Change Your Image
Pjtaylor-96-138044
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Tarzan (1999)
Tarzan, Tarzan, Tarzan of the jungle watch out for that tree!
After being shipwrecked and left for dead, a young boy is found by a loving gorilla and raised as her own. Years later, he encounters other humans for the first time and finds himself having an identity crisis, torn between the apes he knows and the people he doesn't. 'Tarzan (1999)' makes use of a hybrid between 2D and 3D animation, with the backgrounds often being rendered with CGI while the characters are brought to life using traditional cel-shaded animation. This allows the film's jungle to take on a real sense of depth, and imbues the various set-pieces with a frantic energy that would be very difficult to pull off if everything was animated in the same way (the fast-paced, swirling camera moves, in particular, are key in giving the action its notable sense of dynamism). I like the way that Tarzan moves through the trees, not only swinging on vines but also grinding along branches as if he's Tony Hawk (the animators apparently used skateboarding and snowboarding as a reference for these segments). There's a tangible sense of physicality to the lead character and he convincingly acts as though he's been raised by gorillas, walking hunched over as he uses his knuckles to steady himself. This contrasts nicely with the 'regular' humans, which include the villainous Clayton and the bright-eyed Jane, and makes the central conflict of the film - that being Tarzan struggling to know where he belongs - all the more believable.
A lot of the narrative is conveyed through montage, but it doesn't feel like it's overly compressed. Set to the tune of some cracking Phil Collins songs, these sequences often manage to cut to the core of the exposition they're condensing by shining a light of the primary emotion of said information. A lot of the film is kind of understated, and Tarzan in particular is allowed to undergo his arc mostly internally. He doesn't have a lot of conventional personality, but his identify is showcased mainly through his movements and his interactions with those around him; he feels rounded enough to be the affair's leading man despite being less articulate than most of his counterparts. The story is fairly simple, but it's no less effective because of it. It takes some fairly expected turns, yet remains entertaining and engaging throughout. Although there are some moments where it struggles to balance its often dark, perilous tone with its moments of customary levity, it mostly carves out its own identity. It's surprisingly violent for a Disney movie, too, even though it obviously isn't particularly intense for adults.
Ultimately, this is a solid animated film with some emotional resonance and a few exciting set-pieces. Its voice work is solid, its music is touching, its animation is energetic and its well-paced plot is pretty compelling. It has some tonal issues and its simplicity sometimes works against it, but it's generally a fun experience.
Saw (2003)
They made sure the producers saw 'Saw', so we could see 'Saw'.
'Saw (2003)' is the short film Leigh Whannell and James Wan decided to make just before taking their script to the USA to seek funding for their feature film of the same name. Although it's somewhat rough around the edges (as most Saw movies are), it's remarkably fully formed and absolutely conveys the atmosphere and energy of the soon-to-be mega horror franchise it's trying to get off the ground. The success of 'Saw (2004)' is really inspiring, as Whannell and Wan really just decided to take matters into their own hands and make the movie they wanted to make. This short film shows exactly what they're both capable of with, essentially, mere scraps, and it's easy to see why producers jumped on the opportunity to fund the real deal. It's an entertaining, somewhat unsettling short with a simple but effective premise and a suitably stressful execution. It conveys the sense of grimness and grit so essential to the Saw series, all while being notably more contained and less gruesome. It's a really solid effort by all accounts, and it's doubly interesting to see as a fan of the franchise. Plus, Billy has a little hat...
Kaibutsu (2023)
The pig and the snail.
'Monster (2023)' is the latest drama directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda. It takes a puzzle-like approach to its story, presenting the same events three separate times from different points of view. Initially, it feels as though the film's primary theme is that of perspective, how we can never truly know the truth - such as it is - of a situation or a person and how that's doubly applicable if the people around us don't feel comfortable enough to tell us how they feel. The first two thirds compound this theme by setting something up, then subverting it. The final third, though, doesn't feel as though it's playing with the idea of subjective reality so much as it is presents what 'really happened' in the two acts that it follows. This isn't strictly true, as it still relies on putting us in a new pair of shoes and allowing us an insight into the internal lives of two characters previously only seen from an external viewpoint, but it definitely seems like the feature itself values this version of its events as an objective reality and, in essence, the thing the entire affair wants to comment on. Although it isn't totally divorced from the preceding movements (even if some key characters from those segments are all but entirely missing during it), it definitely seems to change gears somewhat and reveals a new thematic core. In theory, this isn't a bad thing, but in practice it just makes us wish that this core was given more time in the spotlight considering its eventual importance. The mystery of the first two acts initially seems like the crux of the film, but eventually feels like an unnecessary layer that obfuscates the beating heart of the affair. This beating heart is the most emotive element of the experience, even if it isn't exactly the most interesting and it's showcased with just a little bit too much sentimentality given its quietly devastating nature, so it's a bit frustrating that there isn't more time dedicated to fleshing it out. While frustration is an important aspect of the affair as it is, it should come from the narrative itself (as it does early on) rather than from the way in which the movie is constructed (as it does towards the end and in retrospect). There are also some small inconsistencies between the various sections, leading to some slight confusion in terms of what happens when, and some events are referenced but not shown which makes them feel out of place or even somewhat ingenuine. The film is also a tad too on the nose on occasion, something that's bolstered by the occasionally cloying score (despite being composed by the late legend Ryuichi Sakamoto).
Despite its issues, though, this is still an engaging and subtly powerful picture that looks gorgeous and features several really strong, somewhat understated performances. Although there are a few contrivances and slightly more heightened elements, the majority of the movie feels really genuine and realistic. The narrative is interesting and explores important themes without calling too much attention to itself. It's compelling and immersive in its own, somewhat delicate way. It does a good job of keeping you invested throughout its various twists and turns without ever feeling like an overtly twisty experience (as in one which exists primarily to pull the rug out from under you at certain points). It's a very well-made film in pretty much every area. Its problems don't make it bad, they just prevent it from elevating itself to the next level. It's very good, but it isn't quite great.
I know it seems like the negatives I've outlined outnumber the positives, but they definitely don't outweigh them. It's just a bit annoying that the affair essentially smashes two separate movies together - a mystery about perspective and a drama about (redacted) - and dampens the effect of both. Still, it's important to review a film for what it is rather than what it could have been. This is a well-made and entertaining experience that's emotionally impactful and consistently honest. It's compelling right the way through and touches on some important themes. Despite my hesitations with it, it's a really solid effort.
Midnight Vampire (2024)
Midnight snack.
'Midnight Vampire (2024)' is a short claymation movie about a vampire who wakes up at midnight and decides she needs something to eat. Over the course of her night, she'll find herself transitioning from predator to savior in an unexpected way. Relishing in brutal violence that's only easily palatable thanks to the fact that it's rendered with clay, the short escalates its seemingly simple setup to an action-oriented payoff yet remains oddly calm and detached throughout. It's almost as if it mimics the attitude of its central character, who treats her surely unusual night as if it's just another Tuesday. The short tells its story entirely silently, although it does make use of a few (arguably unnecessary but stylistically sound) intertitles, and it remains enjoyable and engaging for its duration. There's not all that much to it, but there doesn't really need to be. The blunt darkness of its subject matter and explicitness of its bloodshed contrasts the otherwise almost cutesy aesthetic of its characters (even the evil ones) and world, creating a unique atmosphere in which everything is nonchalantly off-kilter. The piece doesn't dwell on its darkest elements, instead using them to provide catharsis, and this allows it to stay relatively light. It's an entertaining effort, even if its simplicity is both a blessing and a curse in some ways (just like the condition of its protagonist). It's a basic but well-executed claymation short.
Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)
Thank you very much.
The synopsis for 'Bubba Ho-tep (2002)' is essentially one big joke: what if Elvis was alive and (relatively) well in a nursing home and he had to team up with someone who think's he's JFK to stop an ancient Egyptian mummy from sucking the souls of the residents out of their butts. While that premise practically promises a wacky comedy filled with bizarre what-if antics and knowingly hokey supernatural elements, the actual film takes a far more surprising route. It's actually a rather wistful, borderline poignant tale about ageing, regret, identity, and living with purpose even in your twilight years. It's far from a parody, even though it does have satiric elements and is no stranger to sometimes silly comedy. Although this may be disappointing to some people, I actually find its approach fairly refreshing. It isn't what I expected it to be, and - while that may mean its 'Elvis vs a mummy' angle is somewhat muted and, even, slightly unsatisfying - its gentle, unexpectedly sincere approach feels strangely appropriate and, in its own way, heartwarming. It's actually somewhat moving, and it still manages to scratch the genre itch its concept creates on occasion. It is rather slight, and there is a sense that it's more of a TV movie than a full-blown feature, but none of that really matters. It's fun and thoughtful. It makes some interesting choices, particularly when it comes to its editing (which emphasises its protagonist's days blurring into one as he spends most of them laid in bed), and Bruce Campbell does a great job in toeing the line between impression and performance as he blends the absurd with the honest in his portrayal of Elvis. He brings out his slapstick comedic chops when they're called for, but he also allows the more vulnerable side of his character to come to the forefront and he really grounds the film. Ultimately, this is a distinct and unexpected monster movie that's more of a drama about an ageing Elvis coming to terms with his place in the world than it is about an ageing Elvis kicking undead ass (this definitely isn't Ash vs Egyptian Dead). It sometimes struggles to balance its tone and its more outlandish elements are underplayed to the point of mild disappointment, but it's an engaging and interesting experience despite its few flaws.
P. S. The film defines 'Ho-tep' as meaning a "relative or descendant of the 17 Egyptian dynasties, 3100 - 1550 B. C." and as a "family surname of an Egyptian pharoah (king)", and 'Bubba' as a "male from the Southern U. S.". That means that 'Bubba Ho-tep' isn't just the name of the movie's mummy; it can also translate to Southern King and therefore actually refers to Elvis himself.
Villains (2019)
A dark comedy starring horror icons Maika Monroe, Bill Skarsgård and underrated character actor Jeffrey Donovan? Sign me up!
'Villains (2019)' is a comedy-horror/thriller in which two semi-bumbling criminals break into a house after running out of gas in the aftermath of robbing a store, but soon find themselves face to face with the homeowners and it isn't long before they realise they may just be out of their depth. It's the kind of film you stumble across on a streaming service and pop on out of curiosity, the sort of thing that isn't interesting - or well marketed - enough for you to actively seek out but is eye-catching enough to stop your nightly Netflix scrolling.
Although it struggles to balance its tone (which is frequently too light considering the thematic material), it's mostly a zippy and entertaining singe-location(ish) experience with solid, somewhat against-type central performances. The screenplay is halfway between something a student would write and something that would be on the Black List, the sort of thing that lives and dies by its twisty nature but isn't especially surprising because of it. It's a good effort, don't get me wrong, but it's also kind of unremarkable. It's probably not going to be anyone's favourite movie (although it currently has 85 fans on Letterboxd), but it's definitely not going to be anyone's least favourite, either. It's enjoyable enough for what it is and does pretty much exactly what it says on the tin.
The performances tend to elevate the material, with naturalistic turns from both Monroe and Skarsgård keeping things grounded and more heightened work from Kyra Sedgwick and an accent-chewing Donovan cementing this as a genre piece unafraid of its true nature. A downside to the flick is that the antagonists don't actually seem all that unstable or evil, even though they're meant to be both; they do bizarre and cruel things, of course, but the flick kind of lacks teeth when it comes to showing (most of) that stuff and its lighter tone means that it's never able to build a sense of dread. It's not particularly scary (or thrilling), but it's also not particularly funny. The latter isn't really a big issue, though, because the affair uses its humour more as a way to subvert expectation and apply a level of pseudo self-awareness to its situation - and, in particular, its protagonist's reaction to it - than as a way to provoke belly laughs.
Ultimately, although it is a little forgettable, this is an enjoyable and well-made effort that does what it needs to and does it in under ninety minutes. It's engaging and entertaining for its majority, even if it isn't particularly enthralling or unpredictable. I don't love it, but I like it. It's good.
Wolfs (2024)
Maybe the real treasure was the Wolfs we made along the way...
'Wolfs (2024)' is a quippy, fast-talking comedy in which two rival fixers begrudgingly work together after being called to the same crime scene and learn that maybe, just maybe, it's nice to have someone to talk to. Although the screenplay is fairly zippy and features plenty of twists and turns, most of the movie is carried by the playing-it-cool charisma of its two lead actors. George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both good in their roles, but something is ever so slightly off about their chemistry because even the silliest moments feel like they're played a little too straight. The banter, which includes a lot of cross talk (something that's actually rather annoying when used during exposition, even if it's meant to dull the impact of those scenes by presenting on-the-nose information in a subversive way) and insult slinging, is occasionally humorous but equally as often falls a little flat. It sort of creates the impression - or, perhaps, texture - of comedy rather than actual comedy, if that makes sense. Still, it's not the kind of film that relies solely on its laughs, so the fact that it's never hilarious isn't really an issue. There are a handful of genuinely successful jokes, but the more important aspect is the light and slightly sardonic tone. It keeps things feeling fairly fresh and entertaining, even as the vaguely formlessness nature of the narrative becomes more and more apparent and you realise you have no idea where in relation to the overarching plot a specific scene is. In a way, the picture seems as though it's sort of just going and going until it eventually stops. Perhaps that's not entirely accurate, but there's definitely a lack of escalation that makes the climax a little anti-climactic and the ending slightly more confusing (at least initially) than necessary.
Although it's generally a little dull and the outside environments don't quite look real (or, at least, tangible), the film looks a little better than most Apple original features. There's a sense that the aesthetic is something that's been achieved on purpose, rather than an after effect of - frankly - somewhat shoddy cinematography and direction. Jon Watts directs with confidence but not flair; his most stylistic moments don't quite land and the rest of his efforts are fairly workmanlike. There's nothing wrong with that, though, and a steady hand behind the camera is often what's needed to bring something like this to life. Besides, he also wrote the screenplay, so it's not just his on-set skills that are being showcased here. While the writing has its issues, it's perfectly dependable and even rather inspired on occasion; Watts may just be a better writer than director, but that doesn't mean he isn't more than capable in both capacities. Overall, the movie feels a little flat and lacks a proper sense of style. This would work better with more serious material, but the playful nature of the narrative and performances almost demand a more heightened visual approach. As is, there's nothing to make this stand out from the other efforts on Apple's platform.
Ultimately, this is a fairly fun crime comedy. It's sort of flat in a way that's hard to describe, but it's enjoyable enough for what it is. The two lead performances are entertaining, the story has some fun twists and turns, and the comedy is welcome even when it isn't successful. It's a solid, if forgettable, effort.
Demolition Man (1993)
This is the movie in which, according to Sandra Bullock's character, Sylvester Stallone licks Wesley Snipes' ass and then blows him.
'Demolition Man (1993)' opens with a bang (literally), with its killer opening movement perhaps overpromising what the rest of the picture will be able to achieve in terms of its action. Still, it makes a heck of a first impression and instantly gets you geared up for this silly yet muscular sci-fi actioner. With just a hint of subtextual social commentary, the story sees John Spartan - an elite, one-man-army cop with a reputation for causing collateral damage - get thawed out of the cryosleep prison he was wrongfully put into back in 1996 in order to hunt down a recently defrosted convict who he has history with. It's essentially if 'Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery (1997)' wasn't a parody, but rather an explosive action movie with just a hint of fish-out-of-water comedy and a layer of satire that essentially makes the case for police brutality (yikes!). The future is a seemingly idyllic, albeit annoying (the way the characters speak is really irritating), place where peace is apparently universal and there hasn't been a recorded case of murder/death/kill since 2010. However, it isn't long before you start to see that this supposed utopia is far from perfect, with its authoritarian design robbing people of practically any choice and forcing them to live a very specific way (the way its leader wants them to) or else risk starving in the sewers. It's rightly called out as fascist by Stallone's fresh-out-of-the-fridge domestic solider, whose disregard for the rules was bad enough in a society where freedom of speech was still a thing. This dystopia is distinct because it's all so punishingly pleasant, practically the opposite to the types of gritty futures we're so used to seeing. It allows the film to be colourful, even somewhat campy, and still keep its foot firmly in the macho action genre which practically moulded Stallone's on-screen image after he was done playing that everyman boxer and that PTSD-stricken war veteran (at least the first time). The piece never takes itself particularly seriously, and - although plenty of its comedy is quite cringey (including its odd use of product placement) - there are some rather amusing moments here and there. The light, bouncy tone works well despite all the on-screen carnage, and the film is able to maintain a balance between the silly and the savage. Stallone is dependable in the lead role, unafraid of the absurdity it requires even if he shies away from it in favour of his 'hard man' persona on occasion, and Snipes is great as the chaotically comedic villain who looks like he's having a blast being bad. Bullock is also really solid, taking the ridiculous dialogue she's saddled with and somehow imbuing it with bright-eyed charm. The supporting cast is also really stacked, including Bob Gunton, Denis Leary, Benjamin Bratt, Bill Cobbs, Nigel Hawthorne, Glenn Shadix, and even brief cameos from Jesse Ventura, Grand L. Bush and Rob Schneider (who is uncredited, for some reason). It's just a really good time overall, an unserious movie with entertaining action - including plenty of explosive set-pieces and an ice cold final kill - and some funny moments. It's an enjoyable experience that isn't deep, but doesn't need to be. It's rock solid.
Nope (2022)
Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the ranch... or, You're gonna need a bigger horse.
Is it fairly slow in its first half? Yes. Are its intertitles entirely unnecessary? Yep. Do its constant cuts to black get tiresome? They sure do. Is there an entire storyline that feels sort of pointless? There sure is. Is it all just a little bit silly? Of course. Does any of that really matter? 'Nope (2022)'.
Jordan Peele's latest is a flawed but fun... well, to define it is almost a spoiler in and of itself. So let's just say it's flawed but fun. It's a colourful, IMAX-shot ode to suspenseful spectacle films like 'Jurassic Park (1993)' and 'Jaws (1975)', taking a slightly harsher Spielbergian approach to its themes of respecting nature and animals. It doles out glimpses of its true form, slowly allowing you to see and understand more of its central concept, until it eventually - if you'll pardon the graphic image - prolapses and unfurls and lays bare its every aspect in full view for the audience to marvel at. Some of its design choices are admirably bold, almost entirely otherworldly in a way that could alienate some viewers but just made me appreciate how distinct it all is. I love when movies take big swings and don't care if they get laughed at. It's this kind of authenticity that ironically makes even the most absurd things feel all the more real. Furthermore, the performances are mostly really grounded, allowing the screenplay to occasionally indulge in some quite silly comedic moments without compromising the narrative's overall integrity. When it hits its third act, everything just clicks and it becomes a thoroughly entertaining experience. Despite its growing pains, it's a really solid effort. Even the segments which feel as though Peele is just monkeying around do have an admittedly oblique but retroactively apparent thematic purpose, so - even though I'm personally not a massive fan of them nor the impact they have on the pacing - I can see why they are in here and they contribute to the affair's generally rather strange (complimentary) vibe. The movie is a little bit too long, with a first half that could have been tightened up and some stylistic indulgences which don't work as well as they perhaps ought to. However, while it is its writer-director's weakest film, it's still enjoyable and engaging for its majority. It's also pretty unique. Don't say "nope" to 'Nope (2022)'.
Speak No Evil (2024)
Tongue-tied and scary-eyed.
I kind of wish I hadn't seen the trailer for 'Speak No Evil (2024)', as it gives away some things I think would've been fairly surprising to experience with no prior knowledge. This extends even to the basic premise, as the picture makes a point of never quite letting you know the true intentions of James McAvoy's character and his seemingly idyllic family. It seems obvious that it's eventually going to go in a certain direction, but that could just be because the marketing had no qualms in basically pointing it out to you. Nevertheless, there are some twists and turns that play out more naturally. If you manage to see them coming, that's because you've put together various clues sprinkled throughout the narrative, rather than because you've been told anything outright prior to the reveals.
The screenplay does an excellent job of constantly making you as uneasy as its people-pleasing protagonists, on edge and unsure as to what their hosts are truly thinking. It wrings tension out of even its simplest scenes, and its best moments swiftly build a strong sense of suspense that keep your eyes glued to the screen. Aiding this are the strong performances, not only of the vaguely menacing yet seemingly friendly McAvoy (what was that unruly accent, by the way?) and his on-screen partner Aisling Franciosi, but also of the more subtle Mackenzie Davis and Scoot McNairy. The former may get to take the biggest swings (McAvoy, in particular) and play around with the more obviously meaty material, but the latter are really what make the affair feel as grounded and compelling as it is; they arguably get less to work with, but they turn in realistic and relatable performances that act as the bedrock of the entire affair.
Some moments are really uncomfortable simply because they mimic awkward social interactions familiar to us all, mining feelings of peer pressure and social anxiety to generate an often visceral response in the audience. A lot of it feels really real. A lot of it doesn't. Part of that is because it peels away from domestic psychological horror and veers further into traditional horror-thriller territory as it nears its last act. From what I know about the original (which I haven't actually seen), this version takes a more - I suppose - traditional approach and you can subconsciously feel that while you're watching it (even if you don't know much about its basis). Arguably, this makes for a more accessible and satisfying experience; just because it's relatively conventional, and potentially less daring than it could have been, doesn't mean it isn't effective. It also doesn't feel like a change for a change's sake, instead seeming like the natural conclusion to the affair's distinct approach to its material. Although the final act could have been a bit more bloody, it's an exciting and well-crafted segment that breaks the tension in a suitably white-knuckle way. It hits that sort of scary fun energy that the whole thing kind of exudes, meaning that even its silliest moments (which, to be clear, aren't all that silly) still work well within the established tone. Plus, McAvoy is a blast to watch when he's let off the leash. I saw an interview in which he talks about being the biggest he's ever been during the filming of this and how he slowly reveals his true size as the picture approaches its finale, and let me tell you that decision pays off because there's a point at which you realise he's gone full beast mode ('Split (2017)' pun intended) and it's both frightening and delightful all at once.
Ultimately, this is a really solid horror-thriller that deals in the horror of social awkwardness and the horror of being isolated with people you can't really trust. It's essentially a commentary on how the fear of offending someone is often greater than the fear of being in danger (something also explored in a key scene in 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)'). It's an entertaining and engaging time with strong performances and a generally accomplished aesthetic.
Strange Darling (2023)
Dodgy messaging sinks an otherwise interesting thriller.
Opening with a title card saying the film was shot entirely on 35mm is such a virginial thing to do.
'Strange Darling (2023)' is a self-proclaimed thriller in six chapters. In non-linear fashion, it essentially tells the story of a young woman trying to escape a mustachioed man with a rifle. The picture makes it clear that it has taken inspiration from 70s grindhouse cinema almost immediately, as a wall of text scrolls while a disembodied voice tells us we're about to see a dramatisation of the final killings in the murder spree of a supposedly real killer (it doesn't actually say it's based on a true story, but it kind of implies it). The opening titles are set to the tune of a song specifically created for the picture, which is true of - I believe - all the songs that play throughout the affair (even those referenced by the characters). Just after its first chapter intertitle comes on screen and it reveals that it isn't going to play out chronologically, the picture's other main influence becomes clear: this thing is desperately trying to be like a Quentin Tarantino film. But JT Mollner is no Quentin Tarantino.
As you can probably tell from this review, the flick takes ages to actually get going and throws so many stylistic flourishes at you so quickly that it's difficult to get oriented with its specific aesthetic. In fact, it kind of feels like it's trying to be quirky for quirky's sake, never truly settling into its own style and instead almost always feeling like an imitation of more successful media. Although I usually love it when films take their own approach and purposefully disregard the 'rules', a lot of this stuff feels vaguely annoying. It's almost smug, to be honest. I think that's why most of it just rubs me the wrong way. I'm less forgiving of its abrasive elements because I think the messages it implicitly conveys are fundamentally unhelpful, but I'll discuss those in more detail in just a moment.
First, I'd like to acknowledge some of its successes. The most fundamental thing it gets right is that it's never boring. Even during its most predictable or wonky segments, it's always doing something to keep you engaged. It also takes a few risks, and features some genuine surprises as its story twists and turns with each new chapter. Some of it is easy to see coming, but even the subversions that aren't as clever as they the filmmakers seem to think are mostly enjoyable. The non-linear structure is necessary for the narrative to be compelling, as the film is designed almost as a puzzle. It provides you with the pieces you need to form a picture, then gives you pieces that recontextualise what you've just put together. It repeats this cycle for pretty much its entire duration, and feels well-paced for the most part. The necessity of the non-linearity is good because it means that the chosen structure never feels like an arty afterthought, but rather an integral part of the story from its very conception. However, it's also somewhat bad because it highlights the fact that the story itself isn't particularly engaging - or, at least, it wouldn't be if it was told in a more traditional way. Still, this format is a compelling way to convey the idea that the affair is all about perception and our preconceived notions. It makes a point of subverting just about everything we might be thinking, often in a way that feels as though it's slightly for the sake of it. Still, it's an interesting approach that could lead to thought-provoking places if it were handled with more grace. Instead, it leads to those unhelpful messages I mentioned earlier (more on that shortly). The writing often isn't quite up to the mark, but the movie's strong performances tend to counterbalance its weak characters and keep you invested in its drama and thrills throughout. It's entertaining enough for the most part.
The main problem with the picture isn't its over-confidence or rough-around-the-edges writing. Instead, it's its bad messaging. Frankly, it sets the 'believe women' movement back by decades. There are moments in which we're meant to think a woman doing the right thing is stupid, meant to think someone believing a victim of an apparent sexual assault and trying to help her is being naive, meant to think we should treat women who seem to be in danger with immediate suspicion. And, when those things are proven to be 'true' by the narrative, the punchline is - on two occasions - a vicious sexist remark made by a man (who we're meant to identify with) to a woman (who we're meant to judge or, even, outright hate). On top of all that, there are even moments in which we're meant to think it's better for everyone to carry a gun (a lot of features, particularly action thrillers, inevitably fall into 'pro-gun' territory simply by necessity, but few are as overt with their subtextual right wing ideas as this ends up being). What's tricky is that the film creates a scenario in which we want to see certain female characters be punished for their evil actions. It crafts a narrative in which a woman is a manipulator, is a perpetrator of violence, is a villain, and it does so while also specifically commenting on sexual power dynamics and violence against women. There's nothing wrong with having a woman be the bad guy, but you have to be aware that doing so - particularly in this way - runs the risk of conveying a deeper message that all women are manipulators and could be killers, and that we should judge and fear women before believing them. In reality, men hurt women far more often than women hurt men. Here, it's almost like the affair is trying to invert that dynamic (and not as an act of reclamation). This movie wants you to cheer for the male characters as they hunt this woman down. It also wants you to cheer for her to escape, at least initially, but that's part of the problem: it doesn't just have this character trick the people in the movie, it has her trick the audience (or, rather, it tricks the audience on her behalf by withholding information from them). This increases the hatred the audience is meant to feel for her. It just feels icky. Really icky. It's all really misguided. There's a sense that it tries to disguise these elements as - or, less cynically, that it truly believes these elements are - part of the whole 'support women's wrongs' thing and that featuring a female baddie is inherently taking some kind of feminist angle. This isn't the case, though, and that excuse can only go so far. The representation here is ultimately really damaging. All of these subtextual issues are probably accidental (I hope), but they're still harmful. They're clearly part of the affair's desire to subvert everything regardless of the consequences, and they severely dampen the picture's effect. Some scenes are really difficult to sit through, and not in an appropriately confronting kind of way, and the whole experience just leaves a bit of a bad taste in your mouth.
I'm conflicted about the film because it really isn't all that bad as an independent thriller with a non-linear structure. It's unconventional enough to be interesting, even if its narrative is a little underwhelming and its quirks are a bit too self-congratulatory. However, its implicit messaging is really dodgy. To be honest, it's pretty sexist and that's hard to look past (even if it is accidental, as I hope). It's not the movie we need right now, let's put it that way. I like it less the more I think about it, and I didn't like it all that much to begin with. This has potential and is relatively entertaining in the moment, but its flaws are too deep-rooted for me to recommend it.
The Substance (2024)
Style over substance. Style as substance. Style is substance.
'The Substance (2024)' is style. Subtlety isn't in its vocabulary; it beats you round the head with its each and every aspect. Thanks to some really strong, self-assured direction, cinematography and editing, the picture explodes onto the big screen in a big way and forces itself into your eyeballs whether you like it or not. Its general aesthetic is so full-blooded and colourful that it's impossible not to be wholly swept up by it, an infectious energy seeping from each and every increasingly unhinged frame. It strikes just the right balance of campy and creepy, even if its unwieldy tone occasionally feels a little clumsy. It often comes close to making some fairly profound points and conveying the horror of overwhelming, societally reinforced self-consciousness (a simple yet excellent sequence of cruel self-doubt is one of the most effective in the entire film), but it tends to slip away from these more attainable and straightforwardly relatable moments in favour of its own brand of Grand Guignol excess and blunt-force theming.
The feature doesn't really say all that much; it arguably only really has one idea, and it's a fairly basic idea at that. It's about what societal beauty standards and the male gaze (which itself was the target of the director's previous feature, 'Revenge (2017)') force women to do to themselves in order to remain 'beautiful', about how the pressure put on women to retain a youthful appearance feeds a cycle of insecurity that leads to self-destruction. However, it explores this familiar theme in a relatively fresh way, doing so with the opposite of nuance - perhaps to hammer the point across so brutally that it's finally understood. It does a good job at showcasing the cycle of self-destruction I mentioned a moment ago; in fact, that cycle - or, maybe, the concept of it - is pretty much the entire picture in microcosm. For Elizabeth (Demi Moore), the picture's superstar protagonist, what starts as a means to an end slowly becomes a dependency. Substance use becomes substance addiction, which in turn becomes substance abuse, which in turn becomes substantially worse for our hero than her inner demons and the sexism of her colleagues ever were. Sue (Margaret Qualley), her other self born out of her back and fueled by her spinal fluid, is younger and perkier and more flexible, the ideal woman in the minds of every pig who slobbers over her. Yet, her new skin only seems to increase her bitterness. What begins as appreciation for the body she once had soon turns into misplaced disgust at the body she has now, and the seeds of self-hatred begin to form alongside an increasing sense of worthlessness... not to mention an increasing dissonance between the two versions of herself. In an appropriately overt way, the ensuing internal battle is rendered physical and, therefore, literal. It's a battle we can all relate to on some level.
While the picture clearly provokes some thought on its topic, it doesn't exactly make it a priority to convey any specific message - at least not as unsubtly as you'd expect considering its generally unsubtle nature. It doesn't take a nuanced look at its themes and it doesn't delve into the offshoots said theme naturally produces. Like I said, it's only really about one thing. Its characters are designed specifically to feed into that single aspect, and they therefore aren't particularly complex. However, not every movie needs to make some grand statement about a particular concept or feature intricate characters who capture the contradictions of real people. In fact, most of them don't. To judge this for touching on, but not wholly examining or drawing surprising conclusions from, well-worn yet relevant themes would be somewhat disingenuous. After all, art doesn't have to be poignant or profound to be worth experiencing, and something like this simply needs to put its feet on solid ground so that it can mutate into the primal beast it was always destined to become.
Let me be clear, that stuff is almost universally great. While I don't think the affair is quite as gross as everyone makes it out to be (I was half-expecting a physical reaction based on how some people are talking about it), I also don't want to undersell how grotesque it is. While its heightened reality does somewhat weaken the impact of its more gruesome sequences (it all feels a little unreal, so its more personalised moments of pain don't hit that naturalistic nerve the most unbearable body horror scenes do), it also makes almost every single scene feel vibrant and invigorating. There are some really ambitious, gooey special effects and the body horror goes places I'm not sure I've seen it go before. If I have, it hasn't been often. The flick also makes good use of gross-ups, transforming even 'regular' things into something much more revolting. It makes a point of having Dennis Quaid's character be utterly repulsive every time he (dis)graces the screen with his presence. A scene in which he eats shrimp is one of the picture's most unbearable. Although some of them could have been more painful, the movie's more visceral segments are mostly successful and occasionally even somewhat distressing. Because the film is unafraid of absurdity (as all the best horror is), it's also the sort of thing that you might be tempted to chuckle at. It's easier to laugh than it is to allow yourself to feel fear, and - even though I didn't find any of it particularly funny - there were one or two laughs in the screening I attended. If you allow yourself to think about the implications and consequences of its violence and transformations, though, it can be quite disturbing. There are some unsettling ideas and images to be found here.
Director Coralie Fargeat is similar to Julia Ducournau in that her second film is bigger and more ambitious - at least formally, structurally, and aesthetically - than her debut, but it's arguably less successful - perhaps because it's less focused. When you have this many plates to spin, it's kind of inevitable some will fall. For example, a lot of the picture is shot like a Pepsi/ Coke commercial with a lot of focus on the female form in an overtly sexualised way. It's very, very male gaze-y despite being directed by a woman. Of course, that's the point. Like she did with 'Revenge (2017)', Fargeat is playing with audience expectation and subverting filmmaking tropes to comment on how celluloid treats gender. It's a type of close-to-the-chest satire that never calls itself out as such. However, I don't think the filmmaker ever quite subverts - or, even, comments on - the idea strongly enough to fully justify the constant hyper-sexualisation of Qualley's character. A lot of it is meant to reflect how the lead feels sexy in her new skin and has a renewed sense of self-worth, but the there's so much leering that the work the picture does to offset it just doesn't seem sufficient. There's an argument to be made that the piece isn't as interested in converting those who don't get it as it is in validating those who do; despite its bluntness, it doesn't feel the need to prove itself. While its final third goes some way in making it clear that it isn't interested in pleasing its male audience, it steps into sticky territory in the process. If this movement is specifically designed to be unsexy - repulsive, even - as a way of punishing, or calling into question, the audience's participation in the prior sexualisation, then it falls into the trap of being unempathetic, of putting you in the shoes of its antagonistic forces, of using a woman's body as a punchline to a cruel joke. It doesn't quite go all the way in that direction, and I still think it's a feminist work overall, but it's worth mentioning.
Despite some notable flaws, though, I love that this was made. There's almost nothing I appreciate more than when a film just does whatever it wants to with no concern for expectation or genre. Foreign-language films tend to be a lot more fluid with genre, so when non-American filmmakers make the move to Hollywood (or pseudo Hollywood), they often bring their refreshingly less-than-mainstream ideas with them. Whether they're allowed to keep them in their movie is another matter, but when they are it's often glorious. In this case, the picture eventually goes in a surprising new direction that almost completely upends the established status quo while somehow feeling like a totally natural extension. I knew the final twenty minutes were meant to be wild. However, I expected them to be wild in the usual sense where the tension breaks and some dudes get their heads caved in or whatever. I didn't for a second expect the last act to go as hard and as fast into total freakshow territory as it does. The feature unashamedly transforms itself into an almost entirely different movie, one that's more brazen and bizarre than you can imagine. Perhaps it doesn't one-hundred percent work, but I totally appreciate the effort. I'm really glad it just goes for it.
Although it's arguably a tiny bit too long for its own good, isn't as deep as it could have been, is sometimes too on the nose even considering its maximalism and doesn't quite justify its intense level of hyper-sexualisation, the film feels like a breath of fresh air. It's really good, despite its flaws, and I like it more and more with each word I write. It's wonderfully, wonderfully weird. It's entertaining. It's exhilarating. It's arguably essential. It's exactly what it wants to be. It reminds me of some 80s splatter horror at times, which I didn't expect but really enjoyed. The performances are great, even if I don't quite believe Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley are the same person, and they're unafraid to lay everything bare and put it all on the line bring this thing to life. It's stylish beyond belief. It's goopy and gory and going to be talked about for quite a while. We need more movies like 'The Substance (2024)'.
Blue Ruin (2013)
You know what's awful?
Death is a full stop, and there's no glory or satisfaction to be found from it. Revenge begets revenge; the bad guy just depends on perspective. Violent delights have violent ends, and they definitely aren't all that delightful. An eye for an eye, a son for a father, a brother for a sister... it never ceases unless you make it. The cycle perpetuates itself, swirling into an uncontrollable black hole that swallows anyone in its vicinity, until it's purposefully broken, starved of attention, left to fade away. That's surprisingly difficult to do. As strange as it sounds, the easier option is to succumb to darkness and seek the retribution that beckons you, the retribution that you know in your heart of hearts won't ease your pain and will in fact lead to nothing but more of it. To walk away will take everything you've got, and it may even demolish you in the process, but it will stop the cycle, it will stop the pain, it will prevent anyone else from getting pulled under the wave of hatred you yourself were nearly drowned by.
But perhaps you won't figure that out until it's too late. The destination has already been set. You're on a one-way trip to the end, following a trail of breadcrumbs you can't even see. In order to see the path, you must break from it; in order to break from it, you must first see it. Can you learn from the mistakes of others? Or must you make your own mistakes to know when you've gone too far? How can you learn from a mistake if that mistake has already put you on the path to devastation?
'Blue Ruin (2013)' is an anti-revenge movie that focuses on the aftermath of a man's violent vengeance against the person he believes caused him immeasurable pain with a prior act of brutality. Taking a bleak, no-frills approach to its subgenre, the picture manages to carve out its own place amongst its often much more cathartic peers. The picture's ruinous approach to revenge is all-encompassing, the hopelessness of a situation already spiraled out of control seeping into each and every frame. These disastrous events were set in motion long before the point at which we're dropped into the story, their conclusion seemingly inevitable and their consequences undoubtedly dire. Fatalistic and downbeat, this slow-burning thriller takes a much more domestic and muted approach to its material, leveraging its ever-escalating sense of inexorability to build genuine tension in the background of even the most mundane of scenes and then interrupting said tension with bursts of savage, blood-spewing violence that dispels all notion of the glory of the gun... or knife... or crossbow. It's an incredibly compelling and tightly paced affair that often manages to tell its tale with very little dialogue, using engaging visual storytelling whenever possible. The cinematography is gorgeous and the performances are all grounded, real and raw. Nobody ever overplays their hand, neither in front of nor behind the camera, and that leads to a naturalistic experience that's as pulse-pounding as it is emotionally draining. It does a heck of a lot with not all that much, making excellent use of its relatively low budget and feeling just as accomplished as any of its more polished peers. Besides, its slightly rough-around-the-edges vibe only enhances its gritty realism and dread-soaked atmosphere. This is a really, really good movie that knows exactly what it's doing and does it incredibly well. Its message is simple: end the cycle of violence, or the cycle of violence will end you.
Hold the Dark (2018)
Hold the dark... and the mayo.
'Hold The Dark (2018)' has a somewhat spotty reputation, with a lot of people seeming to take issue with its narrative and its overtly bleak presentation. Personally, I enjoyed it far more than I expected to based on its reputation. For most people, the big issue with the story seems to be that it doesn't explain certain things. However, I ultimately think this is actually a strength. It isn't ambiguous in terms of what happens, but it is (to an extent) in terms of why it happens. Perhaps more accurately, it doesn't explicitly say what it was all for. And I think that's the point. The picture draws pretty clear parallels between nature and humanity, initially setting itself up as a 'man vs wild' sort of thing but soon subverting that, and its conclusion seems to be that its senseless violence has been just that: senseless. It's symptomatic of the animalistic nature of mankind, of the darkness constantly gnawing at the edges of our experience. It makes the link between its antagonist and the wolves initially thought to hold that position, presenting certain aspects of human nature as being as instinctual and animalistic and far from the remit of what most people would consider natural. The idea seems to be that the aspects of nature which seem strange, even cruel, to us are also present within our own kind, often without us even knowing it. It's only when you come face to face with the worst impulses of humanity that you start to question exactly what, if anything, sets us apart from animals.
Beyond all its pseudo pontification and admittedly occasionally too self-serious 'mirror to ourselves' angle, the picture is a slow-burning but pretty much constantly compelling thriller that features some bursts of absolutely brutal violence and centres on a host of universally dour yet equally as sturdy performances. There's a vicious shootout scene that really conveys the horror of such situations, bullets callously flying through the air until they tear into whatever it is they strike and crumple to the ground in self-satisfaction with no regard as to whether or not they've taken a life in the process. The picture can be a bit too slow for its own good, with a slightly strange pacing that puts you on the back foot until you adjust to what it's doing, but it manages to remain interesting even during its least exciting segments. It has a palpably grim atmosphere, and the ice-cold hostility of its snow-covered environment practically seeps through the screen and chills your living room to an unlivable temperature. It spends a lot of time with its psychopathic antagonist, which is perhaps unusual but works really well for creating this sort of dual narrative in which we're equally invested in the stories of both the good and bad guy. In fact, the film purposefully takes a step back from morality, presenting even its most gruesome acts in a distanced and matter-of-fact fashion, and it essentially challenges the audience to spend time with people who you really don't want to be spending time with without actually providing someone all that much more comforting to hold on to.
Ultimately, while I can see how the relentlessly downbeat vibe and purposefully slow, creeping story could put some people off (especially if they're expecting something similar to director Jeremy Saulnier's other work, although his trademark savagery is certainly here in full force), the picture remains entertaining and somewhat unsettling for its majority. It isn't perfect, of course. For example, it could have been tightened up, and its narrative isn't quite as deep as it occasionally seems to think it is. Still, there are plenty of arresting scenes that bring you to the edge of your seat, and the palpable atmosphere almost instantly transports you to the film's hostile setting. It's probably Jeremy Saulnier's least successful film (I haven't seen 'Murder Party (2007)'), but it's still a really solid effort. I think it's quite underrated, to be honest.
Rebel Ridge (2024)
Just the right amount of sauce.
'Rebel Ridge (2024)' is the latest film by Jeremy Saulnier, who swaps his penchant for punctuating tense thrillers with abrupt bursts of bleak brutality for a far less lethal approach to the same genre. Taking inspiration from movies like 'First Blood (1982)', the film tells the story of an enigmatic man who butts heads with a small-town police department when they "legally" seize the life-savings he was planning to use to bail his cousin out of jail and begin a new life with him. Pitting the excellent Aaron Pierre (who replaced John Boyega after he dropped out midway through filming) against the iconic Don Johnson, the movie is at its best when depicting the conflict between its protagonist and its badge-wearing baddies in its full pulse-pounding glory. It leverages the mysterious charisma of its star to build tension as the injustices he faces mount and mount until they reach an inevitable tipping point, all while making you empathise with him without revealing too much about his past or, to a lesser extent, character.
Where it falters slightly is in its soggy midsection, which arises due to the story's somewhat strange structure and sense of pacing. The film, in some ways, feels like it ends and then begins anew, making the comparison to a condensed season of television feel rather apt (I've seen it described as such here on Letterboxd). The picture also gets less successful as its plot gets more complex, taking its eye ever-so-slightly off the ball in order to focus on its characters unravelling a conspiracy rather than straight-up battling institutional corruption (although the two are definitely linked fairly intrinsically). Some of its comedic beats also fall fairly flat and, frankly, feel quite out of place.
Despite its few flaws, though, this is an entertaining, engaging and well-made thriller from start to finish. It features plenty of exciting set-pieces, each of which take a somewhat unique approach to action simply by virtue of their star actively trying not to kill people, and the performances are universally strong (this should put Aaron Pierre on the map; I'd love to see him in more stuff). It does a good job of instantly putting you on its protagonist's side, really making you despise the police (even if it doesn't go full-blown anti-cop, primarily thanks to the way in which it wraps up, and keeps its obvious racial angle firmly in the realm of subtext), and it makes sure you never doubt his actions even for a second. When this is good, it's really good. It may stumble here and there, mainly in terms of pacing and structure, and it's arguably ten/fifteen minutes too long, but it's a really compelling and enjoyable experience that's a cut above Netflix's usual genre fare. Saulnier has the sauce.
Eight for Silver (2021)
More bronze than silver.
'Eight For Silver (2021)' - also/subsequently known as 'The Cursed' (which is a much worse title) - is a slow-burning horror picture about a curse that emerges in the aftermath of a brutal massacre by a bunch of colonisers, focusing primarily on the pathologist who arrives to lift it after having first-hand experience of its effects in the past. Essentially, this is a werewolf picture, although you perhaps wouldn't know it based on its distinct version of werewolf lore (which is supposedly more in line with Nordic versions of the long-lasting legend). However, it takes its own approach to the material, initially sidestepping some of its subgenre's more potent tropes only to circle back to them later on in the story. It's a purposefully portentous, measured experience that loves to showcase its countryside setting with creeping yet beautifully composed wide shots and Gothic horror staples such as rolling fog. The practical effects are really good, but sadly the CG leaves a lot to be desired and the set-pieces are often constructed in a way that makes them feel incredibly cheap. Still, it's a well-shot picture that, by and large, makes good use of its budget.
Aesthetically, it's often really compelling. Unfortunately, large chunks of its narrative are not. It's too slow for its own good, with an uneven pacing and a strange structure that sees its main character introduced far later than he ought to be. The people you're meant to empathise with are also the people who committed an atrocity at the beginning of the movie; you don't feel bad when colonisers get gnawed on by the monster that acts as the only repercussion of their cruelty. There is something to be said about how the sins of the father most keenly impact their children, about how the younger generation is innocent of the violence that allowed them to call their current location home, and the judgmental tone taken by the protagonist when addressing the horrors that unleashed the beast seems to indicate this is the movie's stance on its events. However, some comments apparently made by the writer-director imply that he isn't interested in the actual ethics of the story he's created. Instead of purposefully putting us in the perspective of the bad guys, or at least those adjacent to them, as a way of challenging our perception of the past and delving into a nuanced conversation about how far their comeuppance extends (to their children, for instance), the picture seems to take this perspective as a default position. It simply uses the slaughter of a Romani camp to set up the supernatural hex necessary to facilitate its subsequent genre thrills, rather than actually trying to say anything about said slaughter.
While it's safe to say it misses the mark in terms of theming, it does have its successes in terms of being a semi-'vibes-based' horror picture. Some of its brutality is suitably disarming, primarily when it's based around on-set effects, and there's a palpably dreary atmosphere throughout. The cinematography, also by writer-director Sean Ellis, is really solid and it almost manages to convince you the flick has a much higher budget than it actually does... until its CG-based set-pieces remind you it's working with pennies compared to what it needs to pull those moments off convincingly. The performances are good, albeit perhaps a little dull (although that's more to do with the writing than the way it's delivered). The sometimes clunky and somewhat self-important dialogue reflects the overarching story's clumsiness, but it isn't so haphazard as to totally ruin the overall affair's effect. Ultimately, this is a decent effort that misses the mark in a few key areas. Still, it's enjoyable enough for what it is, even during its less eventful sequences, and its unique approach to its folklore is fairly refreshing (if not entirely successful).
Finder's Fee (2001)
Poker? I hardly know her.
'Finder's Fee (2001)' is a single location morality play about a man who finds a winning lottery ticket in a lost wallet and has to decide whether to keep it or not, something which is made more complex by the arrival of the wallet's owner. The film's cast is comprised of just a handful of major players, most notably a quartet of poker-playing friends and the man who interrupts their night to claim hits misplaced property. There are some secondary characters who pop up here and there - the lead character's girlfriend, an old lady who lives opposite the apartment the flick takes place almost entirely within, and a police chief who locks down the building during an investigation into the whereabouts of a fugitive - but it's really a story about the interplay between five people, and mainly two of those five people. It uses this simplicity to its advantage, crafting an ever-changing narrative in which you're never quite sure what certain people are thinking or what they're going to do next. The dialogue and performances combine to create that specific kind of unreal reality that fast-talking, 'cool' movies of this era often lean into (very minor Tarantino, in a way), and the single-location nature of the narrative furthers the play-like feeling of the affair. There are some undeniably cinematic touches, primarily when it comes to some brief flashes of non-continuity editing, but it's mostly naturalistic stuff that makes you feel like you're locked in this apartment with these old buddies and the stranger they've let in. The cast are all really good in their roles, delivering dialogue that's sometimes overwritten yet often amusing (someone is described as being "like a Russian novel. Hard to read.") in a convincing - if occasionally 'student actor' (this doesn't apply to James Earl Jones or Robert Forster) - kind of way. There's a real sense of camaraderie and history between its core characters, which further puts their mysterious new guest at a distance and increases your suspicion of him even though it's the protagonist who's in the wrong... most of the time. The story works well for the most part, but it does unravel a little in retrospect. That's because it opts to end on a reveal that's initially disarming and fun, if somewhat predictable, but starts to fall apart almost as soon as you start to think about its actual implications. Still, it doesn't totally ruin the overall experience, it just dampens its effect somewhat. Overall, this is an entertaining little chamber piece that makes good use of its cast and relatively tight screenplay. It's engaging throughout, even if it's not always completely compelling, and it has plenty of enjoyable reveals that are diverting, albeit not as clever as they may initially seem to be (or, at least, as the film itself seems to think they are). It's a solid effort from the host of survivor. It isn't a particularly good poker picture, though.
The Squid and the Whale (2005)
A marriage story.
Written as stylishly matter-of-factly as a Wes Anderson movie and performed as stylishly dryly as a Yorgos Lanthimos movie but shot in a naturalistically subdued fashion reminiscent of a François Truffaut film, this slice-of-life drama has one foot in painful reality and the other in disarming unreality. It's not as if 'The Squid And The Whale (2005)' ever explicitly takes a flight of fancy or interweaves fantastical elements into its otherwise fly-on-the-wall atmosphere, rather that the purposefully blunt and stilted content is conveyed with a notably steady and convincing aesthetic. The combination of these two sides of the cinematic coin results in an uncanny and somewhat off-putting experience in which nobody talks like a real person but everybody experiences real human emotion. It's a story which is resonant and cutting in its exploration of the bubbling anger and confusing pain that divorce can (and usually does) cause, remaining recognisable and relatively affecting to anyone familiar with domestic life, but is distancing in its unwillingness to present itself in a way that most audience members will be able to easily get along with. It's cold and awkward and isn't at all realistic, save for in a few fleeting moments, but it's also grounded and raw and surprisingly honest. It's bleak and intentionally stagnant, the type of film in which 'nothing' happens. Yet, it's also specific and considered, a snapshot of a time and a place and a type of person that writer-director Noah Baumbach seems to recognise from his own experience. Indeed, many elements of the picture are apparently heavily autobiographical. There's a certain amount of bravery that comes with bringing something so close to home to such a large audience, but it doesn't mean we have to like any of the on-screen characters... including the one that stands in for Baumbach.
Both Jeff Daniels and Jesse Eisenberg's characters are vaguely misogynistic, pretentious pricks who wax lyrical about literature they haven't read and regard people who don't share their tastes as philistines. Of course, that's the point, and a large part of the picture's theming is how children inevitably eventually learn not to idolise their far-from-perfect parents, but that doesn't mean the characters we're most often asked to empathise with aren't almost utterly insufferable. The most likable man in the movie is a chill tennis player who's on-screen vocabulary mainly consists of the word "brother", so you know you're pretty starved for someone to care about. Laura Linney's character comes off a little better, but she isn't given as much depth as her ex-husband - or, at least, as much obvious development - and feels somewhat subdued or even sidelined because of it. Owen Kline's character is often a kinder, less self-obsessed presence, but even he has bouts of cruelty and a tendency to do something absolutely disgusting. Films don't have to tell stories about likeable people, though. Even if you don't enjoy spending time with these characters, you can at least recognise them and relate to their struggle. Baumbach manages to keep you engaged, at least to a certain degree, throughout the darkly comic affair, at once inviting you to examine the characters as if they're living in a museum exhibit and to live alongside them as if they're people you actually know.
The film does create a distinct vibe from the push-pull of its quirky yet downbeat screenplay and naturalistic execution, ultimately emerging as potentially more interesting than a more conventional approach to the same material. However, it's difficult to become fully immersed in its drama because it's so, I suppose, anti-audience. It's not bad, but there's always something that keeps you at a distance. Perhaps that's the intention. Perhaps it's uncomfortable to watch because it wants to mimic the uncomfortable nature of its central situation, to make you feel as off balance as the two sons of its focal couple. It's an interesting approach, but it isn't always an enjoyable one. Ultimately, the solid performances and sturdy craftmanship make this a decent experience, but it's not as good as it perhaps could have been. It's entertaining enough, in its own mundane way, for what it is, but I can't say I'm particularly fond of it overall. It's good, but definitely not great.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)
It jumps out of the car in its final moments.
'Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)' almost lands on the right message, but eventually caves into the age-old cliché of 'one true love' in the worst possible way by essentially endorsing stalking. Seriously, the Robbie and Jessica storyline ends in such a terrible way; I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking with that one. Elsewhere, though, this is an enjoyable and generally sweet romantic comedy that somehow manages to make you eventually care about an unlikable womanizer who's initially insufferable save for the fact he's played by the very charming Ryan Gosling. Steve Carrell is funny and compelling as the led-astray lead, Julianne Moore grounds the film as something more than a simple comedy (it has dramatic chops when it needs them), John Carroll Lynch is perfectly cast once you realise what his big scene is going to be, and Emma Stone is wholly convincing as the cute lawyer capable of making Gosling's pick-up 'artist' actually want to settle down. There are a fair few funny scenes sprinkled throughout the affair, and it's also packed with several unsuspected twists and turns that have you kicking your feet with glee when they're revealed. For me, however, it isn't as consistently engaging as I'd like; it never quite gets out of third gear. It's enjoyable and amusing enough for what it is, of course, but there is quite a bit of untapped potential considering the amount of on-screen talent involved. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, some of its messaging is pretty dodgy and you do spend quite a bit of time watching some rather objectionable behavior. At its best, it's charming and bubbly; at its worst, it's ill-conceived and slightly dull. It's one of those movies that reminds you just how long ago 2011 really was, if you know what I mean. Still, it's a decent effort overall that ought to provide at least some entertainment to fans of the genre.
The Union (2024)
They should have called this 'The Onion' because it'll make you cry... tears of boredom.
I liked the part where he said "welcome to the Union".
'The Union (2024)' is one of those movies that's so aggressively fine that I kind of hate it. It's fine, but it's not. It's just a nothing film, really. It's a mishmash of plenty of better pictures that lacks any of the spirit associated with those superior efforts. Mark Wahlberg has no charm or charisma or chemistry with Halle Berry, and Halle Berry is okay but she has a terrible haircut. J. K. Simmons is a treat as always, but he isn't given anything particularly interesting to do. The other cast members - including Mike Colter and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje - are all decent enough, but they don't stand out because the screenplay totally underserves them. Said screenplay is the most generic thing imaginable, unceremoniously ticking off cliché after cliché like they're going out of style. The plot is a bland 'chase the MacGuffin' type of thing, and it's actually a bit difficult to keep up with what the eponymous agency is after and why they're after it. Mostly, it's just difficult to keep up with why we should care. Again, it's fine. It's a bit too long, but it's relatively well-paced and it's generically energetic enough to unfold in front of you without much issue. That's the problem, though: it simply unfolds in front of you. It's the sort of thing that primarily provokes apathy, the antithesis of entertainment. While it isn't as bad as I'm perhaps making it sound, I can't deny that it also isn't particularly enjoyable. It reminds you of all the better movies you could be watching in its place. It's fine, like I said, but that's exactly why it isn't. It's occasionally somewhat diverting, but mostly uninspiring. It isn't bad, but it isn't good either. It isn't anything, really.
The Deliverance (2024)
Deliver us... from boredom!
There are some decent ideas at play in 'The Deliverance (2024)'. Not unique, but decent. At its core, this is a family drama focused on a poor woman trying to raise her children while battling alcoholism, a raging temper, a traumatic past, an inquisitive case worker and... oh, yeah, Satan. It's that last part that doesn't really gel, as all the best stuff soon gets drowned out by the frankly rather mild demonic presence elements that swallow up the back half of the story. In theory, the mix of these two aspects should work fairly well. There's a genre precedent for trauma as horror, as well as haunted houses making an already strained family dynamic all the more stressful. Plus, we don't often see this stuff from this specific point of view. The problem is that the picture gets bogged down by its wooden writing, spotty performances, bland direction, distracting CGI and complete lack of energy. I mean, seriously, this thing is lethargic. I suspect this is meant to compound its downbeat tone, or heighten its possession-based horror, but all it does is make it difficult for us to stay awake. It's a dour slog with almost no signs of life; even a campy Glenn Close growling about "too much garlic" (and nastier things) can't drag the affair from its waking slumber. It's executed so clumsily that it lands right in the middle of entertaining schlock and interesting art (for lack of a better term), lost squarely in the hideous chasm of boring mediocrity. It feels self-serious, but can't be taken seriously. Its supernatural elements aren't particularly shocking or insidious or upsetting. It needs to lean into the nastiness that can come with this type of terror, but it's afraid of the potential absurdity such extremity can bring with it. The best horror pictures aren't afraid of anything, let alone the thought that they might not be taken seriously, and their balance between silliness and scariness is precisely what makes them work so well. This almost feels embarrassed to occupy its own genre, which is precisely why we're not willing to meet it halfway. It does have its merits, of course. Like I mentioned, its family drama elements are occasionally rather compelling. It also looks the part, even if it isn't exactly inspired when it comes to its visuals. However, most of its positives are absolutely buried by its main negative: it's just bland. It's not always boring, but it often is. To be honest, 'sometimes boring' simply isn't good enough.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)
Thankfully, the juice hasn't been watered down.
'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024)' is the belated sequel to... wait, you're not going to trick me like that, Mr. Geuse! Released and set 36 years after the original, the film focuses on the Deetz family as they return to the house that started it all when tragedy strikes. Of course, you can't go back to the past without digging up some painful memories or, in this case, trickster demons. And just like that, the juice is loose.
The film finds a good balance between new and old, feeling at once like the original and unlike it. It's off-kilter and wacky, but a bit more slick and polished. I personally prefer the slightly more textured, somewhat storybook vibe of the first feature over the more obviously digital sheen that coats the second, but the presentation is certainly in keeping with what you'd expect from a Tim Burton movie (and a proper Tim Burton movie, at that; not something like Dumbo (2019)). What I appreciate most about the picture is its predilection for practical effects, using plenty of puppetry, stop-motion, make-up, costuming and other on-set wizardry to bring its goopy weirdness to life. It blends the real with the unreal relatively seamlessly, using CGI seemingly only when no other viable option is available, and it makes the whole thing much more pleasing to watch. The effects themselves are also as inventive and silly as you'd expect, with a slew of strangely slain background characters occupying the twisty bureaucratic afterlife that much of the story takes place in, and this means that there's something interesting to look at in pretty much every single scene. Working in tandem with this is the bouncy, idiosyncratic score and the scene-chewing performances (I particularly enjoyed the work of Catherine O'Hara, Michael Keaton and series newcomer Willem Dafoe), both of which further cement the effort as a cohesively peculiar insight into Burton's imagination. It can, at times, be really entertaining, and there are plenty of sequences which provoke chuckles.
However, the film does have its flaws. The most notable issue is the fact that it's all very messy. It's very unsure as to who it's antagonist actually is, so it sets up two villains, one half-villain and one kind-of-maybe-a-villain-I-guess and ends up doing all of them a disservice. Monica Bellucci's character essentially just walks around for the entire movie, occasionally causing some damage but doing nothing that really impacts the other characters or provokes a reaction from the audience (except for that one thing she does, which is totally unforgivable). It's all very weak when it comes to the baddie department, even if seemingly every other character is indeed a baddie to some degree or another. Having said that, Betelgeuse and Delores are both visually compelling and star in several enjoyably quirky sequences of semi-gruesome bodily harm (or unharm, in one instance). Still, I wish the writing for these characters was as good as their aesthetics. The other major issue is the fact that the flick takes quite a long while to get to the all-out oddness we expect of it, spending a lot of time in the normal world before eventually going off the deep end as its trailers promise. It's pretty slow in general and the underlying drama isn't compelling enough to justify this length, particularly the amount of time dedicated to non-undead elements. Once it does give you what you came for, it seems to rush through it. It leaves you wanting more, which is sometimes a good thing but here just feels a little frustrating because it's easy to imagine a version of this with more focus on the good stuff and less focus on the guff leading up to it. A smaller issue is the fact that both its main twists are incredibly obvious, to the point that one reveal feels like something we're supposed to have just known thanks to... oh, I don't know, everything the character it relates to does and says throughout the entire picture. The movie eventually goes "hey look, this guy was up to this thing the entire time" and pauses for gasps when literally everyone who's been paying attention is more shocked that the screenplay thinks this counts as a last-reel revelation rather than simply part of the text (or, perhaps, subtext).
-- skip to final paragraph to avoid minor spoilers about a specific story aspect introduced in the first act --
Another thing that I found a bit bizarre is how it handles not having Jeffrey Jones return as Charles Deetz. Don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly glad that scumbag isn't in the movie, and I even like the fact that (spoilers for the first act) the screenplay kills his character off in a particularly vicious way, but the piece still spends too much time on Charles Deetz and has an uncomfortably reverential tone when it comes to depicting the mourning following his demise. Of course, the character isn't meant to be a sex offender, so it makes sense that his family would grieve his loss. However, the line between character and actor is somewhat blurred because it's obvious the former has only been killed off so the latter doesn't get a job (although his image still acts as the picture's most potent jump scare). That's why it generates a feeling of unease when his character is treated with such respect for so long, ultimately being given quite a lot of screen time (albeit in a cleverly grotesque way). It's like the flick is trying to have its cake and eat it too, and the satisfaction of having on-screen harm befall Jones (via his character) is constantly undermined by the narrative's efforts to treat Charles with the posthumous respect he apparently deserves as part of the legacy that makes up this legacy sequel.
-- end of minor spoilers--
Ultimately, this is an enjoyable and suitably strange legacy sequel with some really good production design and special effects, a handful of appropriately hammy performances and plenty of gags - both visual and otherwise - to keep you in good spirits throughout. Its messy and unfocused plot is distracting on more than one occasion, and there's often a sense that you just want the thing to hurry up and get to the good part. Still, despite its flaws, this is an entertaining effort and I'm glad Tim Burton didn't feel the need to water down the juice in the process of setting it loose.
Apostle (2018)
The wicker woman.
'Apostle (2018)' is a slow-burning mystery horror directed by Gareth Evans, who takes a bit of a left turn from his high-octane roots ('The Raid (2011)' and its sequel) to make something much more concerned with atmosphere and intrigue over all-out action and gore. Inspired by folk horror such as 'The Wicker Man (1973)', the film focuses on a man who travels to an isolated cult community in order to rescue his sister, who has been kidnapped by the leaders of the island and is only to be returned upon the receival of a ransom from her rich father. Although it has a reputation for being an eventual gorefest, the flick is far tamer than you may expect. It's focused more on dread than on-screen death, and its most heavy moments of violence are cut in such a way as to be more implicit than explicit. That's not to imply there aren't moments of carnage peppered throughout the picture, especially as it heads into its final movement, nor that the violence itself isn't (at least conceptually) really gnarly. It's just that the picture could have been far gorier, at least if it wanted to scratch that specific genre itch. Then again, it's possible that I'm so used to extreme violence that my barometer for what counts as gruesome is skewed and this is a difficult watch for the average viewer. Either way, I personally would have appreciated a bit more blood and viscera to cap off a story that purposefully tries to put a knot in your stomach with the promise that's where it's inevitably going to end up.
Although the feature does have an ominous air and it's tonally on point for its subject matter, it doesn't build tension or suspense as well as some of Evans' earlier works ('The Raid 2 (2014)', in particular, is great at pulling you to the edge of your seat before it knocks you back into it when its brutality eventually erupts). In a way, it's all a little bit mild. It also doesn't have a particularly strong sense of style, despite some decent direction and the occasional flashy shot. To be fair, the creeping camera work and muted cinematography do combine for a specific effect, but I would have liked to see more flourishes to give the film a more distinct edge. Similarly, the story is steady yet not particularly inspired, a run through of familiar tropes that keeps you engaged but not particularly enthralled. The mystery at the centre of the affair isn't particularly compelling, although it's nice that the elements usually saved for the final reel are revealed a little earlier; that way, the audience doesn't spend the better part of the piece ahead of the characters. The plot itself isn't particularly focused, as it loosely shifts from a very specific "save my sister" angle to a more generalised "life on this weird island" kind of thing. There are some entertaining segments in which the protagonist essentially goes undercover and has to sneak around without alerting the leaders to his true desires, but this aspect of the narrative is thrown away somewhat unceremoniously after a certain point and the lead feels a little bit sidelined despite constantly being at in the middle of the action. It's hard to explain exactly why it doesn't feel right, but something's just off about the ratio of screen time devoted to the main storyline versus the lore-building side stuff that mainly serves to change the shape of the environment as the runtime ticks on.
Despite some problems, though, this is generally an enjoyable and suitably downbeat experience that makes good use of its inspirations to craft a competent, if somewhat unremarkable, slice of folk horror. It isn't scary, but it's atmospheric enough to keep you watching through to its conclusion. It also features a few moments in which Evans seems to accidentally revert to his old ways and crack out some bone-crunching action, before he quickly comes out of his presumably trance-like state and returns to the more subdued vibe he's generally aiming for. It's a solid effort overall, even if it definitely could have been stronger; the elements are pretty much all here, they're just not put together in the best possible formation.
Suzume no Tojimari (2022)
The young girl and the seat.
'Suzume (2022)' is a vibrant anime about a teenager who accidentally unleashes an ancient entity when she opens a mysterious door. Soon, she finds herself embroiled in a quest to close several entry points all over Japan, accompanied by a handsome stranger who finds his ability to help dampened by the fact that he has been turned into a chair. The movie is a little too long for its own good, taking a bit of a left turn as it heads into its third act and feeling fairly unfocused because of it. However, it's an entertaining and visually stunning experience conveyed by lush animation and energetic voice work. There are plenty of enjoyable set-pieces and funny moments, and the central dynamic is bubbly and sweet (there's a bothersome age gap between the schoolgirl protagonist and her university student crush, but he doesn't seem to reciprocate her romantic feelings and their relationship isn't taken to an inappropriate place). Ultimately, this is a gorgeous affair filled with colourful visuals and fluid animation. It's fun and somewhat moving, too. It's too long and kind of slams the brakes as it heads into its final movement, but it's typically an engaging experience with a relatively unique concept and a stylish execution.
Supergirl (1984)
Super boring.
'Supergirl (1984)' is borderline incoherent; not in terms of what happens, but in terms of why - and, more specifically, why we should care. After accidentally losing the power source to her city, Superman's teenage cousin Kara nonchalantly sets out on a mission to retrieve it and save her home from destruction. She finds herself on Earth during perhaps the one period of time she won't be able to see her high-flying relative (he's apparently on an intergalactic peacekeeping mission) and sets about trying to locate the power source, which has since fallen into the hands of a would-be witch with dreams of world domination. For some reason, our hero decides to go undercover at an all-girls school instead of focusing solely on finding the thing that will prevent the death of everyone she knows (a death she would have inadvertently caused). The majority of the movie bounces back and forth between Kara at school and the antagonist trying to hone her spellcraft, with the two elements coming together as the piece approaches its back half but always feeling slightly incongruous with one another. The whole magic angle just feels odd, and there are not one but two inappropriate romances involving school kids and grown-ass men (although, while I always assumed he was an adult, I'm not sure exactly how old Jimmy is meant to be). What's worse (somehow) is that the picture is just frightfully boring. Although some of its special effects are fairly convincing and there are some decent performances, none of it really comes together as something particularly enjoyable. It's also way too long. I'm being harsher on this than on 'Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987)' because I at least find some parts of that campy stinker somewhat entertaining, whereas I honestly don't connect with all that much of this. It's just not very fun.