Tag Archives: reviews

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 20, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

The Last Picture Show (1971) Revisit

For a period of time in the 1970s, film directors were given free reign to create some of the most personal and well acted films to ever come out of Hollywood. In an era that was filled with personalities like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, and the young Steven Spielberg, maybe the director who got a foothold on the zeitgeist of the era the best, was Peter bogdanovich. Has a director he had a string of successes from 1971 to 1975 that are incredibly impressive. The first of those truly great films is this 1971 requiem for bygone era.

The Last Picture Show is known for the huge cast of future stars that made appearances in the film. Jeff Bridges, Timothy Bottoms, Randy Quaid, Cybil Shepherd, Eileen Brennan, and Ellen Burstyn are all getting ready to have huge careers in the next two decades. The film also gives parts to older veterans Cinema, or give it a chance with the Fantastic script to write a little silver in the sky and help us remember what film dialogue is all about. Cloris Leachman and Ben Johnson want Academy Awards for supporting actor and actress, and they did it on the strength of a script that treated them like real people, who deserve dignity even in the most undignified circumstances.

I’m not sure I can think of a film that has sadness more clearly as its theme Than The Last Picture Show. The social relations between the members of the senior class, or sometimes harsh and thoughtless, and at other times heartbreaking. Cybil Shepard plays Jacy, the headstrong popular girl, who uses sex to gain status and learns that she is simply repeating the mistakes of the past. In the wake of her Reckless Behavior she leaves two best friends who become estranged, one because he is a rejected lover, and the other because he rejected his one opportunity of love in this small town.

Everything in this movie screams of being depressing. The diner is shabby and the waitress who works there, although wise and surprisingly friendly, is also beat down by her existence. The pool hall is the social center of the town, and it is a dust filled ramshackle Hangout for men too old to do much and for boys too young to be doing anything. Ben Johnson plays the older man with enough gravitas to actually earn the respect of the youngsters. Although life is dealt him a pretty crappy hand he is not embittered by his fate, simply nostalgic for the good things that have long passed him by. Sam the lion is a character that we can all admire and he gets a sequence where he narrates part of his life in such an eloquent way that Johnson brings him to life and earns the accolades that were heaped upon him that year. And of course there’s not a happy ending when it comes to Sam.

Ruth Popper is a woman who is aware that the best parts of her life are long in the past, and for whom every day is a struggle against depression and potential Health catastrophes. When she becomes the unlikely lover of one of the two young men who are close friends, it feels dangerous, absurd, and also the most hopeful thing in the movie. And of course it also doesn’t end well either. Cloris Leachman, clenches her hands, walks with the faltering step, and dry cries through many of her scenes. Her performance is one of physicality, where she conveys a world weariness Beyond her years, and a rejuvenation it is unexpected when she discovers what she thinks is a new love. The conclusion of this film includes the death of a much younger character, and it turns out that that is not the saddest thing in the story. The way in which this will Lonely woman, is mistreated and embittered his heart-wrenching. What is also sad is that even after standing up for herself, she has enough Humanity to offer a drop of console, despite it not being earned.

The town is full of people who will never leave and as a result will likely bleed on Happy lives, or their people who are anxious to get out, but afraid to because they know they’ll never be able to come back to things the way they were. The closing of the movie theater in a small town like this maybe the saddest symbol of filmgoer like me is likely to see. The black and white photography in this film makes everything feel dusty and forlorn,  but it also makes the people look either incredibly beautiful or sadly unpleasant. I guess that’s the way the world is, or more precisely… Was. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 20, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Warfare (2025)

This is an unusual movie designed to put us in the field with the Warriors who defend us in Dark Places. It represents the memories of the men who went through the actual event, and is designed to replicate as closely as possible the firefight that these men participated in. I don’t see an agenda or political perspective in the way this film is being presented, the men who are performing their Duty are average Americans, who are well trained, but respond like human beings in the dangerous circumstances they find themselves in.

Although there are a couple of familiar faces in the cast, this is certainly not a star driven vehicle. At least two dozen characters appear on the screen and have lines, but you could not point to a single one of them and say they were the main focus of the story. It is the event that is the star of the film. A military Advanced team, probing an enemy territory, during the Iraq occupation, discovers that they are the target of an insurgent attack. The events unfold for the most part, in real time, and the threat of death exists in every frame of the last half of the movie. There are moves that are made by the Marines in this story, which in hindsight might seem problematic, but given the outcome, and the survival of some of their comrades, we should certainly be willing to forgive some Divergence from military bureaucracy.

Even though they’re under attack, the Marines Express every confidence in the situation that they are capable of responding appropriately. They have Superior Equipment and Superior training and they also have reinforcements that will system although it will take some time. To me the astonishing thing about the events depicted in the film are the nearly heroic actions taken to save the lives of the injured Marines when an IED explodes as they are preparing to withdraw. Injuries that we saw in Saving  Private Ryan, were horrifying but the story doesn’t linger over them and the agony that those soldiers went through. In this film the consequences of the injuries seems to be the main justification for telling the story. Both the injured Marines, and their teammates never really give up in spite of the pain and the fear that they must be going through. Some may have a moment’s hesitation, some are trying to cope with with shock and concussions and temporary deafness. They all however do their jobs.

I will warn you that the injuries depicted are brutal, and there are moments when the agony of the victims is hard to bear. The stalwart efforts platoon of Marines is admirable in and of itself regardless of the outcome of the battle. This is not a story where retribution is heaved upon the enemy in a dramatic moment of Revenge. The forces that are being used, often appearing to be overwhelming, are done for the purpose of saving the lives of their comrades in arms. We really have no idea what kind of damage was inflicted on the enemy at the end of the day. This is a war film that is not a drama about some narrative, rather it is a narrative about an event that took place and that these Warriors survived.

War is evil, but sometimes necessary. The Men Who engage in war are usually not evil, but simply doing their jobs, fulfilling the plans of someone else to make the world a better place. The struggle to accomplish that requires incredible fortitude. Warfare attempts to depict that fortitude and put the audience at the scene. It succeeds in its visual execution, by allowing us to see the chaos and confusion in this sort of combat operation, but also the professionalism and determination of well-trained men. Because the story is told from the perspective of the men who actually went through this, the dialogue is filled with technical terminology Battlefield jargon and a variety of military language. Nothing is done to make this film dumb enough for an audience to understand. It requires an audience that is smart enough to know that what they are seeing is something they never want to go through themselves. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

April 14, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Ash (2025)

 Ash is a somewhat dystopian science fiction film set on another world that the human race is hoping to be able to terraform and relocate to. We get told all of that information about a quarter of the way into the story after the mystery of the horror has already begun. The way the Story begins is simple a young woman wakes up from a deep sleep and discovers that the ecosystem that she lives in is filled with dead bodies and signs of violence that she has basically no memory of.

The film is a hybrid version of Solaris, alien, and the thing. Ultimately there are about seven actors in the film but for 90% of the movie they’re only two that take up screen time. The woman named Reva, as flashbacks to some of the events, and begins to suspect that what happened might be her fault. File into her ruminations, another character shows up played by actor Aaron Paul, who clearly knows Reva, but was not at the station when whatever disaster befell it took place.

At First the movie looks fairly low budget. The sets are not much more complicated than a series of rooms that have been dolled up with some light fixtures and a few props to suggest something more futuristic. And the film is clearly something that was done on a budget. In the second half of the film though a few special effects show up that suggests that they were saving their money for a little bit more production value. A couple of models and some CGI add a little credibility to the situation. We also get a few special effects makeup sequences that are pretty good. 

The main problem with the film like this is that we are dealing with an unreliable narrator, and we all know why she’s unreliable. Also, nearly everything that we see at one point become suspect, and we wonder if we are looking at something that really happened or if it is just a projection of her consciousness. In the end it does turn out to be something of a monster movie, but it’s trying to do it in a way that is different and a little bit more cerebral. I think the ambitions outstrip the ability of the script to deliver this kind of story. The movie isn’t bad, but it isn’t very compelling either and by the time we get to the end it’s easy to feel detached from what’s going on. There is also attacked on conclusion that makes no sense but his design to create a sense of irony at the end of the story.

The director of the film is also responsible for the music, I get the impression that he is a music personality who is dabbling in the film world. It’s not that he’s on talented, but he’s not experienced enough to make this film more interesting than something to be consumed and almost immediately forgotten, in spite of the film’s ambitions. I suspect that this movie was largely made for streaming purposes, and it received a token release either because of the actors involved or to placate the director. Either way it turned out, it was a reasonable Monday evening, but again I’m not going to remember this very long.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 30, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Locked (2025)

Here’s a simple premise for a film that should be able to be shot on a budget with the exception of salaries for the two main stars. We have been on a bit of a Bill Skarsgård kick for the last year or so, and this film features him in every scene, and he doesn’t have to share the screen with anybody for any 80% of the movie. He does have a co-star, Sir Anthony Hopkins, who only appears by voice for the first two acts of the film, and shows up in the last third for an extended sequence with a more direct confrontation between antagonists.

Skarsgård’s character plays a petty Thief, who’s trying to get enough money together to pay for repairs to his van. He professes a desire to stick to the straight and narrow, in a job is a delivery driver. It is clear however from the cold shoulder he gets from former acquaintances, that he is used up any Goodwill and Trust he might have had, as they all refuse to assist him. He attempts a few minor crimes before encountering I’m unlocked luxury SUV. Thinking he’s hit the jackpot he jumps in and discovers that it is an elaborate trap by frequently vandalized and victimized wealthy doctor, who is decided to take some justice individuality form by imprisoning any car thief who deems to try and Rob him again.

We have to suspend our disbelief a little bit, because the technology involved here, well it is all possible, seems very complicated to utilize intervene plot like this. We do however discover that the doctor is motivated by Deep resentment against criminals who have taken the life of his daughter, a promising college student. Scarsgard finds himself locked in the car unable to escape and subject to tortures imposed by his invisible Captor. The actor manages to convey appropriate degrees of panic, resentment, and remorse. They’re also frequent outbursts of anger that give an actor the opportunity to stretch those skills that are so often prized by directors. Although at some point we are supposed to pity the thief, there is plenty such to suggest that what he’s getting up to a certain point is not undeserved.

The high point of the film occurs when Hopkins takes remote control of the vehicle and drives it to a location that he is found. He gets in and takes physical control not just virtual control of the situation. The film does suggest some political themes, most of which have been around for at least 50 years. Echoing the problems confronted by Dirty Harry or by Paul Kersey in the death wish films, Hopkins is enraged by a system that seems to tolerate criminal Behavior, and value the rights of repeat offenders over the need for justice for victims. Up to the point where he makes clear that he’s going to take skarsgard’s life, he has a very rational philosophy. When however he oversteps his bounds, Hopkins himself becomes a similar kind of monster, and we are left with rooting for one monster or the other. Because Skarsgård’s characters daughter is still alive, it becomes apparent that that is where our sympathy is supposed to lie.

The petty tortures and monologuing provided by Hopkins are the primary reasons that this film is interesting. Most of us would try to identify with the captured Thief and figure out how to survive for the circumstances we find ourselves in. The sense of powerlessness is overwhelming at times, especially when Skarsgård is tortured by lack of water or food. But of course that powerlessness is exactly what Hopkins character felt when nothing was done in regard to the murder of his daughter, or the multiple robberies of his vehicles.

So it is a one-man show for the most part, but when Hopkins shows up in person, it is clear he is having way too much fun playing another villain and savoring the chaos he’s imposing on his victim. The climax of the film does involve a lot more action than we’ve gotten in the previous 80 minutes, so the film is a Slow Burn but with a fairly satisfying conclusion. I can recommend it as an actor’s piece, and as a mediation on the injustice of our own justice system.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 29, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Novocaine (2025)

In the last few years there have been a number of films that have tried to milk humor out of violence or gruesome images. Just this last month the monkey and Love Hurts tried to accomplish just that and feel completely. Those filmmakers would have done well to watch Novocaine first so that they can see how you balance the violence and humor with characters that you give a damn about. this movie works primarily because we care about the main character.

Jack Quaid appeared in the other movie that I’ve appreciated this year companion from a couple of months ago. He has a persona that comes across as somewhat innocent and open-hearted. In the previous film, his character turned out to be more devious than we anticipated. That was a nice twist. Novocaine has a Twist as well, but that twist is not really about the lead character. Novocaine himself, remains innocently optimistic and surprisingly resilient in the face of what are overwhelming odds. He has his condition working against him, is very little in the way of support, and his adversaries are ruthless.

For those of you who haven’t seen anything about the film, the character has a condition that prevents him from feeling pain. It is also prevented him from enjoying life very much. When he finally meets someone who seems to be willing to help him embrace some of the difficulties he’s facing, you can understand why he would be willing to go to the lengths that he does to help her. His new girlfriend is kidnapped during a bank robbery, and Novocaine gets involved in a series of chases, fist fights, and shootouts that most of us would have bailed out on much earlier. The earnest and obstinate Novocaine is not dissuaded by the hardships inflicted on him, largely because he is able to brush off what would be painful injuries to most of us. That does not mean he is immune to the damage being done to his body, only that he doesn’t respond to it immediately. He still needs to be bandaged up, sanitized, and eventually seen by medical professionals.

The character is not immune to the emotional reaction that some of his confrontations are going to produce. There’s a big laugh when he vomits in the moment when he realizes he is just killed an adversary. He gets frustrated by some of the silly booby traps encounters in the house of one of the people is pursuing. Emotionally he’s a little overwhelmed by the girl he is falling in love with, and a little taken aback by the reality of his online friend, who is not the imposing presence he was expecting. Jack Quaid as an actor, communicates most of these emotions on his face. Disappointment, fear, and frustration show up there when he has to engage in some physical activity that causes damage to either himself or an opponent. It is those reactions, that let the humor land, instead of just rolling off us like it does in those other movies that I mentioned. 

There are a couple of twists in the story, one which we see coming, and one that was a surprise to me at least. There are a number of characters that are part of the main plot, who could use a little bit more development, but the script does give us a quick sketch of the cops who are following Novocaine, in the crooks that he himself is pursuing. After the twist is revealed, we can see some of the seeds that were planted earlier in the film, so that the change doesn’t feel completely out of nowhere. The plot is mostly a device to allow our lead character to man up and take advantage of his unique physical impediment. But there are some emotional connections that also make for your work, we get a pretty good idea why he falls in love so deeply and quickly. There’s a little bit of explanation as to why his previous virtual friend turns out to be somebody who can be reliable in real life.

In a film filled with broken bones, nails and knives and bullets doing damage to human being, it would be surprising to know the reactions that these situations provoke. These hard to look at jokes land very regularly, and provoke laughter more than they do disgust. That’s why Novocaine has been the most entertaining film I’ve seen so far this year.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

March 13, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

The Social Network (2010) Revisit

This movie was released the year I started blogging. I did not cover it then, because for most of my posts in 2010, I was devoted to the Summers of the 70s project I was working on. At the end of the year however, I did post a top ten list for 2010 releases and this movie was listed there. The quality of the picture could hardly be in doubt when it is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher. Fifteen years later, and twenty years after it became the ubiquitous presence in our lives, the story of the creation of Facebook remains compelling. The technical skills of the engineers is really just a side part of the story, the real driving force is the willful personalities of the founders and the motivations they had for their project.

The complex relationships and implied legal commitments are a fascinating history in how start ups come into being and people get rich or go broke in the process. The one factor that I want to focus on for a moment is not really related to the Facebook story per se. The setting of the foundations of Facebook is the Harvard University Campus. Obviously a prestigious institution with a well deserved reputation for producing excellence. It also has another reputation that is less flattering, that of a privileged class of entitled snobs who view others as beneath their consideration. Mark Zuckerberg as portrayed in the film by Jesse Eisenberg, is a great example of this in the opening scene. He snarkly  condescends to his girlfriend who is only enrolled at Boston University. You might think that this is just a personal failing of a brilliant student with social limitations that might put him on the Asperger’s spectrum, that is until you encounter all the other elitist behaviors depicted at the University. Elite clubs that engage in juvenile fraternity hazing rituals, parties filled with attractive girls from local schools who are interested in trading sexual favors for contact with the special elites at Harvard, and the entitled whining of  the children of privilege  when they don’t get their way. Maybe one of the reasons that some many people in this country have developed a distaste for the elites is that they have seen this movie.

Zuckerberg is a much more well known figure these days, and his time in the spotlight has probably tamed some of the quirks that are depicted in the film (real or imagined). The lawyers shown in the film are mostly despised by the character, who unwisely shows that distain in answering questions and conveying the kind of attitude that a jury in a civil case would punish like crazy. Trump got whacked by juries without ever having testified, imagine what would have happened had Zuckerberg out did the impervious Donald in front of a jury. As was made clear at the end of the film, his case was mostly damage control, and it was self inflicted. 

The film structure is primarily chronological with occasional inserts of later legal proceedings to add context and weight to the things that Sorkin and Fincher chose to emphasize. Eisenberg is terrific as the pig headed genius without the social skills needed to survive outside of the virtual world he lives in. Andrew Garfield as the best friend that Zuckerberg betrays was extremely convincing. Armie hammer plays the twin Winklevoss rival is believable as two distinct individuals. Justin Timberlake steals most of the scenes he is in as the repulsive Sean Parker. who created Napster and became a parasite member of the Facebook team. 

Seeing an older film in a theater reminds me of the original experience when I saw the movie the first time. It’s good to be impressed by a cinematic accomplishment in the cinema, rather than on TV. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 27, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Phantom of the Opera (2004) Watch Party

Alamo Drafthouse is a Theater chain which is also a restaurant and a culture center. The Alamo Theaters frequently program older films, indies and foreign fare and it would be to say they don’t put in an effort to satisfy as many people as possible. This week, they celebrated the 20th anniversary of the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Phantom of the Opera”.  Directed by the man who nearly killed the Batman Franchise with his color palate and costumes with nipples, Joel Schumacher. This was really a fortuitous combination, because Schumacher’s sense of style matched up well with the romantic extravagance of the Broadway musical.

This was a watch party, so unlike the strict silence policy usually in place at Alamo, the audience is encouraged to cheer, sing along, shout out quotes when they come up, and generally have a more interactive time. We had a hostess for the party who distributed masks, candles, wristbands and roses with black ribbons as we entered the theater. We were treated to trailers for other versions of this property, including Brian DePalma’s film, Clause Rains as the Phantom and even the Phantom of the Mall.  Before our film started, the hostess set up the ground rules and encouraged us to respectfully interact with the film and one another. She also got two fans up to do their best operatic delivery of a line from one of the songs. They both were great. And then the movie began.

I had seen the stage musical several time before the movie had come out. The family had gone twice when the touring company was in Hollywood, so we looked forward to the movie a great deal. It was our family Christmas film in 2004 and we were all pleased with it. That has been up to now the only time I saw it in a theater. This experience justifies a little more attention as I am prone to with a theatrical experience. Of the criticisms I have heard of the film version, the most typical is that Gerard Butler was not as good a fit as many wanted. Watching him in the gritty roles he plays nowadays, it might be hard to imagine him in this romantic musical. He was not a trained singer, but he was effective enough. Christine is supposed to be a singer, the Phantom is a secret tutor. I don’t think tutor in singing would automatically be an accomplished vocalist. Also, the Phantom is supposed to have some physical deformities, so his slight imperfection works fine. Butler was young and handsome in the role and it was easy to see the appeal he had in spite of the mask.

There are some structural changes in the story that purists might object to. The chandelier crash occurs at the end of the film rather than at the end of act one. There is an extended swordfight between Raoul and the Phantom that was not in the original production. Finally, fans of the stage musical might be confused by the bookend flashback sequences, which work for a film but would have been complicated on stage. 

On the plus side, the three main leads all do their own singing, only Mini Driver, who actually has trained as a singer, was dubbed. I have to give special attention to actress Emmy Rossum who plays and sings the part of Christine. She was only sixteen when the movie was being shot, and at the risk of seeming a little creepy, I think she is one of the most beautiful women I have seen in a movie. It doesn’t hurt that she is in some period lingerie that accentuates her physical beauty. When you hear her sing, the image is complete and we know why the Phantom was obsessed with her. Patrick Wilson, who plays Raoul, is also very young and he looks baby-faced compared to his subsequent film roles. 

Director Schumacher did some nice work setting mood and visualizing a bigger canvas. In the opening, we see the footlights lighting up, as we transition from the sepia tone black and white bookend of the auction, to color as the first performance in the Opera house begins. You can see that moment in the trailer above if you like. The arms holing the wall sconces in the chambers leading to the Phantom’s lair are actual human arms that are gold and sway to the melody of the scene. Later, when Raoul is descending through those hallways, the look is gothic, and black grey, which suggests that the Phantom’s voice influenced Christine’s memory of the trip. This was a nice flourish that feels very much like something Schumacher would do.

If you are not a fan of Lloyd Webber’s music, you are noy going to care for this. If however, you are a romantic, and a theater geek, and a horror fan, “The Phantom of the Opera” is excellent. It is best with an audience in a theater to get the ambient sound of the music right. Lucky for me, that is the party I went to last night. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

February 27, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Paddington in Peru (2025)

This was probably my most anticipated film of 2025. I have been charmed by Paddington in two previous films, both of which I can say are of the utmost quality and have huge entertainment value. While our wonderful title character continues to provide whimsical charisma a plenty, it is not enough to overcome the story foundations of this film. “Paddington in Peru” is the first of these movies that feels completely like a children’s film. There is not enough here to sustain love for a long period of time, there is just enough to keep it interesting for it’s run time, but that’s all.

Maybe the fact that the movie switches from a simple visit back to Peru to see Aunt Lucy, to suddenly becoming a missing bear film with a treasure hunt thrown in, makes it feel contrived rather than clever. We still get the bear out of water moments that made the first two movies so winning, but here they feel a little less natural and manufactured. Paddington manages to get the Brown family to accompany him because of a new boss at Mr. Brown’s work, who wants the actuarials of the insurance company to take some risks. My, what a coincidence. The pending empty nest of the Browns is also an incentive to take a journey to the Amazon. 

Once they arrive in South America, we can feel that there is something afoot. The new characters introduced are much too blasé about a missing  bear, and the clues are a little obvious. When we encounter Antonio Banderas as a boat captain for hire, we start to cross the line into silliness. The captain has his own quirks and those become a side show to the main story. Olivia Coleman joins Banderas as the characters doing their best to live up to the standard provided by Nicole Kidman and Hugh Grant in the previous movies, but even their combined efforts fall short. This is the storytelling, not the actors fault.

Too many things in the movie just feel random. I know that happened in the other stories too, but there was usually an explanation or a gag that made it fit together. I never felt like it jelled as well with this film. Maybe, with characters like this, you need a stronger story. Tot Story has succeeded four times, because they spent time making a story worth telling rather than a story that simply allows us to continue with the characters. 

“Paddington in Peru” is not a bad movie, but it was a disappointment for me, simply because my expectations were so high. By all means go and see this film, the main character continues to be a delight. Just hold down you expectations and be sure to take some kids with you, they will probably enjoy some of the treasure hunt. 

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

January 30, 2025

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Wolf Man (2025)

Updating a classic monster to contemporary times sometimes requires a little creativity. The Wolfman from 1940, was a Universal horror movie that featured a Sad Sack leading character slowly being turned into a murderous animal. He had a fairly warm relationship with his father, he met a girl he was interested in, and he was way laid by a werewolf and thus began his own transformation. The formula for the movie today varies this a little bit. The main protagonist is still a bit of a sad sack, but he has a great relationship with his daughter, a strange relationship with his father, and is married to a woman that he loves but is growing distant from. His transformation doesn’t wait for a full moon, and it is a slow build. We don’t have to wait for a silver bullet, we just know that there are monsters out there and that our main characters are going to be threatened.

It’s a little bit odd that I saw this movie the night after I saw Flight Risk. Both movies are essentially three character stories, mainly set in one location. A lot of horror movies benefit from the simplicity of such a setting because it forces the directors to become creative how Danger can be just about anywhere. Director Leigh Whannel, is an Old Pro at making horror films, and does a pretty good job at tightening the screws up. Wolfman is a Slow Burn is but it is generally effective.

My reservations about the film are mostly due to the casting and performances. The lead actress, Julia Garner, who was so wonderful in the TV series Ozark, is miscast in this role. She seems to be too young for the kind of character she is supposed to be portraying. She is also not as emotionally engaged in the first part of the film if she needs to be to make the second part of the film work. She does fine with the fear elements of the script, but her characters connection with her husband feels detached and Lacks energy. I did think however she had a good moment when the family picks up a neighbor as they are trying to locate instead. That may have been her best scene in the film.

The husband , played by Christopher Abbott, is also so low-key that it takes us a while to recognize anything is really a danger to him. His physical transformation is put off for quite a while, and well there are animalistic characteristics, it is mostly his physical activity rather than his appearance that makes him wolf like. There are two or three really good bits of business that illustrate this transformation without his face growing hair. I don’t want to give too much away let’s just say when he investigates a noise upstairs in the house his discovery of its source is one of the best surprises in the film. The other element of the movie that works well in showing how he is losing his Humanity and ability to relate to his family, is the 180° camera move that changes perspectives from the husband to the wife and Back Again. The filters used, and the visual effects as well as the sound editing are very clever it explaining exactly what’s going on.

There are a few jump scares, and there is quite a bit of screaming and panic as dangerous characters Chase the family around The Farmhouse and barn that are the primary locations of the film. By the way the film is set in Oregon, produced in New Zealand, and largely shot in Ireland. I’m sure this hybrid of locations is a result of financing rather than artistic choices. I did mention that there are primarily three characters in the story, but they aren’t the only ones that do play A Part. Early on, we get a sequence that sets up our main character as a young boy, and tells us of the life he led with a paranoid prepper father. I suppose it is supposed to set up the characters actions later in the film, but I found the sequence to be the most suspenseful and interesting in the movie. Too bad it’s over in the first 10 minutes.

This is not a bad film, it’s just not as good as it ought to be. The characters are sympathetic but I never felt particularly engaged by them, with the exception of the relationship between the little girl and the story and her father. It’s just too bad that most of the suspense elements of the film focus on the mother’s actions, and it simply feels like any other horror chase film where the character is being pursued they can to improvise and get away from the monster that’s chasing them. The movie sets up the idea that there is a subtext, but never delivers on that. It stays at a very surface level, which is okay for a horror film, but keeps it from being particularly distinctive.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

October 3, 2024

Posted under

Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment

Megalopolis (2024)

Francis Ford Coppola has created his dream project, and I’m afraid for many people it will be a nightmare. Megalopolis is an ambitious film that is nearly incoherent in its first half, wait let me take out that modifier and say in a very clear way that it is incoherent in its first half. That’s one of the reasons that I was hating this movie for the first hour. Unless you were up on your Marcus Aurelius and your history of the Roman Empire, you will be lost on a regular basis. But even if you’ve recently read extensively about those subjects, you will still be lost because Coppola does not have a narrative structure in that part of the film. It consists of characters being introduced with long passages of dialogue that sometimes mimic the words of a Roman senator or those of a Shakespearean character. For what reason we don’t really know, and Coppola isn’t going to tell us. All of this is happening while we are being Bedazzled by visuals that are original and startling in their conception, but are not clear in function. Meanwhile there appears to be I’m going on in the time space continuum that is not clear at all. So welcome to the film.

Having said this about the movie, I do want to adjust my opinion a little bit as we get to the second hour, where there appears to be a little bit more narrative structure. And I do mean just a little bit more. It was however enough for me latch onto the film and begin to find more redeeming elements to it than just the visuals. Coppola appears to be trying to say something about consumerism, ambition, corporate capitalism, and the traditional corruption of democratic societies. Exactly trying to say about all of these things though remains ambiguous. He has big things on his mind, but we have to Wade through his mind to figure out what it all is about, and it’s a jungle in there.

As usual I’m going to forgo trying to recap the whole story for you, there are plenty of other sites online that will attempt to do that for you. I’m just going to give you my general impressions and a little bit of advice about whether or not to see the movie. I will tell you, that I hugely anticipated the film since it’s Premier back in Cannes in May. The word at the time was not hopeful, with many critics suggesting that the film was a complete mess, although visually stunning. That seemed enough for me to feel that the movie might have something for me that closes out copula’s career with something Worthy. I insisted on viewing this movie in an IMAX theater so I could get the visual impression that the director clearly wanted us to have. I think that was a good choice on my part. However as I watched the film, I was getting more and more depressed. Art needs to speak to you at some level, and without a narrative or characters that I cared about, this film was not reaching me. Even as an abstract piece of art it was problematic.

Once the characters began to function in a recognizable story, which involved conspiracy, subterfuge, and betrayal, I began to feel like there was something in the movie that I could understand. I was able to reinvest in the movie at that point, I guess is that there will be a lot of people who won’t get to that point. Even if someone does manage to stick it out with the film, they may not be willing to forgive the incoherent mess at the first half of the movie consists of. Apologists of Art that is abstract, and not easily consumed, will certainly find ways to recommend this film to the community of Cinema fanatics that might be tempted to view the movie. More power to them. For General moviegoers though this film is going to be, not challenging but off-putting. It is deliberately obtuse, and the characters are dense, and unlikable. Frequently actors engage in cartoonish performances, certainly encouraged by director Coppola. Shia LaBeouf and Aubrey Plaza are two of the actors who seem to be working in a completely different tone and mode than everyone else in the picture. It might even be true that their performances are the true soul of this extravagant farce that has been labeled a fable. Maybe if everyone else had gone in the same direction this movie would have been a more audience friendly success. 

The passage of time May reflect well on the movie, but my readers, you were looking at this contemporaneously and so I must give you fair warning. This movie is not for everyone. In fact it’s probably not for most people. As a film artifact it will be interesting to look at down the road. As a film, playing in the movie theater, to a general audience, it’s simply a mess.

I’m not exactly sure why Coppola sets this movie in an imagined Roman Empire seated in the United States and headquartered in a place like New York City. Combining the Roman Empire with us hegemony seems like a interesting mix of allegories, but it also seems completely pretentious. When Adam Driver starts delivering monologue from Hamlet at the unveiling of a pitiful Casino model from his rival the mayor of New York, I started drifting. To be or not to be it needs a better answer than what this film gives us.