Guns, monsters, and self-realization come together in our most anticipated movies of the month.
Is April the beginning of the summer movie season? Universal has been making that case for a few years now by opening their Fast and the Furious movies this month, and you can’t argue with their summer-sized box-office results. Happily there are plenty of smaller films hitting theaters in the coming weeks too from all manner of genres including drama, horror, comedy, and the hybrid that is Nacho Vigalondo’s latest.
Keep reading to see which movies we’re most excited for this month!
10. The Circle (4/28)
Pros: Has a film ever looked this good on paper? Director James Ponsoldt (The End of the Tour), writer Dave Eggers (Where the Wild Things Are), cinematographer Matthew Libatique (The Fountain), composer Danny Elfman, a cast that includes Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, Karen Gillan, John Boyega, Ellen Wong, Glenne Headley, Patton Oswalt, and Bill Paxton…
Cons: But no one’s talking about it. There’s zero buzz on the film, and the trailers have done little to create excitement. I’m including it here due to that long list of pros, but there’s a big old question mark hanging over this one.
9. Unforgettable (4/21)
Pros:Rosario Dawson and Katherine Heigl face off over a man! Director Denise Di Novi’s making her feature debut after decades spent producing films as diverse as Heathers, Ed Wood, and A Walk to Remember.
Cons: It feels every bit like a ’90s thriller, and while that’s not meant to be derogatory it is a reminder that most ’90s thrillers are fairly bland. The hope is that this one has the over the top nature of Curtis Hanson’s The Hand That Rocks the Cradle.
8. The Void (4/7)
Pros: A bloodthirsty cult and monsters that remind favorably of films as diverse as John Carpenter’s The Thing, Clive Barker’s Hellraiser, and Stuart Gordon’s From Beyond lead to a siege situation straight out of Assault on Precinct 13! Yes, there are some original touches too. [My review]
Cons: The script is a big weakness here as the strength of the set-pieces and visuals is let down by a story and characters who never quite come together.
7. The Lost City of Z (4/14)
Pros: Writer/director James Gray (The Immigrant) turns his eye towards an early 20th century exposition film based on a true story of discovery. Advance word has been generally positive, and the film looks to offer an authentic-feeling period adventure.
Cons: They’re still trying to make Charlie Hunnam a thing.
6. The Student (4/14)
Pros: Modern day Russia isn’t exactly the first place you expect to find a compelling tale about religion and faith, but this trailer suggests otherwise. The danger of belief — as in what a person does with that belief — is the focus here, and combining that theme with attractive visuals and an increasing tension may make for one of the year’s most unexpectedly powerful tales.
Cons: The film played Cannes last year but hasn’t made much of an impression since.
5. The Fate of the Furious (4/14)
Pros: The eighth film in the increasingly absurd franchise comes from director F. Gary Gray (The Negotiator), and in addition to the series regulars also includes Charlize Theron and a return by Kurt Russell.
Cons: There’s a fine line between dumb fun and simply dumb, and after reaching the pinnacle of the former with Fast Five the series has been sliding towards the latter ever since. The plot just gets nuttier and nuttier and seems to be riffing on an old episode of G.I. Joe cartoon, and not for nothing, but this three-minute trailer mentions “family” three times.
4. A Dark Song (4/28)
Pros: This quiet little horror film is currently sitting at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, and everyone I know who’s seen it has good to great things to say about it. The trailer looks effectively creepy as well.
Cons: I’ve missed this one at three or four film festivals now, and I can’t help but wonder if some otherworldly force is trying to protect me from it.
3. The Transfiguration (4/7)
Pros: Fresh takes on the coming of age genre are hard to come by, but Michael O’Shea’s feature debut manages something special with its blend of teenage angst, doomed romance, and a terrifically atmospheric vibe reminiscent of Let the Right One In. [My review]
Cons: It’s a definite slow burn, and that won’t appeal to everyone.
2. Colossal (4/7)
Pros: As with the film above, Nacho Vigalondo’s (Timecrimes) latest takes an initially familiar setup and immediately twists it in fresh and unique ways. Avoid descriptions if possible, and maybe even skip the trailer above. Just go in blind knowing only that it features great performances from Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis, blends romance, comedy, and kaiju to perfection, and isn’t shy about touching the darkness. [My review]
Cons: There are some bumpy script issues, particularly in the second act as things slow down with some repetition.
1. Free Fire (4/21)
Pros: Come on. The director of Kill List makes a single location action film with a cast including Brie Larson, Armie Hammer, Michael Smiley, Cillian Murphy, and Noah Taylor? I refuse to believe this will be anything less than awesome.
Way way back in 2015, Matthew Monagle wrote a column about the Mystery Science Theater 3000 Kickstarter that was going on. Show creator Joel Hodgson had this crazy idea to bring the franchise back via crowdfunding and was asking fans of the franchise to donate. Monagle wrote that the original show held a special place for him. It made his dreary demeanor open up and he would bellow into laughter as he explains here:
That show made me laugh, big, whooping, ugly laughter that prevented me from ever watching the show in the presence of new acquaintances or adolescent crushes.
Even though he would be what we should call a “legacy fan”, he was uncomfortable with donating to the creator who had given him so much joy. The Kickstarter was asking for a ton of money, where if only $2 million was funded there would be three new episodes. Certainly, fans would take whatever they could get from the much-beloved show, but that would be only the tip of the iceberg. In order to get a whole season worth of episode, fans were being asked to shell out upwards of $5 million. This was especially troublesome after it was announced that Shout! Factory purchased the rights to the franchise. If they believed it was that lucrative of a franchise that they wanted to purchase the rights, why didn’t they believe there was enough money in bringing it back? Finally, if the Kickstarter was successful would MST3K be relevant in 2017?
MST3K.com
Needless to say, the campaign to bring MST3K back ended up being a great success story. The show crushed its most sought after goals and ended up raising over $6 million. After Monagle covered the Kickstarter, the extended cast was announced including Jonah Ray, Hampton Yount, Baron Vaughn, Patton Oswalt, Felicia Day, and a plethora of exciting young talent and guest cameos. It is funny that Monagle would mention Netflix in his original piece because that is exactly the partner Hodgson would find in airing his MST3K revival.
So since that Kickstarter at the end of 2015 — the show has been reborn, found a new home with Netflix, got an exciting new cast, and somehow made their deadline. With the new season preparing to air shortly, Hodgson has to be super excited in how this endeavor has played out. Even if the final countdown in the Kickstarter was plagued with production problems, no such problems exist in the finished show. This is a high-grade production that makes the old MST3K really look like a relic in comparison. Even if the team of Ray, Yount, and Vaughn were extremely burnt out by the end of production. When they spoke to Nerdist, they explained some of the madness that went into that final push. They said,
“[We were doing] two movies a day,” recollects Yount, who voices Crow T. Robot in the renewed series. “Two a day, but you’re not watching it at movie speed, you’re watching it at production speed, which is like a 14-hour day.”
That is pretty intense especially when the movies they are watching are decidedly, well, not good.
MST3K.com
*Spoilers for Experiment 1101 follow*
The new season of MST3K starts with off with a bang, as Jonah is introduced playing a set of drums. He quickly gets captured by the new mads played by Day and Oswalt, and then he his robot friends are sentenced to watch a crummy movie. The movie in particular is 1961’s Reptilicus, but that doesn’t matter as much as the chemistry and the show itself. The challenges of meeting Kickstarter needs are extremely apparent in this season premier.
Some things have certainly changed including featuring Gypsy more often and a flying Tom Servo, but mostly things are exactly how you remember them except bigger. The production has a big live band that is introduced at the beginning of the show and continues through the MST3K’s traditional commercial breaks. Yes, even though this show is on Netflix, the format of the show still calls for a break in the riffs. Then the issue with cameos comes into play as they show off some actors at the beginning of the episode. While they promised these moments in the Kickstarter, it is going to run a little thin by the end. Finally, there’s a musical number in the middle of the episode that didn’t work on me during the broadcast, but it is played again over the credits and it seems solid. It was a song written by Paul and Storm who did promise some new specials songs for the show during the campaign.
It is exciting to hear what pop culture references the writers have chosen to mine for the new season. Perhaps that is one of the things that kept some of the jokes from the older episodes from hitting their mark with me. The riffs are completely up-to-date with what is happening in the world today and even in the first episode, it looks like a lot of care was put into making this comedy show match the times. While MST3K isn’t the only show on the block doing movie riffs anymore, there are countless YouTube sites and past MST3K veterans who have their own projects, few will have the production quality and flair that MST3K can provide. Unless you don’t want to watch really bad old movies. Then you are out of luck since the show seems poised to continue the trend of digging up especially bad films from earlier eras.
The new season of MST3K has a lot of expectations to meet. Not only does it have to meet the expectations of the backers who donated money to see the show return, but even those fans who are discovering the series for the first time on Netflix and will be inspired to check out old episodes. It has to succeed on Netflix in order to secure another season, one that won’t have the commitment to a Kickstarter. Monagle did finally decide to part with his money and donate for the new season of MST3K. Hopefully, he is among many fans, old and new, that are pleased with what Joel Hodgson has brought to the table.
According to a new New York Daily News interview with Carrie Fisher’s brother Todd, he and Fisher’s daughter Billie Lourd, “have granted the studio rights to use recent footage [of Fisher] for the finale.” Since the actress’s sudden death last December, fans have wondered about how the Star Wars franchise will handle the loss of such a central figure — especially considering that some sources have claimed that Carrie Fisher was originally to have a larger role in Episode IX than in Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, scheduled for release this December. Taken in conjunction with other statements released by Disney thus far, including that The Last Jedi will not be modified to reflect Fisher’s death and that Disney and Lucasfilm seem to be standing by their January statement that CGI will not be used to “resurrect” Fisher as it was to re-create Peter Cushing’s likeness in Rogue One, one can’t really help but wonder what exactly they are planning to do.
This is not the first time an actor has died either pre-production or mid-production on a film, or even the first time an actor has died prior to completion of filming in a major franchise role. That said, the case of how to handle Leia Organa’s character after Carrie Fisher’s death is especially difficult, for a number of different reasons. Though Star Wars has branched out in various tie-in media and the “anthology” films — Rogue One, the as-of-yet untitled young adventures of Han Solo film set for release in 2018, and the 2020 film of mystery — the main series is ultimately a family saga. They would perhaps more accurately be called Skywalker Family Problems Vol. 1–9, but that, admittedly, just doesn’t have the same ring to it. In that New York Daily News interview, Todd Fisher explains his and Billie Lourd’s rationale for giving Disney the go-ahead as: “Both of us were like, ‘Yes, how do you take her out of it?’ And the answer is you don’t.” And they’re right. You can’t. It’s not an ensemble drama where even the fan-favorite part can, functionally, be replaced. What Todd Fisher doesn’t mention is the companion question, which is decidedly more difficult to answer: How, then, can you possibly keep her in it?
Skywalker genetics, aka angst and more angst. On the plus side, fabulous hair.
Let’s go back to what’s actually news here: Disney getting rights to “use recent footage for the finale.” Now, assuming they hadn’t for some strange reason started shooting footage for Episode IX in advance, what we can take away from this is that they most likely are intending on repurposing unused footage of Fisher. While you might wonder what could possibly be done with footage collected off the cutting room floor, ask an editor — you’d be amazed what some clever cutting can do. One of the really cool aspects of film as a storytelling medium is something called the Kuleshov effect: basically, our interpretation of film shots is extremely reliant on context (the surrounding film shots). The original experiment which demonstrated this (by Lev Kuleshov, thus the name), presented a shot of actor Ivan Mosjoukine with a blank expression as a reaction to either a bowl of soup, a girl in a coffin, or a woman, and found that audiences interpreted his expression as hunger, grief, or desire (respectively). Could they “Kuleshov effect” a fake performance, so to speak? Depending on exactly what the footage in question is, and how much of it they have, then potentially, yes — at least, to a certain extent.
Looking at the history of films and series that have had to deal with actors dying either mid-filming or between installments, there have really been three main approaches (besides CGI replacement): replace the actor, like they did for the character Dumbledore in the Harry Potter film franchise; kill the character off-screen, as the television show Glee did with Finn; or just kinda tip-toe around the empty space where that character should be, as The Dark Knight Rises did with the Joker.
The two faces of Dumbledore: Richard Harris and Michael Gambon
Now, as far as I’m aware, no official statement has been made confirming that Carrie Fisher will not be recast, but this seems more likely a case of the prospect being too far out of the realm of consideration to even merit acknowledgement than Disney keeping the option open. It’s not just a matter of Fisher’s performance being iconic, but the matter of Star Wars not being either an adaptation or a reboot. Because Star Wars was an original film, Carrie Fisher truly was Leia Organa in a way that actors in adapted roles simply cannot be. You can theoretically argue that Heath Ledger wasn’t a good Joker or that (to use a slightly more central figure than Dumbledore) Daniel Radcliffe doesn’t actually look like Harry Potter. You can’t even attempt to make such a case with Leia, because Fisher defined what the character looked like and how she behaves. Even little quirks of Fisher’s performance, such as her one-scene-only British accent in A New Hope, have been retroactively integrated into Leia’s character through tie-in novels.
Of course, Disney could technically recast her because they own the character and all that legal jazz, but perhaps the biggest takeaway from this latest Star Wars news is that if Disney is using footage of Fisher in the final installment they’ve definitely crossed recasting off the list of possibilities.
Now, as to the other two options: this recent news would also cross off the third strategy I mentioned, leaving only the second — though of course, within that category there are still a wide realm of possibilities.
No matter how they handle Leia’s character, Carrie Fisher’s death will be the elephant in the room of Episode IX. The real question, which will not be answered until 2019, is if they can keep that elephant from stealing the show.
A Change in Oscar Rules Makes One Category More Exclusive, Another More Inclusive, But with an Asterisk
When the Academy closes a door it opens a window, but only halfway.
This week The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences — the Oscar people — made a couple of significant changes to the nomination guidelines for two major categories, Best Documentary Film and Best Animated Film. In the case of the former, the changes make the category more exclusive, and in the case of the latter, they opened the category to a wider range of voters. Allow me to explain, via Deadline, who broke the news.
The changes in the doc category came about owing to the most recent winner, O.J.: Made in America, which caused some controversy when it was nominated seeing as it’s a 7 ½-hour multi-part, limited-run series that premiered at Sundance but then was released on television, specifically ESPN, who produced it. Normally — and by normally I mean “always” — nominees are single shots, one-part films. After listening to arguments on both sides of the issue, the Academy has decided to nip things in the bud by declaring such multi-part films ineligible for nomination consideration. So yet again, O.J. got away with something he shouldn’t have. The Juice Law goes into effect immediately.
As if compensating for this enforced exclusivity, in the Best Animated Film category the Academy opened things up by changing who participates in the nomination process. Until now, films in this category were nominated by a select group of people who worked in animation, as opposed to all Academy members like the other categories. That changes immediately as well, and now everyone gets a say. You might think this would lead to a wider range of pictures being put up, but another change dictates the Best Animated nominees will be selected by a preferential system instead of a straight-up numerical one. This is the same way Best Picture nominees are determined, and it gives, as the name indicates, preferential consideration to studio films over independents owing to larger distribution networks.
As mentioned, these rules go into effect this year.
Over in our corner of the internet we had a lot of really interesting posts go up yesterday, including the latest installment of The Tao of Nic Cage, an exclusive video essay about the last 30 seconds of Denis Villeneuve’s Prisoners, a look at the art of Ghost in the Shell, an exploration of animation as a fallback for failing live-action franchises, and the latest episode of Neil Miller’s The Big Idea in which he discusses the inside story of One Perfect Shot with founder Geoff Todd.
And lastly, take a look at five of the most popular shots we tweeted over the last 24 hours. Want more? You know where to find us.
CRIMSON PEAK (2015) DP: Dan Laustsen | Dir: Guillermo del ToroMELANCHOLIA (2011) DP: Manuel Alberto Claro | Dir: Lars von TrierTHIEF (1981) DP: Donald E. Thorin | Dir: Michael MannCITY OF GOD (2002) DP: César Charlone | Dir: Fernando Meirelles, Kátia LundIL MARE (2000) DP: Kyung-pyo Hong | Dir: Hyun-seung Lee
The real Lost Village for these iconic characters is Fanville.
My two-and-a-half-year-old daughter was watching TV yesterday when a Smurfs: The Lost Village commercial came on. “Trolls!” she shouted, mistaking the new movie about little blue creatures for the recent movie about little pink and orange and blue creatures. One bunch wears white hats, the other has crazy hair, but it’s easy to see how they could be confused, especially by a toddler. And she didn’t even see any footage of Gargamel, whose Smurf-consuming desires are akin to the Bergens and their taste for Trolls.
Did Trolls trump Smurfs, causing the latter to open much lower than initial expectations? The Lost Village had originally been projected for a $20m opening, if not slightly more. Then The Boss Baby became a hit last weekend, andpredictions fell to $15m-$18m, the higher end of that range being what the live-action/CG hybrid The Smurfs 2 debuted with in 2013 ($19m, adjusted for inflation). But even that tracking was apparently generous, as the estimated domestic gross for the weekend is only $14m. The animated feature was winner among new releases but came in third place overall.
Or is the more present success of The Boss Baby, which held onto the top spot for a second week (with $26m), the reason for Smurfs’ failure? Is there some metaphor to be read into the popularity of the movie about a literally infantile capitalist leader being higher than that of the movie about creatures associated with communism? Or do audiences just prefer original stories, or seemingly original stories, in their animated features rather than familiar characters who’ve overstayed their welcome on the big screen (see last year’s The Secret Life of Pets compared to Ice Age: Collision Course).
Wait, but Beauty and the Beastis still a humongous hit (bringg in another $25m for second place), mostly fueled by nostalgia for the animated feature it has adapted to live action. Maybe the audience that grew up with the Smurfs isn’t interested in that property after a couple corny features that couldn’t trust in just the iconic mushroom dwellers and their own fantastical world (the first one is actually not that bad). As someone who grew up with the 1980s cartoon series, I was surprised the forecast for the new movie was so low, but then I realized that The Lost Village is not really for former fans who’ve grown up. It’s for new kids.
But how do you get a new generation to go to see a Smurfs movie? You either keep the property alive so the kids have already become familiar with them through a new cartoon on TV. Build a new built-in fanbase. Or you make something that appeals to the nostalgia of adults who will bring their little ones. Kids today have so many choices, and they already have plenty of their own favorite miniature creatures, including Trolls and Minions. By the same measure, you can’t just release a Snorks animated film out of nowhere aimed solely at kids. They’ll be like, “We’ve got Bubble Guppies, thanks!”
The Smurfs could really be a huge franchise if done right. Introduced in a Belgian comic book almost 60 years ago, the characters have at least remained pretty famous as things that exist, mostly because they are very recognizably unique (at least to non-toddlers). But they’re not pushed into the pop culture like they were in the 1980s. When I was a kid, we had Smurfs sheets and curtains and everything else merchandising allowed for. I collected tons of Smurfs figures, of which there were countless numbers each representing a different personality or profession or hobby. With such variety, those would be great to bring back in the “blind bag” era.
Forget making them fish out of water in “the real world.” We didn’t need Smurfs Take Manhattan. Forget having them go on adventures to other strange places in order to introduce more female Smurf characters, as noble as that idea might be. Just focus on the Smurfs in their own Smurf village and find a story there. Maybe later branch them out to other territory — sure even a crossover cinematic universe where they meet the Snorks and maybe the Shirt Tails, whatever. But after so long, a property like The Smurfs needs to have a new foundation from which they can be expanded narratively.
Of course, none of that is likely consciously on the minds of kids, adults, and families altogether ignoring the first fully animated Smurfs feature film in more than 30 years. Even though the fact that it’s the third Smurfs movie in six years and certain audiences might see this as too much (many may also assume it’s another live-action effort), I do believe Sony didn’t capitalize enough on the success of the first, back in 2011, to keep people believing in these characters. They have a basic one-note premise, but they also have plenty of potential. There’s a reason their cartoon lasted a whole decade.
Sadly, this could be the end of the Smurfs for a while. As usual, the property, which originated overseas, is doing better overseas but possibly not enough that a sequel is worthwhile just for those markets. Right now it looks like audiences aren’t interested in Smurfs, so no new cartoon series or comic books or pillow cases, which is too bad because that would build up a crowd for a possible reboot five years from now. Not everything that’s old is easily and automatically sold just on familiarity. You have to create interest. Hopefully the Smurfs will find or be given the wider interest they deserve again someday.
Just in time for the 8th chapter, out this Friday.
When we met them, they were street racers with criminal leanings but good souls. They were tight-knit, and valued trust and loyalty above all else, but that never closed their hearts to allowing more within their fold, including those who came to them as enemies. For 16 years we’ve followed them around the globe, from Los Angeles to Tokyo to Rio de Janeiro back to L. A., and we’ve watched as they’ve evolved into a highly-trained para-military faction of adrenaline-addicted masterminds, but all the while, at their essence, they’ve remained the same thing:
Family.
I’m talking, of course, about the protagonists at the center of the greatest action franchise in cinema history, the Fast and Furious clan, whose eighth movie, The Fate of the Furious, opens this Friday in the US. And while box office receipts would seem to indicate that most of us are up to date with the folks and events involved, a little reminder never hurts, especially when there’s this much material to remember.
Fortunately, the fine folks at Burger Fiction have done the heavy lifting for you via this handy-dandy montage entitled “The Evolution of The Fast and the Furious” which in just shy of seven minutes traces the entire franchise and gets you completely … wait for it … up to speed.
The One Perfect Pod crew meets in the lobby to talk about old guys robbing banks at the behest of Zach Braff.
For this week’s review, After the Credits host Matthew Monagle is joined by Film School Rejects columnist Danny Bowes to talk about Zach Braff’s geriatric heist film Going in Style, starring Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, and Alan Arkin. Yes, it begins with a discussion of auteurism.
Episode Notes: 00:00:00 — Preview of Going in Style 00:14:20 — After the Credits review (includes spoilers)
Be sure to follow us on Twitter (@OnePerfectPod) and Facebook (facebook.com/oneperfectshot). Subscribe in iTunes, Stitcher, on TuneIn, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow host Matthew Monagle (@Labsplice) and guest Danny Bowes (@bybowes).
We’d very much appreciate your feedback, as well. Leave us a review on iTunes or email us: pod@filmschoolrejects.com.
The UK Channel 4 streaming service has finally arrived in the US.
In January 2016, British television had undergone the beginning of a small (but important) revolution. Deutschland ’83, a visually stunning German spy thriller, premiered on Channel 4 (think the BBC but with an edge) and streaming service Walter Presents to 1.49 million viewers, with a consolidated viewership of 2.5 million. This funny, beautiful, and entertaining subtitled show moved British audiences away from the formulaic French- and Scandi-noir shows popularized thanks to BBC Four’s The Killing, and instead offered proof that foreign, subtitled dramas can be successful among audiences. After Deutschland ’83 aired, the show continued to find success with American viewers, having won an Emmy for Best Drama Series in 2016, while in the UK, Walter Presents continued to introduce a breadth of innovative and diverse foreign drama from the likes of Spanish prison drama Locked Up to French political thriller Spin. And now, after the success of Walter Presents has been solidified in the UK with its screenings at the Radio Times and BFI TV Festival, the streaming service has finally arrived overseas.
Having launched in the US on the 16th March of this year, each foreign drama is available to stream from the service’s website. From Dutch thriller Flight HS13 to the Norwegian coming-of-age series Young and Promising, the service has modelled itself on its American predecessors that currently dominate the field, such as HBO and AMC. However, what makes Walter Presents so unique against the backdrop of the faceless identities that buy as many shows as they can is the fact that the former is fronted by a single figure who has spent over 4,000 hours watching television. From Brazil to Afghanistan to Iceland, the titular Walter Iuzzolino has carefully handpicked each show for his viewers, resulting in a thoughtful and personalized selection to choose from.
Viewers of Iuzzolino’s picks are able to engage in conversation with him through his Twitter, while big, all-star events such as the UK’s TV Festival are sure to come to America with the revolutionized form of storytelling now found on TV and computer screens around the world. As Iuzzolino often notes and reiterated at the Radio Times and BFI event, this decade is an interesting time in terms of storytelling since what would be independent features are now instead being made for television, with HBO’s Big Little Lies — starring some of the most famous actresses of their field including Reese Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman, and Laura Dern — showing that the move from indie film to television is now complete. This interaction between viewer and curator presents something uncommon when paired with the Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down interaction of Netflix. Instead, viewers can talk to Iuzzolino directly, engaging in a dialogue around what works and what doesn't. It’s clear, then, that the streaming service has the quality of its content at the centre, presenting the most fascinating and artistically accomplished TV shows from around the world in a way that brings people together through stories rather than separating them through the idea of having to overcome a language barrier and/or subtitles.
What’s more, with the lack of box-office success in the US for feature-length foreign dramas, such as Paul Verhoeven’s Oscar-nominated Elle, Walter Presents arrives at an interesting time when major Hollywood studios believe audiences only want to watch films when it’s in their own language. While both Elle and Maren Ade’s similarly Oscar-nominated Toni Erdmann did not do well due to their limited releases, a direct result of the lack of confidence in audiences wanting to watch subtitled films, it’s clear from the films’ worldwide awards success that they were viewed because of their story, and their ability to connect; subtitles are just a part of this experience that can easily be overcome two minutes in. So far, Walter Presents has proven successful in America, with publications such as The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and the New York Times taking note. Let’s hope this success continues, with quality world drama becoming more accessible beyond simply the country it was created in. And, perhaps, Walter Presents could revolutionize studios’ and audiences’ ways of viewing subtitles the same way Netflix revolutionized how we consume TV.
Walter Iuzzolino’s handpicked foreign dramas are available to stream ad-free at Walter Presents here. Subscription is $6.99.
From the shadows of a shallow franchise to the peak of cinematic brilliance.
I’m a little ashamed to say I didn’t see it at first.
I knew who Kristen Stewart was before Twilight happened — she’s the daughter from Panic Room — but whatever I thought of her acting skills was swept under the rug of her immediate and immense popularity on account of that vampire crap. It was like 1997 and the year of DiCaprio all over again. No one that popular could be worth a damn, I naively thought, that’s just some teeny-bopper shit. So yeah, I wrote her off, I thought of her as just another starry-eyed, fame-seeking, Hollywood girl-bot, more fodder for romantic comedies and redemptive domestic dramas, a slightly-better Jennifer Garner, or a slightly-worse Anna Kendrick.
But then I saw Clouds of Sils Maria.
And now I stand before you a humbled convert. Not only was everything I thought about Kristen Stewart absolutely, 100% wrong, the opposite has in fact revealed itself as the truth: she is without a doubt one of the most interesting, daring, and deft actresses of her generation, and her recent slate of films — Sils Maria, Still Alice, Equals, Certain Women, Personal Shopper — proves that she has about as much interest in being what the industry wants her to be as she does in making another Twilight film, which is to say none whatsoever.
Her path to here is an amazing story in and of itself, and one recounted in the latest video from Mr. Nerdista, “The Evolution of Kristen Stewart,” which in eight succinct minutes traces her rise to stardom and beyond, the latter part being where things get really interesting.
The moral of all this: don’t judge an actor by their intro to the A-list, judge them by what they do once they get there. By that criteria, Kristen Stewart is one of the finest in her field.
AARP Studio’s ‘Dinner with Don’ is about to introduce a new generation to a comedy legend.
Credit: ABC-TV
A legend died last week, but his blistering wit will endure. Don Rickles passed last Thursday as a result of kidney failure. Rickles was 90. Rickles’ career spanned over 60 years. Though, even toward the end of his life, he showed no signs of stopping.
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Studios — yes that AARP now has a studio — announced that it would honor Rickles by going ahead with the release of his interview series Dinner with Don. It seems fitting that Rickles’ last project was an interview show as he got his big break on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Before his death, Rickles filmed 1o episodes of his interview series. AARP Studios released the trailer for Rickles’ show following the comedian’s death. You can view the trailer here.
Rickles’ show has an enviable roster of guests: Robert De Niro, Martin Scorsese, Marissa Tomei, Billy Crystal, Paul Rudd, Sarah Silverman, and Amy Poehler just to name a few. Further, the format of the show feels intimate and engaging. Talk shows are getting more and more formulaic, and the ones that innovate are doing so by sound-biting themselves down to readily available skits as soulless attempts at going “viral.” Skits aren’t wrong as a general matter, when done well they can enlighten you as to aspects of a celebrity’s public persona that were unknown or just allow a guest to get in on the witty fun. However, a bad skit just fumbles on pleading with the audience to let it know if it works or not. If your skit has to ask for permission, chances are you don’t have it.
Rickles’ show, much like Rickles, doesn’t ask for permission. Rickles’ show goes back to basics: plain old conversation. Much like the loved Jon Favreau’sDinner for Five (the funniest show no one mentions enough), Rickles just sits with his guest and talk over a good meal. If a fun conversation with wine is good enough for a weekend night, why can’t it be enough when two funny people are doing the same? Bonus points for Dinner with Don because it features Rickles’ comedic sting.
Rickles told Zach Galifianakis to call him “God” and you know what, I hope Galifianakis did. A lot of people my age don’t know Rickles, but they should. If you’re a fan of Bill Burr, Chelsea Handler, Sara Silverman, Jim Jefferies or Kathy Griffin, by the transitive property of comedy, you’ll love Rickles. Insult comedy owes Rickles the respect that cinema bestows on Orsen Welles. Rickles was the type of man who insulted Frank Sinatra to his face and grinned his way out of it. He once told Sinatra, “Make yourself comfortable, Frank — hit somebody.” That’s how Rickles acknowledged Sinatra in a crowd during one of his shows. It seems like a weird introduction, but it did something right because Rickles was considered an honorary Rat Pack member. Much like Welles, Rickles should get recognition not just because he was first but because he was the best.
Although bluntness is on the cultural out, Don Rickles’ caustic observations will always have value. In our current climate of subdued opinions and soft touches, Rickles wasn’t one for kid gloves. Whether or not this type blistering observational insult humor is to your taste, you cannot argue that it had no value. Boundary pushing comedy can help us determine where the line exactly is and illuminate cultural bias with more precision than outright prohibition of unpopular gruff opinions. Thereby, fulfilling the social function that makes standup comedy — any comedy — matter. Thus, Dinner with Don is the perfect way to honor Rickles while introducing a new generation to him.
AARP Studios has not yet announced a premiere date for the series. Dinner with Don was Rickles’ final project.
There are certain people you just shouldn’t make fun of in a public forum — like say professional football players, or IRS auditors, or serial killers — because the risk of personal harm is greater than the reward of a punchline. As a late-night talk radio host finds out in the short film Sleight, from writer-director-editor Faisal Hashmi, magicians are another profession to add to that list.
When the DJ starts disparaging the art of magic on his show, he gets a call from a practitioner who’s taken offense at his rant. From there things go downhill fast and weird. Sleight is a simply-staged film, largely taking place in the confines of a studio booth, meaning the story has to really hook you if you’re going to make it all the way through. You’re in luck, though, because Hashmi has delivered a well-paced, well-told, thrilling slice of horror that captivates from the first minute and doesn’t let you go until its shocking conclusion.
If creepy psychological stories like those on Tales From The Crypt float your boat, you’re going to find a lot to love in Sleight. Check it out then help spread the good word with likes and shares.
Just as The Fast and the Furious “borrowed liberally” from Point Break, so did Dhoom “pay homage” to The Fast and the Furious.
At this point, and I say this as a fan of the series, there is little need to remind anyone that a newFast & Furious movie is being released. Nor is there any particular need to defend the movies against unjust commercial or critical calumnies; at this point, they are what they are and you either like them or you don’t. So, rather than fond but stale jokes about “family” or lamenting that Daddy Yankee isn’t in the new movie or any of the usual stuff, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce those of you not yet familiar, in time-honored “if you like x, you may like y” tradition, to Bollywood’s Dhoom franchise.
Just as The Fast and the Furious “borrowed liberally” from Point Break, so did Dhoom “pay homage” to The Fast and the Furious. (They’re not scare quotes, they’re courtesy quotes.) The first movie is a reasonably successful if unspectacular action picture about the efforts of dedicated cop Jai Dixit (Abhishek Bachchan) to bring a gang of biker bank robbers, led by the charismatic Kabir (John Abraham), to justice. In so doing, Dixit forms a partnership that continues into the next two films with a goofball criminal named Ali (Uday Chopra) who serves as the series’ comic relief. The more important brick in the series’ foundation laid by Dhoom is the — self-aware, played increasingly for laughs — tendency for the films’ main antagonists to be more interesting, given more screen time, and/or played by bigger stars than either Bachchan or Chopra. John Abraham is quite like a pre-mythic-superhero-demigod Dom Toretto as Kabir, a compellingly muscular romantic outlaw.
The Dhoom series truly kicks in with the second film, a near-free-associative whirlwind of sublimely implausible activity, powered by the almost overwhelming chemistry between Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai as, respectively, the film’s main antagonist and the undercover agent sent (with, to put it mildly, no success) to bring him down. Jai Dixit’s persistent and aesthetically conservative pursuit of justice sees him eclipsed even further by his new target, a flamboyant master thief who goes by the name Mr. A (Roshan). How flamboyant, and how masterful, is Mr. A? He successfully disguises himself as Queen Elizabeth II for his first heist of the film. That is, let us be clear, his opening move. The ensuing couple hours of Jai Dixit trying all kinds of bullshit and failing miserably are a wonderfully fun time at the movies, one whose particulars I hardly dare spoil for anyone yet to behold Dhoom 2. It’s the Dhoom series’ Fast Five, in the sense that it’s its apex, an express train to the heights of pop cinematic ecstasy. In one area, though, Dhoom 2 leaves the F&F series — and most of the rest of any cinema of any kind — far behind, that being in the realm of sheer visceral sexual tension. Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya Rai, whether you’ve seen them before or not, are stars, of an intensity requiring something more than just an iteration of the word. Their characters’ love affair takes over the entire movie, to the extent one frequently forgets Jai Dixit is even in it. (This was the premise of a joke in Farah Khan’s masterwork Om Shanti Om, where the fictional Dhoom 5 omits the character entirely and no one, even Bachchan, notices until after the fact.)
Dhoom 2, as its rhetorical counterpart here, Fast Five, set a prohibitively high bar for its predecessors. Both series followed a seemingly identical impulse, which is to guilelessly, quixotically, paradoxically, what-the-fuck-ily smile and murmur “MORE.” How do you follow up having Hrithik Roshan steal your movie out from underneath your nominal protagonist, to the point where people are making jokes about it? By casting Aamir Khan, that’s how. Aamir, the perfectionist of the Three Khans, those titans so powerful and popular that at times they even throw off the entire Bollywood industry. By leaning into the jokes. And, while never quite reaching heights as hallucinatory as Dhoom 2, it’s still the kind of fun maximalist timepass that beguiles Fast/Furious fans. Like 2, it’s sheer fun watching bright shining movie stars work; while Khan and fellow megastar series newcomer Katrina Kaif don’t quite reach Roshan/Rai heights, they don’t need to, as Dhoom 3 is clever enough to not try to play the same game as its predecessor, and has some nifty tricks up its sleeve.
The parallels are inexact, but on the fundamental level, the delights within the Dhoom series, particularly 2 and 3, are catnip for Fast/Furious fans. Put another way, the suspensions of disbelief, the visceral delights, and the transcendental dumbness, taken to heights so rarefied it ceases to be dumb and attains divine genius, are shared wholly by both series. (The word “dhoom,” which roughly translates to “noise” or “uproar,” is also onomatopoeic for the sound you make when mimicking an explosion verbally. It is thus the perfect title.) Like Fast/Furious movies, the Dhoom films aren’t necessarily to every taste, but if the former appeal to you, the latter almost certainly will too.
UPDATE: This one’s been seemingly debunked by Jon Berg and Geoff Johns, two guys who would definitely know. Dig the tweet chain below. But regardless of when the films are being released, they are still all in various stages of production, so you’re getting them, the question is just when. Thanks to Adam Hlavac for politely correcting me.
Hey @geoffjohns why didn't you tell me we were releasing 4 Batman movies in 2019? Can we increase that to 10?
In 2019, Batman will celebrate his 80th year of costumed crimefighting, and if you believe rumors started on the Reddit DCEU board (and as reported by Screen Rant), Warner Bros. is gonna do it up big, like, six films big.
According to the report, all four live-action Batfilms currently in development — The Batman, Gotham City Sirens, Nightwing, and Batgirl — will all drop in 2019, along with two animated films, one of which is an adaptation of one of the most popular Batman graphic novels ever, The Long Halloween. The supposed plan is to release GCS around Valentine’s Day, Nightwing on Memorial Day, Joss Whedon’s Batgirl sometime in August, and The Batman in November. No word on when the animated films will drop, but I’d bet The Long Halloween comes out around, you know, Halloween.
Now, this is of course unconfirmed by the studio, but it seems very, very likely it’s true. All these films are in various stages of production, so they gotta come out sometime, and the idea of making 2019 The Year of the Bat is a bold way to lead up to the first solo caped crusader flick since 2012’s The Dark Knight Rises.
With as much coverage as this rumor is getting, expect that confirmation soon.
And lastly, take a look at five of the most popular shots we tweeted over the last 24 hours. Want more? You know where to find us.
ROSEMARY’S BABY (1968) DP: William A. Fraker | Dir: Roman PolanskiALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN (1976) DP: Gordon Willis | Dir: Alan J. PakulaTAXI DRIVER (1976) DP: Michael Chapman | Dir: Martin ScorseseSOLARIS (1972) DP: Vadim Yusov | Dir: Andrei TarkovskyMR. ROBOT (S1,EP2) (2015) DP: Tod Campbell | Dir: Sam Esmail
A new video traces the development of contemporary film’s foremost artist.
There’s no question that David Lynch values imagery more than narrative. He’s a master of the open-ended aesthetic who prefers to present his audience with films that initiate speculation rather than drive home absolute truths. He’s a visual artist who paints in film, and storytelling — at least in a conventional, plot-driven sense — has always come second to the unspoken possibilities of the worlds and peoples he creates visually. It is this hierarchy that makes his films so delightfully abstract and captivatingly confounding.
But Lynch’s strengths don’t just lie in inventing absurd, unexpected, and often difficult imagery, rather also in how he manipulates and recreates existing imagery to fit his particular vision and suit his bizarre purposes, as evidenced in the following video from Andreas Halskov called “Moving Pictures: Visual References and Artistry in the Films of David Lynch.”
Halskov has conducted a very thorough analysis of Lynch’s aesthetic and the sources and influences from which the director has drawn, including art, other films, photography, and iconography. More than a mere comparative essay, Halskov plumbs the impact these sources have had on shaping the director’s own brand of art, one that in turn has influenced generations of artists in all fields.
Some people’s lives are best told truthfully, others more loosely.
In one corner, we have Rocky, the iconic Best Picture-winning boxing movie starring Sylvester Stallone as the made-up Rocky Balboa. In the other corner, we have Chuck, an upcoming biopic starring Liev Schreiber as real-life boxer Chuck Wepner. The latter primarily depicts the 1975 bout between Wepner and Muhammad Ali, which inspired Stallone to write the script for Rocky. He’s since tried to downplay the connection, especially after being sued by Wepner, but it’s close enough to being a film a clef as any.
Chuck received mostly positive reviews when it played the big film festivals last fall, but it’s unlikely to become the phenomenon, let alone Oscar darling, that Rocky was. Its legacy surely won’t be as lasting, in part because true biopics don’t tend to get sequels. There are a lot of benefits to fictionalized accounts of real events and lives. For one thing, writers can play more with structure, chronology, themes, and other elements that make for a good film story. And nobody challenges their authenticity.
This is especially true for horror movies based on true stories. As scary as real life can be, it’s not always as frightening in moments as the genre’s conventions call for. We can look at the many movies inspired by the life and murders of serial killer Ed Gein to see how clever fiction can be with a single story. Even if the films Ed Geinand Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfieldwere better works in their own right, they wouldn’t have a chance against classics like Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Silence of the Lambs.
These days, filmmakers are stretching the truth with life rights, though, so instead of making something fantastical like Child’s Play, they can go ahead and use real names for something like Annabellebut also take liberties in the dramatization and narrativization of certain events (Child’s Play is inspired more by another story of a possessed doll, though I personally heard Ed and Lorraine Warren claim “Chucky” was also inspired by their experiences portrayed in Annabelle). It’s not documentary, after all…
Crime stories in general have always been fodder for fictionalization. Sometimes it’s clear but not too specific, as in the case of the original Scarface, loosely based on the life of Al Capone. The gangster’s later, more direct and faithful biopics, including 1959’s Al Capone and 1975’s Capone, aren’t as well-known or celebrated (but then, neither are many of the other fictional films inspired by Capone released around the same time as Scarface). Or Terrence Malick’s Badlands, which is the more famous and favored film version of the story of Charles Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate than 2004’s Starkweather.
One example that is not so ambiguous with its subject is To Die For, in which Nicole Kidman plays a husband-murdering TV personality. Buck Henry’s script is adapted from a novel inspired by the case of Pamela Smart, who is portrayed by name by Helen Hunt in the earlier, more sensational TV movie Murder in New Hampshire: The Pamela Wojas Smart Story. Also Boogie Nights is obviously about a fictional version of porn star John Holmes, right down to a scene based on the Wonderland murders. Enough that the later Holmes biopic Wonderland often comes off like a remake of the Paul Thomas Anderson film.
For the most part, the fictional movies wind up better-known works. That’s true of the Jacques-Yves Cousteau-inspired Wes Anderson comedy The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou compared to the new Cousteau biopic, The Odyssey,and will probably wind up the case with the Chet Baker-inspired 1960 film All the Fine Young Cannibals versus the recent Baker biopic Born to Be Blue. As evidenced by the popularity of To Die For, it’s not just a matter of the inspired takes’ tendency to come out before the real deal, either.
Occasionally, the opposite is true and the more authentic stories triumph. Bonnie and Clyde is a much more iconic picture than Fritz Lang’s 1937 film-noir You Only Live Once. Which is the better movie can be up for debate, of course, and the same is true of Dirty Harry versus Zodiac, the latter of which acknowledges the former in its telling of the story of the Zodiac Killer. They’re such different kinds of movies that comparison might be moot. Then there are the many fans of Boiler Room who still prefer its fictional take on the Jordan Belfort story to The Wolf of Wall Street. And many others choose Martin Scorsese film instead.
The reason those three more-directly based versions stand out is the same as why the more memorable fiction films typically do so in their match-ups. They depict the true stories with style, and maybe they aren’t concerned with every little detail being exactly as it happened. The makers of these movies wanted to deliver something enjoyable to audiences, not a fact sheet. So why bother with a movie so shackled to the truth? The “based on real events” stamp does attract, and it’s not usually employed without some kind of authorization.
For Chuck, it’s likely that its co-writer Jeff Feuerzeig, who previously helmed the Wepner documentary The Real Rocky, and referred to Rocky as a “hijacking” of his subject’s soul, might be set on getting the boxer’s life right rather than just entertaining. The new movie is definitely concerned with Wepner’s connection to Rocky, going even further than Zodiac in its address of its fictionalized counterpart, enough to play out as a response to it as much as, if not more than, a mere alternative.
It’ll be hard, therefore, to consider Chuck independently of Rocky. To say this is not just the definitive but only worthwhile depiction, since it rests so much on the other’s existence. But it’s possible to accept it as a better film, regardless, if it turns out to be that. We’ll see if Chuck can go the distance against Rocky’s crowd-pleasing version, if not knock it out, when it opens (following a stint at the Tribeca Film Festival) on May 5th. For now, check out the new trailer for the biopic below.
What is it? A professional woman and her oddball father dance around their complicated relationship, both in and out of costumes.
Why buy it? Family dysfunction is a longtime staple in cinema, but no film this year captured it with such humor, warmth, and wisdom as Maren Ade’s third feature. Even at 162 minutes our time with Ines and her oddball father feels far too short as their journey of discovery becomes one we don’t want to see end. There’s an honesty here — yes, even with subtitles — about the way we see ourselves through our loved ones’ eyes and in turn how we view ourselves, but if that’s not enough of a draw the film also delivers at least one of the year’s biggest laughs.
What is it? Gangsters face off in Dead or Alive, hitmen join forces in Dead or Alive 2: Birds, and gangsters face off in an apocalyptic future in Dead or Alive: Final.
Why see it? Arrow Video continues to show their love for Takashi Miike — Miike fans — with this trilogy’s HD debut. All three films present engaging, visually creative, and frequently energetic tales of men and women behaving badly. Violence and sexuality fill the screen, usually apart but sometimes together, but Miike’s got far more on his mind than just visceral thrills. He’s offering a commentary on Japanese society, masculinity, and the relationships between people of all stripes, and he’s doing it with insane visuals, odd set-pieces, and an approach that’s 100% Miike.
What is it? The true story of three African American women who played integral roles in launching NASA and John Glenn into orbit.
Why see it? Biopics and “true” stories don’t always make for the best movies, but Theodore Melfi’s feature is both delightful entertainment and an affecting revelation into history. It’s heartwarming and inspiring, and it’s terrifically-acted throughout. Kevin Costner has a supporting role, but the film belongs to Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monae, and Octavia Spencer. All three honor the real women they’re portraying with performances highlighting their strength, determination, and absolute spunk.
[Blu-ray/DVD extras: Making of, deleted scenes, featurette, commentary]
What is it? A man moves into a house where his son disappeared in House, and a young man digs up his great-great grandfather in House II: The Second Story.
Why see it? 1986’s House remains a goofy, fun little horror/comedy that leans heavy on the latter while showcasing a healthy imagination through its practical effects work. It’s definitely silly, but it works thanks to the creature work and character heart. The sequel is a different story though — a second if you will — as it foregoes even the slightest attempt at horror and instead goes full comedy. Worse, it’s an unfunny comedy. Arrow Video includes two new making-of documentaries roughly an hour each that offer great details and interviews on the productions. The book is fantastic, but it reveals the set’s only real flaw — this US version only includes the first two films while the UK box set features all four. I already knew The Horror Show was technically House III, but it was news to me that House IV: The Repossession even existed.
What is it? An Indian boy stuck on a train ends up thousands of miles from home before being adopted by an Australian couple, and decades later he returns in the hopes of finding his original family.
Why see it? This feel-good drama divided viewers last year with some finding it too saccharine, but while it could stand to trim some in the second act the film as a whole works quite well as a story of determination and inspiration. Dev Patel plays the boy grown up and does great work as a man who’s made a life while still yearning for the one he left behind, and he’s supported with turns from Nicole Kidman and Rooney Mara. It’s an attractive film beyond the cast with eye-catching locales on two different continents, but more than that it should leave you feeling good about people. And that’s no small feat these days.
What is it? An old man with magical balls chases after a young boy and an ice cream truck driver.
Why see it? Don Coscarelli’s Phantasm franchise stretches across a whopping thirty-eight years, and the five films offer a wealth of weirdness. The world of the films is one where no rules apply aside from the certainty that the Tall Man and his tiny minions will persist in their efforts to harvest bodies and torment the two men sworn to stop him. It’s dreamy, nightmarish horror with gore, action, explosions, and an open-ended nature that offers up some fun sequences even as it ensures the stakes never feel that high — basically no one’s death is permanent. Parts 2 remains my favorite for its slightly larger scale, fun gore, and the presence of James Le Gros, but each of the films have entertaining elements. Well Go USA’s new box set offers up a terrific package including new remasters of three of the films and a 120-page book featuring photos and interviews. Each film is in its own snapcase, and the set includes a poster as well.
[Blu-ray extras: Commentaries, interviews, behind the scenes, deleted scenes, workprint footage, making ofs, featurettes]
What is it? America’s first female vice president has fallen into the presidency, and now she needs to get up if she wants to hold onto the position.
Why see it? The real world threatens to derail this comedy gem’s satirical eye on a daily basis, but even if the story lines no longer feel far-fetched the scathing, gut-busting humor remains a necessity. Pitch perfect delivery and performances from Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Anna Chlumsky, Timothy Simons, Matt Walsh, Reid Scott, Gary Cole, and many others means each episode is a blisteringly funny experience guaranteed to arm you with more quotes and insults than you’ll ever need.
What is it? A ghostly curse ruins people’s lives by getting into their head and making bad things happen.
Why see it? Oof. Studio horror is less than thrilling more often than not, and sadly this poorly-titled entry falls on the crappy side. A strong opening quickly gives way to an uninteresting story about a bland demonic presence and a illogical warning, and as everything goes to hell the film slams every attempt at a jump scare with a loud sound cue. The movie’s never scary, unsettling, or disturbing, and we’re left with an annoying and dull waste of time.
What is it? A dead girl possesses a doll which in turn possesses a living girl, and then things get weird.
Why see it? This mid ’70s slice of canuxploitation has been rescued from obscurity by Severin Films with a sweet new Blu-ray, but a cleaned-up presentation doesn’t make it a good movie. There’s fun to be had though as the little terror trash talks everyone within earshot and people find themselves targeted by evil hallucinations. The director’s cut makes some of the film’s narrative choices clearer while still leaving a messy romp in its wake. Fans of the film will definitely love this release, and if you count yourself among them be sure to listen to Simon Barrett’s (You’re Next) appreciation track too.
What is it? Idiots go looking for a monster in the woods and film the whole experience for our pleasure.
Why see it? You’d think in 2017 that any filmmaker deciding to make a found footage horror movie would do so with some fresh twist or smart take up his or her sleeve, but apparently you’d think wrong. Nothing about this one makes it stand apart from the hundreds that have come before — onscreen text pretends this is real, the four friends tape things they never would, the “found” footage has been edited by someone into a movie, the kills/creature conveniently happen off-screen for most of the film, we don’t care if any of them survive, etc. There’s a tent scene too, an opportunity to create something scary with relative ease, but it totally whiffs it leaving viewers unmoved (if they’ve indeed stuck it out this long.
What is it? A woman arrives at a mysterious island convent to explore her dead father’s connection with the place, and she finds the answer.
Why see it? Mariano Baino’s horror thriller blends Italian inspirations from Bava to Fulci into a tale of demonic awakening. Script and performances are sketchy at best, but Baino delivers an attractively-shot feature in both landscape and interior set-pieces. There’s an odd sense of restraint though in that the film never shifts into areas you fully expect are coming including naughty nuns and elaborate perversions. Or maybe that’s just me.
[Blu-ray/DVD extras: Commentary, featurettes, intro, deleted scenes, short films]
What is it? A woman is haunted by her dead motocross lover in Dream Stalker, and a sculptor wonders why the ladies he beds end up dead in Death by Love.
Why see it? Intervision’s latest release of shot on video oddities is a double feature from the early ’90s featuring murders, sex scenes, and some supernatural weirdness. Both are clearly ultra low budget affairs, but they have their charms for SOV fans. The second feature is actually the more thoroughly entertaining of the two as the story has more coherence, it’s better shot overall, and a story turn late in the film is just goofy enough. It’s heavier on the T&A too, and one wonders if maybe writer/director/star Alan Grant didn’t make the movie as an excuse to play around with some lovely ladies.
What is it? An oil-slurping creature from beneath the Earth’s crust befriends a “teen” who helps it elude authorities and reunite with its family.
Why see it? If you have young kids there’s a good chance they’ll be entertained by this goofy romp. The CG effects are a mix of great and less than stellar, but the energy stays high and the humor will work on the young ones who may appreciate the mix of E.T. and Transformers. For the rest of us there’s 28 year old Jane Levy playing a high school girl.
What is it? A hermaphroditic terrorist threatens a city’s water supply, and only the lead singer of Jesse and the Rippers can stop him.
Why see it? This mid ’80s action-ish movie is a beloved cult favorite for some, but personally I don’t see it. It’s never quite weird or funny enough to elevate the movie beyond its generic (and frequently weak) action, and it instead left me craving a double feature of Gymkata and No Retreat No Surrender. John Stamos really isn’t built to carry a movie, and Gene Simmons’ villain seems designed solely to find laughs in his sexual situation — he whimpers after being hit by Stamos to which our hero says “You really are like a woman.” The attempts at humor would be forgivable if the other elements made up for it, but the randomly costumed bad guys and subsequent action scenes amount to very little.
What is it? Nuns are dying at the hands of a a murderer, and that’s not cool.
Why see it? Like this week’s other nunsploitation release (also from Severin Films) this early ’80s feature from Bruno Mattei never really reaches the level of perverse or disturbing that should easily be within reach. Worse, unlike Dark Waters this one doesn’t even have attractive cinematography to fall back on. It’s no surprise of course as Mattei is a pretty terrible filmmaker, but it’s disappointing as the tale sets up a minor interest as to what’s happening and who’s behind the mysterious deaths.
What is it? A new CEO is put in charge of the Pied Piper gang, but it’s far from a peaceful transition of power.
Why see it? HBO’s funny and cruel look at the ups and downs of the software industry soldiers on, and while it can seem at times to be stuck in a loop of sorts the laughs make even the repetitive and often exaggerated nature of it all okay. The cast remains aces with funny work from Thomas Middleditch, TJ Miller, Martin Starr, Kumail Nanjiani, and others.
What is it? People die in violent and bloody ways.
Why see it? These German horror films from the ’80s make the SOV titles above look like multi-million dollar productions by comparison as director Andreas Schnass literally gives no shits. His Violent Shit “franchise” follows a serial killer from victim to victim, each being snuffed out in absurdly bloody ways often to the point of dismemberment, but there’s very little else going on here. Later films expand plot points a smidge and add different settings, but the core aesthetic remains the same — the killer kills and people die. Synapse’s new release offers the remastered versions of the films, but that’s something of a misuse of the word as these films still look like VHS tapes that have been watched, rewound, and watched again for years on end. They’re neither good nor interesting in the traditional sense, but for lifelong horror fans such as myself there’s an undeniable charm and innocence to blood-spurting horrors unspooling before our eyes. It’s free of pretension and instead feels exactly like what it is — horror lovers making horror movies.
[DVD extras: Bonus feature film, premiere footage, behind the scenes]
What is it? Two corrupt cops run into trouble in their effort to increase their corruption.
Why see it? John Michael McDonagh films are always worth a watch with titles like The Guard and Calvary being memorable and in the latter case brilliant experiences. His latest is an odd partial misfire though as little of it works beyond its two leads. Michael Pena and Alexander Skarsgard both show off some killer comedic chops as comically abusive cops always clamoring for a bigger piece of the pie. They’re never truly challenged though and rarely feel in danger, and the characters around them are just more and more cartoonish.
[Blu-ray/DVD extras: Featurette]
Also Out This Week:
Brimstone, Daughter of the Dust, Demented [Scream Factory], Ludwig [Arrow Academy], Swordmaster, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg [Criterion], The Young Girls of Rochefort [Criterion]
Strap on your thinking caps for this one, film fans, because it’s a doozy.
According to director Nicolas Roeg (The Man Who Fell to Earth, Don’t Look Now, The Witches), mirrors are cinema in all its glory and in fact the essence of the medium. See, mirrors are the only time we truly look at ourselves; photographs of us are from other perspectives, for other people or posterity, and as such we don’t show our real faces in them, we show projections of who we think we should be or how we think we should feel in a certain situation. But the mirror isn’t public, it’s private, it is us alone with ourselves and thus the way we look into mirrors, into ourselves, is different from every other face we show the world.
The mirror is an eye, Roeg argues, one that never blinks and never stops seeing. Mirrors are inescapable like that, they will always show the truth no matter what lies you set before them. Mirrors see all, including the things we keep below the surface but cannot hide from our expressions. In this sense, the mirror is like a kind of god. It’s also like a movie camera in that besides visible reality it also captures the condition of being human, of living in a world where a person can be constantly surrounded by watching eyes, but also constantly alone.
This is just a vague intro to Roeg’s thoughts and the practical, narrative, and emotional connotations and implications of mirrors in cinema. For a more thorough and erudite explanation, I present you with “Death at Work,” a video essay from VoorDeFilm that collects scores of mirror scenes and categories them in one of four ways: as self-reflective, as a device for exposure, as a gateway to the unknown, or as a reflection of the soul. As if all this wasn’t heady enough, there’s the added bonus of David Bowie as the common factor between them all.
Now, before you press play, a couple of warnings. First off, people often get naked in front of mirrors, so this video is definitely NSFW. Secondly, mirrors also spoil, so if you haven’t seen, say, the end of Twin Peaks or The Man Who Fell to Earth, you might want to skip this one. Otherwise, highest recommendations here.
Films:
David Bowie — Blackstar (2016) The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976) The Lady From Shanghai (1947) Eureka (1983) The Cabin In The Woods (2012) Performance (1970) Track 29 (1988) Bad Timing (1980) Don’t Look Now (1973) Walkabout (1971) Duck Soup (1933) American Psycho (2000) Frankie And Alice (2010) Happy Days (1974–1984) Eyes Wide Shut (1999) The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring (2001) Pulp Fiction (1994) Taxi Driver (1976) La Haine (1995) The 25th Hour (2002) Raging Bull (1980) Under The Skin (2013) Op Afbetaling (1992) Die film met het badkamerspiegeltje An American Werewolf In London (1981) Shaun of the Dead (2004) Twin Peaks (S02E08) Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) Alice Through The Looking Glass (1988) Dead of Night (1945) Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) Triangle (2009) Sucker Punch (2011) Orpheus (1950) Blood of a Poet (1932) The Fly (1986) Black Swan (2010) Nymphomaniac (2013) The Shining (1980) Carrie (1976) Over Canto (2011) Dracula (1931) The Mirror/Zerkalo (1975) David Bowie — Lazarus (2016) David Bowie — Look Back in Anger (1978) David Bowie — Loving the Alien (1984) David Bowie — Thursday’s Child (1999) David Bowie — Boys Keep Swinging (1978) David Bowie — Miracle Goodnight (1992) The Hunger (1980) David Bowie — Pierrot in Turquoise (1967)
If there’s one adjective that best describes our contemporary global society, that adjective, without a doubt, is “busy.” On the whole we work more hours than any other generation before us, and at the same time we produce less for it. Today we crunch numbers, we move data around, we manage accounts; we’re not individually building our own homes, or growing our own food, tending livestock, making sure we have running water, teaching our own children, all of which are things a century or so ago people were largely responsible for themselves. We work to pay others to do these things, we work to pay bills, and frankly most of us are barely able to do that no matter how busy we are. But we keep at it, if anything the less we have the busier we stay, because busy equals value, busy equals worth, busy — if you’re lucky — equals success.
But what are we sacrificing for all our busyness? No one looks up from their deathbed and wishes they had spent more time at work, or running errands, or tangled in the tedium of chores and responsibilities that come with modern life. As renowned thinker, conservationist, and writer Henry David Thoreau once stated:
“It is not enough to be busy; so are the ants. The question is, what are we busy about?”
This dilemma was the impetus for the animated short-short Busy from Francisco Kitzberger, which in just over a minute’s time establishes a metaphor for our universal busyness, as well as that busyness’ inherent aimlessness. It’s a concise little parable you might want to watch more than once. You know, for perspective’s sake.
Upcoming biopic looks to put Jeremiah G. Hamilton back on the map.
Cheadle as Miles Davis in ‘Miles Ahead’ (2015)
There are really two sorts of biopics out there: those that lure us in with names that we are to some degree already familiar with — Snowden, Jackie, Lincoln, etc. — and those that (re)introduce us to figures and stories that have, for one reason or another, flown under the radar or largely faded from public consciousness, like last year’s Hidden Figures.
Movies shape our general view of the past in a big way, especially in dealing with anything that happened before photography and film really exploded in the 20th century. When it comes to portrayals of the pre-2oth century Black history, particularly in the U.S., the first word that would most likely come to mind is slavery. Films such as 12 Years a Slave are incredibly important for attempting to realistically portray the horrors of slavery that have been glossed over, ignored, or blatantly lied about (in extremely influential ways) throughout most of film history, in films ranging from D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation to Gone with the Wind. However, due to their necessarily reprehensible content, such films are also incredibly painful. They can be brilliant films, as 12 Years a Slave indeed is, but they’re films that you’re glad to have watched rather than films that you enjoyed watching.
The thing is, though racism was rampant throughout the U.S. in the 19th century, even in states where slavery was not legal, the annals of history offer a number of narratives and fascinating figures in fields as wide-ranging as sports, arts, and business. One such figure whose story is now in the works to get a movie treatment is Jeremiah G. Hamilton, Wall Street’s first Black millionaire. The upcoming film, entitled Prince of Darkness, is set to be adapted by Steven Baigelman from Shane White’s 2015 biography Prince of Darkness: The Story of Jeremiah G. Hamilton Wall Street’s First Black Millionaire, which won the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic Best Book Prize and the 2016 New York City Book Award. The Hollywood Reporteralso reportsthat Don Cheadle has signed on to produce and star in the film as the eponymous millionaire.
Unlike the women of Hidden Figures, Hamilton built up quite a reputation in his lifetime, both on Wall Street and in the popular press, as well as a considerable fortune — the wealth he amassed by the time of his death in 1875, in today’s dollars, would be in the realm of $250 million. It has only been in the many decades since that Hamilton’s largely been forgotten. Reading this Atlantic article by Shane White, it’s quite difficult to imagine how such a thing happened, as Hamilton comes across as anything but forgettable. “A skilled and innovative financial manipulator,” he was definitely at least a little bit of a bastard, but also, like many people of highly questionable morals, a fascinating individual. He didn’t have many white admirers for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who has ever taken an American History class, and black intellectuals of the time weren’t too fond of him either, as they saw his unabashed pursuit of material wealth as “crass and undignified,” yet somehow one can’t really imagine Hamilton losing too much sleep over it (in what was almost certainly a very luxurious bed).
Hamilton first made a name in New York for over-insuring ships which he then arranged to have sunk. He moved into real estate once the marine insurance industry caught on before finally shifting his focus to the stock market. When it came to the many obstacles thrown in his way, Hamilton’s personal philosophy was apparently more along the lines of punch back harder than rise above it: “When a legal official struck Hamilton with his cane, the broker swung back at him with a hunk of wood seized from a passing cart.” Hamilton was involved in over 50 court cases in his life (as both plaintiff and defendant), including once going “toe-to-toe” in court with Cornelius Vanderbilt (yes, the patriarch of the Vanderbilts — also known as “Commodore Vanderbilt”). One of Vanderbilt’s obituarists even gave Hamilton a shoutout as the “one man who ever fought the Commodore to the end.”
Cheadle in ‘The Guard’ (2011)
Needless to say, there’s a lot of potential here, and while Hamilton’s larger than life personality will certainly present a challenge, Cheadle’s got the acting chops to rise to the occasion. It’s early yet for excitement, as the chasm between potential and realized potential can be unfortunately large. That said, I know I’ll be keeping an eye out for this one.
