic feel to it. The theme song, especially, is absolutely memorable.
Daniel Von Bergen stands out as Nix, the cult leading villain. But really, the whole cast does a great job. Those cult members are absolutely bone-chilling.
While a minor portion of the visual effects may not hold up to today's standards, all the practical effects and makeups are incredible and look way better than what you see in most horror blockbusters nowadays. In terms of gore, this is definitely not the bloodiest film I've seen, but it definitely features plenty of quite inventive deaths and sophisticated horror imagery.
My love for this film may have a bit to do with nostalgia, but it has much more to offer than just gore and horror imagery - those things that I was craving so badly as a kid. I have seen many films in many genres, but oddly enough, nothing quite comparable to Lord of Illusions. A true little gem forgotten by many that certainly deserves to be revisited.
Fyre (2019)
Cringeworthy escalation to the inevitable
I remember seeing the infamous promotional video for this festival (not that I'm wealthy enough to attend this kind of event, but some friend sent me the link, so I could "contemplate" the "dream" that other people were going to live). I remember feeling confused about this: what is it, exactly? It's some music festival, but all we see is this Caribbean landscape with a yacht, jetskis and girls in bikinis. Not that this seemed just like a lure, but clearly this was just pretty archetypical promo that could have been just one of a thousand meaningless "influencer" videos in this Instagram era where people are more busy turning their life into a promotional object than living and enjoying it.
I also remember reading the Vice article documenting the extent of the disaster the actual event was. That article is what got me to understand that this was actually supposed to be a music festival (I did not bother looking into that sort of detail after being sent the initial promotional video, as it seemed like your typical, meaningless Instagram garbage).
Then, over a year later, I see this thing in the Netflix menu, and decide to watch it. This is an interesting story where what one would initially perceive as pure naivety clearly turns into plain deceit, and where the expectations of grandeur for the "dream" being sold were artificially inflated through social media. And on that last point, I think this documentary does a pretty decent job of mocking how social media and "influencers" (still can't believe that's how these parasites are called), in today's world, is all about style over substance, expectations vs. reality, and the culture of appealing people with luxury items and "lifestyle" while having an empty bank account or being in major debt. How many of these stories have we heard over the years, of people living the "good life", only to go bankrupt a few year later? This is the new "15 minutes of fame" concept, one heavily filtered picture at a time.
The documentary gathers a satisfying amount of interviews with people who worked on the event, of on-site footage before and during the event, and of other significant moments that show you the true colors of Billy McFarland and Ja Rule - the founders of this scam. You do get some insight on their mentality throughout, as Ja Rule and McFarland have no grasp whatsoever on reality and won't take no for an answer, regardless of whether what they want to do is within the realm of possibility or not. It does not matter to them. They're in the Caribbean, they always got a beer in their hands, and they couldn't care less about the logistics - until the very last second, when they got their back against the wall, but will take their customers' money regardless.
As I mentioned before, at first, it seems like they really are doing their best to materialize the vision they had. That vision, however, is soon enough unveiled as something that obviously won't happen, with mountains of financial and logistical challenges that just can't possibly be climbed, as could have easily been predicted, had the founders not been so short-sighted and stubborn.
The structure of the documentary quickly turns into a countdown to the event, and boy it's not short on cringey moments, let me tell you that. It obviously escalates as the event approaches and you know the ship is about to hit the iceberg, big time. While it may be hard to feel pity or sympathy towards rich kids who can afford to spend 25K on that kind of weekend getting ripped off, "Fyre" somewhat debunks a mentality that plagues North American society and reveals the emptiness behind each lavish lifestyle picture posted by these "influencers" on Instagram to a much wider scale by giving a prime example of an empty shell that was created and promoted on social media.
Overall, this "anatomy of a modern day disaster" documentary is very well put together, one cringeworthy moment after another. Worth watching if you've heard of this fiasco and you're curious about how it all went down.
You (2018)
You watched the first few episodes and think "You" seems like a good series?
To anyone who watched the first few episodes, thinks they were pretty good and is wondering whether he/she should invest more hours of their time watching this series, this review is exactly for you.
From the get-go, "You" has a relatively conventional premise: Joe, some bookstore manager, falls in love at first sight and becomes obsessed with some aspiring female writer, Beck. Despite this, the first few episodes are somewhat interesting: Joe has his own ironic way of articulating his thoughts through narration, with just the right amount of disdain for all these boldly clichéd, despicable characters that surround Beck. I am talking about Benji, some archetypical, douchey fortunate son, who's (obviously!) vegan and gluten-free, has his own soda company and plays with Beck's easily fooled heart. Yeah, you read that right, that's how stereotypical the writers went with this one. But buckle up, he's not the only one: I'm also talking about Peach, and Beck's entourage of shallow, Instagram-obsessed type friends, who are as snobby and as self-absorbed as they come.
At first, these stereotypical characters all seem like a big joke, a bunch of idiots who the audience will delightfully watch Joe outsmart and probably eliminate one by one. You'd think there will be some social commentary with plenty of bite in there, as Joe stalks and disses the social media profiles of different characters. If you watched the first few episodes, you're probably thinking that a sardonic tone is being set, as it seems unconceivable that any writer in the world would create such characters with any intent, at some point, to make anyone like or even tolerate them. You're probably thinking that you're in for a show where you'll be brought to the morally ambiguous dilemma of whether you should be "rooting" for Joe. But don't get lured in just yet...Because after a few episodes, the deceit becomes obvious and everything is a complete mess, thanks to poor writing.
The core of the mess, actually, lies mainly within the character of Beck. While, at first, she seems like a nice, emotionally vulnerable girl caught up in the middle of a circle of fake people, every time you are about to feel sympathy for her, she does something devaluating. It literally becomes a gimmick mid-way through the season. After a relatively short while, it becomes absolutely annoying, and you actually don't care for her anymore.
When it comes to Joe, while he has a few good lines here and there, his obsessive behavior ends up nullifying any of his earlier displayed smarts, and he becomes amazingly pathetic. In this regard, the writers made Beck so unlikeable that it's barely believable that even the most desperate fool in this world would still have the slightest bit of interest towards her. As they show flashbacks of him in a previous relationship, you get to understand that he's just a psychopathic, hopeless romantic who's also a magnet for slutty and confused ladies, which makes him even more pathetic.
As the series goes on, the interactions between the two main characters become annoyingly gimmicky, and you'd just wish they'd both get hit by a truck, seriously. Through midway of the season, the story becomes quite a drag of the same gimmicks and every twist and turn is highly predictable. You find yourself thinking this should have been a film or a miniseries.
There is also plenty of nonsense throughout the season: Joe keeps stalking Beck and her friends and follows them everywhere they go, always staying close enough so he can hear what they say in public places like bars and restaurants. Obviously, they never notice him...he's wearing a cap! Of course they won't! But hey, they'll notice a private investigator following them in the blink of an eye, though. And Beck's apartment, what a great view it gives to anyone passing on that New York City street, right at RC level! On the other hand, she's portrayed as such a dumb and naive gal, it's almost believable that it never crossed her mind that she'd probably need curtains. And what about these people who suddenly disappear, but Joe sends a tweet or two from their stolen phone, so everyone thinks they're alive and well.
There is one subplot that fostered a hint of interest, and that's Joe's relationship with Paco, the boy who lives in the apartment next to his. Unfortunately, this relationship remains underdeveloped, and the whole purpose of that subplot ends up being minimal.
All in all, the boldness of the stereotypes at the core of almost each character made me believe there would be plenty of sardonic humour aimed at millennial bourgeois hipsters, but no, these are the characters populating the entire show, and none are likeable. NONE, besides Paco.
Whatever trace of an ambiguous dilemma it successfully achieved to create during the first few episodes is barely a flash in the pan, and fades away about as quickly as Beck and Joe's senselessness gets unveiled. Then, you are left wishing the worse for both characters, or simply wishing you hadn't been baited into watching this poorly written show.
Crank: High Voltage (2009)
1000% more craziness, but the thrills are gone
When the first promotional trailers for "Crank" started playing on television, I remember thinking this would be just another forgettable action flick starring Jason Statham. Boy did these promos not do justice to the actual film. It was such a fun and thrilling ride throughout, with one foot set in over-the-top silliness and the other foot set in the realm of a somewhat serious thriller with a critical countdown that could only be upheld temporarily by an orgy of hard drug induced adrenaline pumps. The craziness came in bursts from the protagonist, Chev Chelios, who was a perturbing element in a rather conventional underworld. I remember leaving the theatre the first time I saw it, thinking: "This is about as close to a movie adaptation of Grand Theft Auto as it can possibly get".
"Crank 2: High Voltage" is a bit of a different animal: Neveldine and Taylor's sequel to the first installment has both feet deeply rooted in over-the-top, ultraviolent craziness. There isn't a serious moment here, or any real feeling of urgency this time around. It picks up where the first film left (and I literally mean that, believe it or not) and the film's premise is basically the same, only this time, rather than having to stimulate his heart with adrenaline, our super ballsy hero Chev Chelios has to keep an electric charge in an artificial heart that's been implanted in his body. As one may expect from watching the first film, Chelios manages to do this in quite inventive fashion at times. However, it never is as much fun as watching Chelios pick up any crazy drug he can find to keep his heart pumping.
Despite some hilarious, incredibly unpredictable surprises (one fight scene in particular comes to mind), the film borrows quite a bit from the previous outing and a few scenes do feel like they were recycled. Many characters return, whether it be in funny cameos or in rather important roles. However, everyone's craziness is now at least on par with Chelios', which sort of creates a different universe altogether and sets a tone where the thriller aspect that blended in so nicely in the first film is nonexistent. While all the silliness is undeniably entertaining, Chev Chelios almost looks like a normal character here, and blends in that universe without making nearly as much of a splash in terms of contrast.
Nonetheless, "Crank 2: High Voltage" is balls-to-the-wall, unapologetic, adrenaline-boosted entertainment and satisfies in many ways. And it does not pull any punches, whether it be regarding racial and gender stereotypes, videogame inspired direction, old Godzilla references, oversaturated colors...you name it. Political correctness is not on the menu, folks. On that same note, there are pretty intense moments of violence in this film that are very uncharacteristic of a somewhat mainstream film. If you thought the first film was violent, it's a Barney and Friends episode compared to this sequel.
Overall, although I was entertained, I have to say that I missed the balance of the first film, and how it made Chev Chelios stand out as a crazy mother effer. This sequel is a complete circus of sadistic animals that does plenty to push the limits, but never engenders any sense of urgency and the thrills that come with it, all of which were delivered so efficiently in the original. Anyhow, it is worth watching if you liked "Crank", especially if you thought the craziness could have even been taken up a notch.
One thing I can guarantee is that you probably have never seen a film quite like this one before.
Chien de garde (2018)
A fantastic film with memorable performances
"Chien de garde" is an incredibly effective depiction of the inheritance of criminality through family ties. The depiction has absolutely nothing glamorous about it, as the criminals in question are not suit-wearing Mafioso but, rather, small-time crooks living in poverty. It pretty much tells the story of two brothers who live at home with their formerly alcoholic mother and who work for their uncle, a lowlife drug dealer and bar owner in Montréal who hires them as henchmen.
On one hand, there is JP, the older brother, who is showing some resiliency and willingness to choose a different path in life, but who keeps being pressured by his family to stay within the vicious circle of crime and violence. His girlfriend, who also lives with him and his family, is about to leave that toxic nest and, obviously, wants him to follow her.
On the other hand, Vincent, the younger brother, an influenceable and totally unpredictable lunatic youngster whose recklessness seems like the perfect attribute to meet his uncle's career aspirations as a hitman.
Stuck between the opportunity for a fresh start with his girlfriend and pursuing criminal activity and staying loyal to his family, it feels like the walls are closing in on JP.
"Chien de garde" is such a great character study. Without its spectacular cast, it probably would not have been nearly as effective. From the opening sequence, the tone is set, and every character feels amazingly natural. Jean-Simon Leduc (JP) does a wonderful job portraying a young, resilient man who goes through a tremendous amount of psychological and emotional pressure.
Maude Guérin's (the mother) performance is stunning, and the chemistry that she is able to create with her two boys engenders a feeling of love that's equally comforting and toxic. The complexity and depth of her character is a key element in this story.
Theodore Pellerin (Vincent) completely steals the show with a performance that should be remembered for ages, literally. I felt uncomfortable every time his character was on screen. The last time I remember a character making me feel similarly was in The Professional, with Gary Oldman's character (although they are totally different characters). His unpredictability should make any viewer uneasy. The way he moves, the way he talks...you rarely see such an interesting and unique character in movies. It certainly helped that the dialogue is so well written (which, in my opinion, is a rare occurrence in a Quebecois film depicting the criminal world), but make no mistake, Vincent would have never been the same without such an inventive young actor portraying him. And it is safe to say that the same applies to the whole cast. Superb performances all around.
Sophie Dupuis struck me as a brilliant director, from start to finish. The opening sequence, especially, had me in complete awe. I find it incredible that this is her very first full-length feature. It appears that this film may be nominated for an Academy Award. Trust me, it is truly deserved.
Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
Worthy sequel
Despite the absence of many key names (Denis Villeneuve, Emily Blunt, Roger Deakins, Johann Johannsson) that stood out in the previous outing's credits, Sicario: Day of the Soldado essentially generates the same kind of nerve-racking atmosphere as the first film. Relative unknown Stefano Sollima takes Denis Villeneuve's seat as the director, and seriously makes a name for himself with some great scenes that deliver as much tension and shocking moments as what made Sicario the fine thriller that it is.
The film kicks off with two highly intense scenes depicting horrors - that, unfortunately, have become frequent occurrences over the course of the last few years - with jaw-dropping realism and intensity.
As you catch your breath from all this horrifying havoc, you will then be taken to a familiar character, Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), being ordered by a high profile politician to start a war between different cartels. Graver, being the master of shady border operations that we got to know in Sicario, then gets in contact with Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) and teams up with him yet again to start fires left and right with different cartels and foster a large-scale conflict among them. One of these operations consists in the abduction of a drug lord's daughter, Isabel Reyes (Isabela Moner). However, a number of things do not go according to the plan, and sooner than later, bloodletting ensues.
The first Sicario was delivered to its audience through the eyes of agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt). She was the fish out of water, stuck in the middle of shady operations and all the strange and scary characters that it involved. Things were being hidden from her, and from the audience as well. She was just as shocked about it all as the audience was.
This second opus takes a different approach: it never hides that the operations, as shady as they may be, come from the higher political echelons. With Macer out of the equation, this leaves all the focus on two characters that left me asking for more when the first film's credits started rolling: Alejandro and Graver. Both are great characters, and needless to say, Del Toro and Brolin really steal the show. Del Toro is frighteningly calm, sometimes erupting in bursts of savage violence, other times showing hints of humanity, especially as his relationship with Isabel Reyes evolves. A good example is a very nice scene in which both characters seek shelter and meet a deaf man. On the other hand, Josh Brolin is such a strong presence. His voice, his look, and his performance again make his character one of the main attractions of the film. His demeanor, and some of the lines that he drops, while many are subtle, bring a lot of depth to an otherwise (again!) slightly underused character. Also, Isabela Moner does a phenomenal job and has a very bright future ahead of her.
Dariusz Wolski's cinematography advantageously compares to Roger Deakins', which is especially noticeable with those great night shots in the desert. The film is visually crisp and the work on lighting is always on point.
The late Johann Johannsson is obviously not returning. However, the music by Hildur Guðnadóttir is just as tense as the first film's memorable soundtrack and has a very powerful presence in this sequel as well.
On the downside, the last third of the film felt a bit rushed and unfolded in a bit of a conventional manner, despite including a couple of memorable and unusual moments. Taylor Sheridan's (who also wrote the first film) script starts very strong, but left me with the impression that certain promising things were dropped along the way, while ending up leaning towards an easy window for yet another sequel.
However, the dialogue is solid, and I enjoyed the fact that Sheridan also included a sub-plot that involves Mexican youth once again. There is also another convoy scene. While it's not nearly as tense as that in the first film when the convoy enters Juarez, this one is more action-packed than any scene from the first outing. On that note, be aware that Sicario: Day of the Soldado is much more action-oriented than its predecessor, which overall felt a bit more cerebral.
Again, I am amazed that, quality-wise, the trademark aspects (music, cinematography, tension) from the previous film were so successfully maintained, despite many marquee names missing this time around. They made it work as a sequel and, therefore, as a franchise. And they left me wanting to see a third chapter, too.
The Descendants (2011)
A bittersweet and heartwarming comedy/drama
I found out about The Descendants on IMDb as I was looking for films that were shot in Hawaii (I will be spending some time in Kauai in July, and wanted to have a peek at the beautiful landscapes and breathtaking views that await me there). I ended up reading quite a few very positive reviews, reading a bit more on Alexander Payne and, ultimately, watching the film.
The Hawaii setting is pretty atypical, I guess, but serves this film beautifully. The opening sequence, accompanied by a solid and almost poetic narration by George Clooney, sets the tone right away: The Descendants tells a bittersweet story in a paradisiac setting, but none of the heartaches depicted therein, are any less painful. However, the film always manages to handle even the harshest emotions in a mysteriously peaceful manner.
The film touches on themes that are universal (death, family, faithfulness, forgiveness, etc.), but that have rarely been tackled using such an approach: it's subtly delivered, with a much appreciated restraint as far as acting goes, and often times with tinges of humor. Almost every emotional moment is also accompanied with beautiful Hawaiian music, bringing a touch of smoothness to these moments without toning down the emotion of these scenes.
All characters are great and evolve beautifully throughout. It is beautiful to watch this broken family unite and solidify as a clan through adversity. George Clooney's performance is incredible, as he always appears to somewhat keep his head above water, despite being taken onto an emotional rollercoaster that would sink anyone to rock bottom. He delivers emotions in so many subtle shades of anger, sadness, incomprehension, good will and...love. Shailene Woodley plays Alexandra, his rebellious teenage daughter, who ends up being his greatest ally. Amara Miller, as Scottie (his younger daughter), delivers a mostly humorous character with just the right amount of heart. Nick Crause, who plays Sid, has a couple of really good scenes, including a hilarious one where he interacts with Robert Forster, who plays Matt King's father-in-law. Just a stellar cast all around, delivering wonderfully-written dialogue and characters. There are many words of wisdom spoken in there, especially in the narration, which, sadly, disappears mid-way through the film. That was the only letdown for me.
Payne's direction flows smoothly and makes good use (although not abusive) of the beautiful Hawaii setting. I found the sub-plot about the sale of the piece of land owned by the King family not to be of the greatest interest, but ultimately, it ended up serving the story pretty well and telling the audience a lot about Matt King.
Overall, The Descendants is a great lesson in writing and in overall emotion delivery. This could have been a heavy drama. Instead, it's a bittersweet and heartwarming comedy/drama that should spark interest in Alexander Payne's other films for those (like me!) who are not familiar with them.
Death Wish (2018)
As generic as it gets
Carrying the same title as the classic 1974 vigilante flick starring Charles Bronson, Eli Roth's latest installment is set in modern-day Chicago, a city plagued with gang violence. Paul Kersey (Bruce Willis), a pacific, non-violent surgeon and family man, sees his life turn upside down when his wife (Elizabeth Shue) and daughter are brutally attacked by a bunch of serial home invading thugs. Feeling frustrated as he witnesses the helplessness of the local police department, who also happens to be flooded with similar cases, Kersey decides to take matters into his own hands, and begins hunting criminals through the streets of Chicago, helping a few people in need on the way, but ultimately tracking (and taking) down the men responsible for the violence inflicted to his family.
I think it's safe to say that, when it comes to vigilante flicks, it's only fair to expect a pretty typical storyline along those lines. What usually makes the difference is how the main character evolves throughout, how nasty the main villain is, how colourful the set of secondary characters is, and how creative the kills get. Unfortunately, Eli Roth's Death Wish does not pack enough surprises anywhere to make the film memorable in any way.
Having for protagonist a surgeon working in an emergency room is actually the best idea within this average-at-best script. It brings perhaps the most interesting moments in the entire film. Besides that, Kersey's psychological evolution throughout is beyond clichéd, both in terms of writing and delivery, as it's delivered mostly through a classic montage of shooting range practice, glimpses of appointments with a therapist, radio hosts debating whether Kersey is a hero or a criminal, and sequences of street shootings. Then it's all rinse and repeat. While Bruce Willis manages to build a likeable character in the first few scenes, this editing pattern quickly takes over and carries the audience from one killing sequence to the next, thereby earmarking character development as a secondary distraction.
Support characters are a complete shame, as they are generic and lack any depth whatsoever, despite being played by a great cast of actors (Elizabeth Shue, Dean Norris and Vincent D'Onofrio). You barely ever get to know any of the villains, which lack any personality whatsoever and always briefly appear on screen before getting brutally killed. Extremely basic characters.
Some of the kills are pretty graphic, but it's nothing we have not seen before. Considering how the entire film appears to gravitate around this particular aspect, it's a bit of a shame that they could not even come up with something original or striking, gritty violence.
Eli Roth's direction is pretty average. The intro sequence was fun to watch, as it was reminiscent of B series action flicks from the 70s, but as the film went on, montage after montage, the story and action unfold in quite a bland manner, without ever generating much excitement.
There is also a somewhat tangible attempt at bringing up the classic ambiguous questions stemming from individuals making their own justice, which ends up being yet another secondary, shallow distraction that never amounts to anything.
With all that being said, I sat through the whole film wondering what would happen next, which I suppose indicates that Death Wish still packs some entertainment value and is somewhat compelling. However, my appreciation for this type of story might have been what got me to the end credits. There are two or three one liners that managed to put a smile on my face, and few wince-inducing moments that'll help anyone interested in this type of film cruise to the end credits. Just don't expect to be surprised in any way.
There are many other films with the exact same storyline that are much worthier watches.
Dobermann (1997)
Excess and consequences
Based on a comic book, Jan Kounen's "Dobermann" is a French crime film that never shies away from taking things to the extreme. Kicking things off with a nice animated intro sequence, Jan Kounen then takes the viewer to the protagonist's (Vincent Cassel) baptism, where a darkly humorous and somewhat twisted situation occurs - I am not giving this one away. Then, Kounen fast forwards to several years later, in the midst of a heist, where you get a first glimpse at how colourful and bold the characters are going to be. Buckle up.
Dobermann's characters are, by far, its strongest asset. The whole film is a relatively classic "cops versus criminals" story, where the line between both camps is not only blurry - it becomes totally nonexistent. Cristini (Tcheky Karyo), described by his colleagues as a "nazi", is a twisted, ultraviolent, vicious police officer who's become obsessed with the Dobermann clan that keeps robbing one bank after another. Fed up with watching his colleagues clumsily fail to catch the Dobermann and his pals, he decides to take extreme measures to get the job done.
This culminates in an adrenaline-pumping, lengthy final sequence in which bodies pile up to the loud sound of Prodigy and the likes, and unfolding in some vividly demented - almost surreal - nightclub.
To give you an idea of the colorful palette of characters that awaits you, you also get the Dobermann's girlfriend, a mute, sadistic nympho; Pitbull and Moustique, two hardened criminals whose temper is quickly exposed when they play a tennis game; a priest who carries a Bible in which he hides grenades; Cristini's sidekick cop, who's just a huge fan of his boss; Sonia, a drag queen...and the list goes on.
Filled with dark humour almost from start to finish, Dobermann packs hilarious dialogue, cool aesthetics, costumes, and overall cinematography, plenty of violence which, despite never being particularly graphic, sometimes comprises very disturbing situations - again, I am not giving anything away. While the bloodletting is moderate, the inherent nature of many characters, especially Cristini, is extremely violent. In that regard, I have to say, Cristini is perhaps one of the craziest villains (yes, that's how blurry the line gets) I have ever seen in a film. Tcheky Karyo is absolutely bone-chilling in this flick.
While there isn't all that much to interpret about this film, the very last sequence almost feels like a hangover after a night of excess. And that's exactly what Dobermann is: excessive in its visuals, from the lighting to the characters' gun designs; excessive in its violence, from the characters' nature to some of the very inventive killings it puts on display; excessive in its soundtrack, with plenty of techno music playing out loud; and excessive in its direction and editing, from an amazing split-screen sequence to camera movements and shots delivering images that appear to be taken out of a comic book strip.
The pace of the film is not constantly frenetic, though. And that might be the only downside. However, trust me, the 25 final minutes of this film are complete insanity. I can understand why this is a cult favourite: it has many memorable moments, characters, all-out action and a dark sense of humour that make it unique.
A Cure for Wellness (2016)
Artificially inflated mystery, but genuine thrills and fun
I was certainly left with the impression that Gore Verbinski and Justin Hayte felt like kids in a candy store when they wrote A Cure for Wellness: there is no shortage of references as the film freely borrows ideas that are very typical for this type of thriller and finds a way to fit them in. I guess it would be easy to say that, many times, this melting pot of borrowed ideas and references somewhat lacks focus and ultimately results in a story that forgets many of those ideas/references as quickly as it plugged them in.
While the mystery builds up quite wonderfully within the first two thirds of the runtime, I thought the last third was revealing of how artificially inflated all that mystery was, as the story settles for a conventional path. The final 20 minutes felt a bit rushed, too. That does not mean that you will be able to take your eyes off the screen until the credits start rolling, though.
A Cure for Wellness is visually striking, thanks to a stellar cinematography where nothing is left to chance and a very effective direction that never pulls cheap tricks and jump scares. Despite what I mentioned earlier, the film grabs its audience's attention with plenty of eerie elements from the get-go, and successfully keeps it invested in a story punctuated with thrills, mystery and tense moments aplenty.
The cast does a great job playing characters that each could have been taken from completely different films. Dane DeHaan plays a young New York yuppie that starts off as pretty despicable, but whose cleverness and stubbornness drive the unveiling of all the mystery at a right pace. Jason Isaacs and Mia Goth also stand out, with the latter bringing to life the disturbing vulnerability of her character beautifully.
So, is this a case of style over substance? It might be, somewhat. However, if you are willing to be taken for an entertaining ride through beautiful and eerie set-pieces where mystery prevails, sometimes at the cost of story elements being used solely for that purpose and then being forgotten entirely, this thriller is a very worthy watch.